Chris Bransden wrote:
> as i stated in the boxsetnamestyle discussion on the style list,
> listing by 'product' is not a direction i want to see MBz going in,
> and i believe that a lot of other users will think the same once/if
> that becomes a real possibility. i think listing such releases
> seperately now is really jumping the gun, and doesn't make sense when
> we've got different pressings/country releases/formats (vinyl etc)
> listed under the same 'release' (not that i think we should have those
> seperately either!).
Did you follow the ideas for a next generation schema? If not you should urgently read
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/NextGenerationSchema and bring in your ideas and opinions. Because it is already more than a possibility that exactly what you describe here becomes reality. Next generation schema aims at massive duplicating to have all releases that were produced in the db while on the other hand providing the means to group them (as well as the tracks). And you are the first one I've heard of so far who thinks this is outside of MB's scope.
> for the record, none of my 100+ subscribed artists has a single
> unmerged remaster. nor indeed has any got any mention of that fact in
> the annotation. it's just outside of MBz scope IMO.
No mention of different release data in the annotation? Go and fix that! ;)
Simon (Shepard)
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
MusicBrainz-users@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
