Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline: box-sets vs. release variations

View: New views

4 Messages — Rating Filter: Alert me

	Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline: box-sets vs. release variations by bogdanb :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message There's a note at the bottom saying: * "2 in 1" releases should have a third release group. This applies to all Release Types, including 2-in-1 albums and double A-side singles. e.g. ABBA's "Waterloo / Voulez-Vous" should not be merged into "Waterloo" or "Voulez-Vous". Although it's implicit above, I think we should make it explicit that the same applies to box sets. I.e., release variations of a disc in a box set should go in a separate release group from the box set. Note that the (implicit) rules are that single-disc and multi-disc variations of a single release go in the same RG; multi-disc releases containing discs of multiple releases (including 2-in-1s and box sets) go in their own RG, separate from the components. I think it's important to make the distinction explicit in all cases, especially since the overlap is sometimes hard to draw a line through (e.g., a 2-disc version of a release whose “bonus disc” is a somewhat unrelated EP, but released under only the name of the primary disc). -- Bogdan Butnaru On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai Prokoschenko<nikolai@...> wrote: > So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
	Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline: box-sets vs. release variations by Brian Schweitzer :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Bogdan Butnaru <bogdanb@...> wrote: There's a note at the bottom saying: * "2 in 1" releases should have a third release group. This applies to all Release Types, including 2-in-1 albums and double A-side singles. e.g. ABBA's "Waterloo / Voulez-Vous" should not be merged into "Waterloo" or "Voulez-Vous". Although it's implicit above, I think we should make it explicit that the same applies to box sets. I.e., release variations of a disc in a box set should go in a separate release group from the box set. Note that the (implicit) rules are that single-disc and multi-disc variations of a single release go in the same RG; multi-disc releases containing discs of multiple releases (including 2-in-1s and box sets) go in their own RG, separate from the components. I think it's important to make the distinction explicit in all cases, especially since the overlap is sometimes hard to draw a line through (e.g., a 2-disc version of a release whose “bonus disc” is a somewhat unrelated EP, but released under only the name of the primary disc). -- Bogdan Butnaru On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai Prokoschenko<nikolai@...> wrote: > So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style I would tend to agree. I'd also suggest that this is the most similar type of thing to the bootleg "expanded" soundtracks problem we discussed a week or two ago, where a "pop" soundtrack and a "score" soundtrack both end up sharing tracks on an "expanded" soundtrack bootleg. The best way to describe those, I think, is to think of the "expanded" soundtrack as akin to a 2-in-1 of the separate pop and score soundtracks. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
	Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline: box-sets vs. release variations by Atedos-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message I was asking something similar on RG Wiki talk page and got no opinions on this: "I'd like to find out what to do, if two (or more) albums are later reissued within one package? Add them each in its own group, or create RG for the package and place them there? Each reissued album in the package is on its own CD. For example 2 CD release "Album1 / Album2". Should CD1 be in group "Album1", and CD2 in "Album2", or should both these CDs from the group "Album1 / Album 2" with "Album1 (disc 1)" and "Album2 (disc 2)" in it? And do we need (disc X) parts?" Any thoughts? 2009/6/15 Bogdan Butnaru <bogdanb@...> There's a note at the bottom saying: * "2 in 1" releases should have a third release group. This applies to all Release Types, including 2-in-1 albums and double A-side singles. e.g. ABBA's "Waterloo / Voulez-Vous" should not be merged into "Waterloo" or "Voulez-Vous". Although it's implicit above, I think we should make it explicit that the same applies to box sets. I.e., release variations of a disc in a box set should go in a separate release group from the box set. Note that the (implicit) rules are that single-disc and multi-disc variations of a single release go in the same RG; multi-disc releases containing discs of multiple releases (including 2-in-1s and box sets) go in their own RG, separate from the components. I think it's important to make the distinction explicit in all cases, especially since the overlap is sometimes hard to draw a line through (e.g., a 2-disc version of a release whose “bonus disc” is a somewhat unrelated EP, but released under only the name of the primary disc). -- Bogdan Butnaru On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai Prokoschenko<nikolai@...> wrote: > So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
	Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline: box-sets vs. release variations by Pavan Chander :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message I think the two CD (re)release should go in the third RG, the "Album1 / Album2" RG. The way I understand it NGS will drop the distinction of an individual disc; a two disc release will be shown on one page. Because of this, you may find it difficult to associate the first disc with one RG, and the second disc with another RG. Besides, I think the point of a release group is to group releases, so it doesn't seem logical to start splitting a release into two release groups; in fact, that seems a bit backwards to me :) Pavan Chander // navap On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Atedos <atedos@...> wrote: I was asking something similar on RG Wiki talk page and got no opinions on this: "I'd like to find out what to do, if two (or more) albums are later reissued within one package? Add them each in its own group, or create RG for the package and place them there? Each reissued album in the package is on its own CD. For example 2 CD release "Album1 / Album2". Should CD1 be in group "Album1", and CD2 in "Album2", or should both these CDs from the group "Album1 / Album 2" with "Album1 (disc 1)" and "Album2 (disc 2)" in it? And do we need (disc X) parts?" Any thoughts? 2009/6/15 Bogdan Butnaru <bogdanb@...> There's a note at the bottom saying: * "2 in 1" releases should have a third release group. This applies to all Release Types, including 2-in-1 albums and double A-side singles. e.g. ABBA's "Waterloo / Voulez-Vous" should not be merged into "Waterloo" or "Voulez-Vous". Although it's implicit above, I think we should make it explicit that the same applies to box sets. I.e., release variations of a disc in a box set should go in a separate release group from the box set. Note that the (implicit) rules are that single-disc and multi-disc variations of a single release go in the same RG; multi-disc releases containing discs of multiple releases (including 2-in-1s and box sets) go in their own RG, separate from the components. I think it's important to make the distinction explicit in all cases, especially since the overlap is sometimes hard to draw a line through (e.g., a 2-disc version of a release whose “bonus disc” is a somewhat unrelated EP, but released under only the name of the primary disc). -- Bogdan Butnaru On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai Prokoschenko<nikolai@...> wrote: > So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

	Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline: box-sets vs. release variations by bogdanb :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message There's a note at the bottom saying: * "2 in 1" releases should have a third release group. This applies to all Release Types, including 2-in-1 albums and double A-side singles. e.g. ABBA's "Waterloo / Voulez-Vous" should not be merged into "Waterloo" or "Voulez-Vous". Although it's implicit above, I think we should make it explicit that the same applies to box sets. I.e., release variations of a disc in a box set should go in a separate release group from the box set. Note that the (implicit) rules are that single-disc and multi-disc variations of a single release go in the same RG; multi-disc releases containing discs of multiple releases (including 2-in-1s and box sets) go in their own RG, separate from the components. I think it's important to make the distinction explicit in all cases, especially since the overlap is sometimes hard to draw a line through (e.g., a 2-disc version of a release whose “bonus disc” is a somewhat unrelated EP, but released under only the name of the primary disc). -- Bogdan Butnaru On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai Prokoschenko<nikolai@...> wrote: > So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
	Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline: box-sets vs. release variations by Brian Schweitzer :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:35 PM, Bogdan Butnaru <bogdanb@...> wrote: There's a note at the bottom saying: * "2 in 1" releases should have a third release group. This applies to all Release Types, including 2-in-1 albums and double A-side singles. e.g. ABBA's "Waterloo / Voulez-Vous" should not be merged into "Waterloo" or "Voulez-Vous". Although it's implicit above, I think we should make it explicit that the same applies to box sets. I.e., release variations of a disc in a box set should go in a separate release group from the box set. Note that the (implicit) rules are that single-disc and multi-disc variations of a single release go in the same RG; multi-disc releases containing discs of multiple releases (including 2-in-1s and box sets) go in their own RG, separate from the components. I think it's important to make the distinction explicit in all cases, especially since the overlap is sometimes hard to draw a line through (e.g., a 2-disc version of a release whose “bonus disc” is a somewhat unrelated EP, but released under only the name of the primary disc). -- Bogdan Butnaru On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai Prokoschenko<nikolai@...> wrote: > So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style I would tend to agree. I'd also suggest that this is the most similar type of thing to the bootleg "expanded" soundtracks problem we discussed a week or two ago, where a "pop" soundtrack and a "score" soundtrack both end up sharing tracks on an "expanded" soundtrack bootleg. The best way to describe those, I think, is to think of the "expanded" soundtrack as akin to a 2-in-1 of the separate pop and score soundtracks. Brian _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
	Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline: box-sets vs. release variations by Atedos-2 :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message I was asking something similar on RG Wiki talk page and got no opinions on this: "I'd like to find out what to do, if two (or more) albums are later reissued within one package? Add them each in its own group, or create RG for the package and place them there? Each reissued album in the package is on its own CD. For example 2 CD release "Album1 / Album2". Should CD1 be in group "Album1", and CD2 in "Album2", or should both these CDs from the group "Album1 / Album 2" with "Album1 (disc 1)" and "Album2 (disc 2)" in it? And do we need (disc X) parts?" Any thoughts? 2009/6/15 Bogdan Butnaru <bogdanb@...> There's a note at the bottom saying: * "2 in 1" releases should have a third release group. This applies to all Release Types, including 2-in-1 albums and double A-side singles. e.g. ABBA's "Waterloo / Voulez-Vous" should not be merged into "Waterloo" or "Voulez-Vous". Although it's implicit above, I think we should make it explicit that the same applies to box sets. I.e., release variations of a disc in a box set should go in a separate release group from the box set. Note that the (implicit) rules are that single-disc and multi-disc variations of a single release go in the same RG; multi-disc releases containing discs of multiple releases (including 2-in-1s and box sets) go in their own RG, separate from the components. I think it's important to make the distinction explicit in all cases, especially since the overlap is sometimes hard to draw a line through (e.g., a 2-disc version of a release whose “bonus disc” is a somewhat unrelated EP, but released under only the name of the primary disc). -- Bogdan Butnaru On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai Prokoschenko<nikolai@...> wrote: > So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
	Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline: box-sets vs. release variations by Pavan Chander :: Rate this Message: Reply to Author \| View Threaded \| Show Only this Message I think the two CD (re)release should go in the third RG, the "Album1 / Album2" RG. The way I understand it NGS will drop the distinction of an individual disc; a two disc release will be shown on one page. Because of this, you may find it difficult to associate the first disc with one RG, and the second disc with another RG. Besides, I think the point of a release group is to group releases, so it doesn't seem logical to start splitting a release into two release groups; in fact, that seems a bit backwards to me :) Pavan Chander // navap On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Atedos <atedos@...> wrote: I was asking something similar on RG Wiki talk page and got no opinions on this: "I'd like to find out what to do, if two (or more) albums are later reissued within one package? Add them each in its own group, or create RG for the package and place them there? Each reissued album in the package is on its own CD. For example 2 CD release "Album1 / Album2". Should CD1 be in group "Album1", and CD2 in "Album2", or should both these CDs from the group "Album1 / Album 2" with "Album1 (disc 1)" and "Album2 (disc 2)" in it? And do we need (disc X) parts?" Any thoughts? 2009/6/15 Bogdan Butnaru <bogdanb@...> There's a note at the bottom saying: * "2 in 1" releases should have a third release group. This applies to all Release Types, including 2-in-1 albums and double A-side singles. e.g. ABBA's "Waterloo / Voulez-Vous" should not be merged into "Waterloo" or "Voulez-Vous". Although it's implicit above, I think we should make it explicit that the same applies to box sets. I.e., release variations of a disc in a box set should go in a separate release group from the box set. Note that the (implicit) rules are that single-disc and multi-disc variations of a single release go in the same RG; multi-disc releases containing discs of multiple releases (including 2-in-1s and box sets) go in their own RG, separate from the components. I think it's important to make the distinction explicit in all cases, especially since the overlap is sometimes hard to draw a line through (e.g., a 2-disc version of a release whose “bonus disc” is a somewhat unrelated EP, but released under only the name of the primary disc). -- Bogdan Butnaru On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai Prokoschenko<nikolai@...> wrote: > So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments > on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official! > > It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group , > please comment! _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style