Re-release with bonus disc and Release groups

[Gioele Barabucci]

Hello,

what should the release group guideline be for re-releases with bonus discs?

Release "Foo Bar" has been released in 2007. In 2008 it is re-released in 2-
cd limited edition with another complete album "When I was younger" as
additional bonus disc.

Pre-release groups we would have

"Foo Bar" = release
"Foo Bar (bonus disc: When I was younger)" = release

"Foo Bar" -> "Foo Bar" = next disc AR + bonus disc

Now, which of these three scenarios should we have?

Scenario 1: everything in one release group

The same releases are merged into a single release group with the next disc
AR intact.

Scenario 2: two release group

One release group with "Foo Bar", another release group with a duplicated
"Foo Bar" and the bonus disc. The AR relates the duplicated "Foo Bar" with
the bonus disc

Scenario 3: dupes in one release group

One release group with
* "Foo Bar" (without AR)
* "Foo Bar" (duplicated + re-release AR + next disc AR with the bonus disc)
* bonus disc

Which one do you prefer?

I prefer the third scenario, I think it maps NGS more nicely than the other
two.

--
Gioele <gioele@...>



_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Aaron Cooper-3]

I think I agree with you.

This whole release grouping is easier for other sites (like
RateYourMusic and Discogs) because they only or primarily only link
one release event with one release.

If multiple discs were displayed on a single release's page, then we
would probably group all releases together.

i.e., ReleaseA = Disc 1, 2, 3;  ReleaseB = Disc 1, 2, 3 + bonus disc;
The release group contains both releases.

-cooperaa


On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:32 AM, Gioele <gioele@...> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> what should the release group guideline be for re-releases with bonus discs?
>
> Release "Foo Bar" has been released in 2007. In 2008 it is re-released in 2-
> cd limited edition with another complete album "When I was younger" as
> additional bonus disc.
>
> Pre-release groups we would have
>
> "Foo Bar" = release
> "Foo Bar (bonus disc: When I was younger)" = release
>
> "Foo Bar" -> "Foo Bar" = next disc AR + bonus disc
>
> Now, which of these three scenarios should we have?
>
> Scenario 1: everything in one release group
>
> The same releases are merged into a single release group with the next disc
> AR intact.
>
> Scenario 2: two release group
>
> One release group with "Foo Bar", another release group with a duplicated
> "Foo Bar" and the bonus disc. The AR relates the duplicated "Foo Bar" with
> the bonus disc
>
> Scenario 3: dupes in one release group
>
> One release group with
> * "Foo Bar" (without AR)
> * "Foo Bar" (duplicated + re-release AR + next disc AR with the bonus disc)
> * bonus disc
>
> Which one do you prefer?
>
> I prefer the third scenario, I think it maps NGS more nicely than the other
> two.
>
> --
> Gioele <gioele@...>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

[Sami Sundell-2]

On 25.5.2009, at 12.32, Gioele wrote:

> what should the release group guideline be for re-releases with  
> bonus discs?

> Scenario 1: everything in one release group
>
> The same releases are merged into a single release group with the  
> next disc
> AR intact.

I think this would be the appropriate way of handling these.

> Scenario 3: dupes in one release group
>
> One release group with
> * "Foo Bar" (without AR)
> * "Foo Bar" (duplicated + re-release AR + next disc AR with the  
> bonus disc)
> * bonus disc

If "Foo Bar" has the same content in both cases, I see no reason in  
duplicating it. Just use the "may be part of a set" option in the AR.  
The re-release is conveyed by adding a new release event.


--
  Sami Sundell
  ssundell@...





_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Bram van Dijk]

Please correct me if I didn;t understand this right.

But I thought the release groups were supposed to make things cleaner.
So if we have an original release and a re-release, they can go into the
same release group.

Now you are proposing to not merge them (if the re-release has a bonus
disc), which would already mean that we gain nothing with the new
release groups.
Furthermore, you also propose that we duplicate the original release.

So, in your proposal we go from 2 releases to 2 release groups with 3
underlying releases.

This completely defeats the purpose of having release groups in my opinion.

So, I vote for scenario 1.

Bram / jongetje

Sami Sundell schreef:

> On 25.5.2009, at 12.32, Gioele wrote:
>
>  
>> what should the release group guideline be for re-releases with  
>> bonus discs?
>>    
>
>  
>> Scenario 1: everything in one release group
>>
>> The same releases are merged into a single release group with the  
>> next disc
>> AR intact.
>>    
>
> I think this would be the appropriate way of handling these.
>
>  
>> Scenario 3: dupes in one release group
>>
>> One release group with
>> * "Foo Bar" (without AR)
>> * "Foo Bar" (duplicated + re-release AR + next disc AR with the  
>> bonus disc)
>> * bonus disc
>>    
>
> If "Foo Bar" has the same content in both cases, I see no reason in  
> duplicating it. Just use the "may be part of a set" option in the AR.  
> The re-release is conveyed by adding a new release event.
>
>
>  

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Sami Sundell-2]

On 30.5.2009, at 15.44, Bram van Dijk wrote:

> Please correct me if I didn;t understand this right.

Either you're targeting at someone else, or I was really unclear in my  
e-mail, because...

> So, I vote for scenario 1.

This is exactly what I was trying to say, as well, with pretty much  
the same argument 8)

--
  Sami Sundell
  ssundell@...





_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Chad Wilson-2]

Bram van Dijk wrote:

> Please correct me if I didn;t understand this right.
>
> But I thought the release groups were supposed to make things cleaner.
> So if we have an original release and a re-release, they can go into the
> same release group.
>
> Now you are proposing to not merge them (if the re-release has a bonus
> disc), which would already mean that we gain nothing with the new
> release groups.
> Furthermore, you also propose that we duplicate the original release.
>
> So, in your proposal we go from 2 releases to 2 release groups with 3
> underlying releases.
>
> This completely defeats the purpose of having release groups in my opinion.
>
> So, I vote for scenario 1.
>
> Bram / jongetje
>
> Sami Sundell schreef:
>  

I agree; as far as I can tell, all should be in the same release group.
I have no idea what utility would be gained from splitting them out.
They're still all the same "album" release concept; just that one is a
re-release. I'm not even sure why it's being suggested to
split+duplicate since the "re-release" and "bonus disc" cases are core
use cases for having release groups.

Chad / voiceinsideyou

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Gioele Barabucci]

Bram van Dijk wrote:
> Please correct me if I didn;t understand this right.
>
> Furthermore, you also propose that we duplicate the original release.
> So, in your proposal we go from 2 releases to 2 release groups with 3
> underlying releases.
Duplicated release groups only happen in scenario 2, a scenario that I would
not consider now (after some days of release group usage).

> This completely defeats the purpose of having release groups in my
> opinion.
As we now have release groups, I propose to duplicate the first release and
put the release + the duplicated release & bonus disc, all in a single
release group (that is, use scenario 3)

> So, I vote for scenario 1.
That is the only scenario that does not exploit the fact that we have
release groups, and is, in fact, what we did before we had release groups :)

Just for reference:
>> Scenario 1: everything in one release group
>>
>> The same releases are merged into a single release group with the
>> next disc AR intact.

>> Scenario 3: dupes in one release group
>>
>> One release group with
>> * "Foo Bar" (without AR) (the original 1-disc release)
>> * "Foo Bar" (duplicated + re-release AR + next disc AR with the
>>    bonus disc)
>> * bonus disc

--
Gioele <gioele@...>



_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Chad Wilson-2]

Gioele wrote:
>> So, I vote for scenario 1.
>>    
> That is the only scenario that does not exploit the fact that we have
> release groups, and is, in fact, what we did before we had release groups :)
>  

This is entirely expected, since WhatDefinesAUniqueRelease and the
philosophy underlying it (avoid duplication for minor reasons) has not
changed at all since the introduction of release groups. There was no
plan for it to change that I have heard of either. Just because we can
now group releases together for presentation and user-friendliness
purposes does not mean it's any better to duplicate releases, tracks,
PUIDs, etc.

If you are proposing changing our duplication norms, this is a quite
different issue than release group guidelines.

In my opinion, having duplicates in the way you suggest is madness as
well as against the current guidelines. It appears to be the exact case
for which the "bonus disc" AR and release events are designed to handle.
I also don't understand why you say it "maps NGS more nicely", either?

Chad / voice

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[papayaone ()]

The Latest Ciphone TV Mobile Phone is F003 Iphone  Style Touch Screen Phone, it support Dual SIM Card, Shake Songs, 3.2 Inch QVGA Touch Screen, Wifi, Java 2.0, MSN, Moving QQ function and so on, and it also support TV and FM Radio function, you can enjoy your favourite TV & FM program at anywhere.