RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

bflaminio
The Release Group style guide indicates that the following is not considered a "compilation":

"A release containing two albums and/or EPs." (1)

Musicbrainz defines a compilation as:

"a collection of recordings from various old sources (not necessarily released) combined together." (2)

A 2-on-1 release fits this definition precisely, and is only excluded from being a compilation because the style guide says so, and not for any particularly logical reason.

Furthermore, if we ignore the number of discs as being significant, there are a great many "M-on-N" releases, with all but the 2-on-1 variety already considered compilations without question.

Examples:

2-on-1 : http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/5155ae5b-bc96-3501-b99d-5cbe68d4dfdf
4-on-2 : http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/2337843b-fa02-377c-aec3-ccd8d3ee1742
5-on-4: http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/4479a656-9a69-3315-b3d2-4d0f030977a6
5-on-5 : http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/16cb2408-9b3f-42d1-9d22-db044b9e15f9

All the way up to releases like this:
lots-on-lots: http://musicbrainz.org/release/5965f781-45b7-4a7b-981b-1a94cd688fa0

The 2-on-1 is different only in the sense that it is a single disc, but it is still a collection of previously released recordings, and not a new release, and therefore it should be a compilation.

The proposal is to remove the line "A release containing two albums and/or EPs." from the official style guide and associated documents.

(1) https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release_Group#Secondary_types
(2) http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

Rachel Dwight
I already classify these releases as “Other+Compilation.” I (and a few others) have suggested adding a new primary release group type “Box Set” but so far nothing has been done to said end.

On Aug 3, 2014, at 10:01 PM, bflaminio <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The Release Group style guide indicates that the following is not considered
> a "compilation":
>
> "A release containing two albums and/or EPs." (1)
>
> Musicbrainz defines a compilation as:
>
> "a collection of recordings from various old sources (not necessarily
> released) combined together." (2)
>
> A 2-on-1 release fits this definition precisely, and is only excluded from
> being a compilation because the style guide says so, and not for any
> particularly logical reason.
>
> Furthermore, if we ignore the number of discs as being significant, there
> are a great many "M-on-N" releases, with all but the 2-on-1 variety already
> considered compilations without question.
>
> Examples:
>
> 2-on-1 :
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/5155ae5b-bc96-3501-b99d-5cbe68d4dfdf
> 4-on-2 :
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/2337843b-fa02-377c-aec3-ccd8d3ee1742
> 5-on-4:
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/4479a656-9a69-3315-b3d2-4d0f030977a6
> 5-on-5 :
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/16cb2408-9b3f-42d1-9d22-db044b9e15f9
>
> All the way up to releases like this:
> lots-on-lots:
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/5965f781-45b7-4a7b-981b-1a94cd688fa0
>
> The 2-on-1 is different only in the sense that it is a single disc, but it
> is still a collection of previously released recordings, and not a new
> release, and therefore it should be a compilation.
>
> The proposal is to remove the line "A release containing two albums and/or
> EPs." from the official style guide and associated documents.
>
> (1) https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release_Group#Secondary_types
> (2) http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Make-2-on-1-or-generically-M-on-N-release-groups-Compilations-tp4667103.html
> Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

tommycrock
In reply to this post by bflaminio

+1 to this.

If anyone can successfully define a box set in a way that covers digital releases and isn't too ambiguous I'd support that too


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

Alex Mauer
In reply to this post by bflaminio
On 08/03/2014 10:01 PM, bflaminio wrote:
> The proposal is to remove the line "A release containing two albums and/or
> EPs." from the official style guide and associated documents.

+1



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

Sheamus Patt
In reply to this post by bflaminio
On 14-08-03 11:01 PM, bflaminio wrote:

> The Release Group style guide indicates that the following is not considered
> a "compilation":
>
> "A release containing two albums and/or EPs." (1)
>
> Musicbrainz defines a compilation as:
>
> "a collection of recordings from various old sources (not necessarily
> released) combined together." (2)
>
> A 2-on-1 release fits this definition precisely, and is only excluded from
> being a compilation because the style guide says so, and not for any
> particularly logical reason.
>
> Furthermore, if we ignore the number of discs as being significant, there
> are a great many "M-on-N" releases, with all but the 2-on-1 variety already
> considered compilations without question.
>
> Examples:
>
> 2-on-1 :
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/5155ae5b-bc96-3501-b99d-5cbe68d4dfdf
> 4-on-2 :
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/2337843b-fa02-377c-aec3-ccd8d3ee1742
> 5-on-4:
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/4479a656-9a69-3315-b3d2-4d0f030977a6
> 5-on-5 :
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/16cb2408-9b3f-42d1-9d22-db044b9e15f9
>
> All the way up to releases like this:
> lots-on-lots:
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/5965f781-45b7-4a7b-981b-1a94cd688fa0
>
> The 2-on-1 is different only in the sense that it is a single disc, but it
> is still a collection of previously released recordings, and not a new
> release, and therefore it should be a compilation.
>
> The proposal is to remove the line "A release containing two albums and/or
> EPs." from the official style guide and associated documents.

+1

I'd also support a proposal to add a new type (primary or secondary)
that would apply to these and "box set" type releases, i.e. any release
consisting of more than one previously released albums.

>
> (1) https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release_Group#Secondary_types
> (2) http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Make-2-on-1-or-generically-M-on-N-release-groups-Compilations-tp4667103.html
> Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


--
Sheamus
Ottawa Folkie

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

Jazzy Jarilith
Whilst I agree with the "box set" idea, I don't agree with the term. Something like "bundle" would be better, as it would not be mistaken for a packaging type.


2014-08-04 17:56 GMT+02:00 Sheamus Patt <[hidden email]>:
On 14-08-03 11:01 PM, bflaminio wrote:
> The Release Group style guide indicates that the following is not considered
> a "compilation":
>
> "A release containing two albums and/or EPs." (1)
>
> Musicbrainz defines a compilation as:
>
> "a collection of recordings from various old sources (not necessarily
> released) combined together." (2)
>
> A 2-on-1 release fits this definition precisely, and is only excluded from
> being a compilation because the style guide says so, and not for any
> particularly logical reason.
>
> Furthermore, if we ignore the number of discs as being significant, there
> are a great many "M-on-N" releases, with all but the 2-on-1 variety already
> considered compilations without question.
>
> Examples:
>
> 2-on-1 :
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/5155ae5b-bc96-3501-b99d-5cbe68d4dfdf
> 4-on-2 :
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/2337843b-fa02-377c-aec3-ccd8d3ee1742
> 5-on-4:
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/4479a656-9a69-3315-b3d2-4d0f030977a6
> 5-on-5 :
> http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/16cb2408-9b3f-42d1-9d22-db044b9e15f9
>
> All the way up to releases like this:
> lots-on-lots:
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/5965f781-45b7-4a7b-981b-1a94cd688fa0
>
> The 2-on-1 is different only in the sense that it is a single disc, but it
> is still a collection of previously released recordings, and not a new
> release, and therefore it should be a compilation.
>
> The proposal is to remove the line "A release containing two albums and/or
> EPs." from the official style guide and associated documents.

+1

I'd also support a proposal to add a new type (primary or secondary)
that would apply to these and "box set" type releases, i.e. any release
consisting of more than one previously released albums.

>
> (1) https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release_Group#Secondary_types
> (2) http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Make-2-on-1-or-generically-M-on-N-release-groups-Compilations-tp4667103.html
> Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


--
Sheamus
Ottawa Folkie

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

Alexander VanValin
In reply to this post by bflaminio
On 08/03/2014 08:01 PM, bflaminio wrote:

> A 2-on-1 release ... is only excluded from
> being a compilation because the style guide says so, and not for any
> particularly logical reason.
>
> Furthermore, if we ignore the number of discs as being significant, there
> are a great many "M-on-N" releases, with all but the 2-on-1 variety already
> considered compilations without question.
>
> ...
>
> The proposal is to remove the line "A release containing two albums and/or
> EPs." from the official style guide and associated documents.
>
"... not for any particularly logical reason" is not completely
accurate. At least in my understanding, 2-in-1 releases are marked
"album" so that they aren't lost in a sea of "best of" compilations. A
2-in-1 might be the only in-print version of a particular release, or it
might be the only version readily available.

On the other hand, treating 2-in-1s differently than other M-in-Ns does seem
illogical, doesn't it?

To address the "lost in a sea of compilations" problem, a RG-RG
relationship could be created:

     [album/EP/whatever] <is also available as part of>
     [compilation/boxset/bundle/whatever]


I'd support this proposal if the above relationship is also created. I
guess that means I should propose it.

Alex / caller#6


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

tommycrock



On 4 August 2014 19:06, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:

To address the "lost in a sea of compilations" problem, a RG-RG
relationship could be created:

     [album/EP/whatever] <is also available as part of>
     [compilation/boxset/bundle/whatever]


I'd support this proposal if the above relationship is also created. I
guess that means I should propose it.

Alex / caller#6 

If you haven't spotted it already, this post by Nikki is relevant: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=22866#p22866


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

swisschris
Why not use the term "multi-album", defined as "2 or more previously released albums 2 reissued on one or several discs/supports" (which would come handy for the recent  "original album series" as well), keeping "box set" for packaging, where it belongs…


On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:



On 4 August 2014 19:06, caller#6 <[hidden email]> wrote:

To address the "lost in a sea of compilations" problem, a RG-RG
relationship could be created:

     [album/EP/whatever] <is also available as part of>
     [compilation/boxset/bundle/whatever]


I'd support this proposal if the above relationship is also created. I
guess that means I should propose it.

Alex / caller#6 

If you haven't spotted it already, this post by Nikki is relevant: http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?pid=22866#p22866


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

Calvin Walton-2
On Thu, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +0000, SwissChris wrote:
> Why not use the term "multi-album", defined as "2 or more previously
> released albums 2 reissued on one or several discs/supports" (which would
> come handy for the recent  "original album series" as well), keeping "box
> set" for packaging, where it belongs…

The term "multi-album" isn't great, because I've also seen things like
box sets of singles. It would be good to have something more generic
than that.

--
Calvin Walton <[hidden email]>


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

bflaminio
In reply to this post by bflaminio
JIRA Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-330

I appreciate all of the suggestions and enhancements. I think many of them would improve the Musicbrainz database appreciably. For this specific purpose, however, I am only proposing that one line be removed from the style guide, thereby allowing 2-on-1s to be considered compilations.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations" -- delay implementation?

Alexander VanValin
On 08/05/2014 08:15 PM, bflaminio wrote:
> JIRA Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-330
>
> I appreciate all of the suggestions and enhancements. I think many of them
> would improve the Musicbrainz database appreciably. For this specific
> purpose, however, I am only proposing that one line be removed from the
> style guide, thereby allowing 2-on-1s to be considered compilations.

Could I ask that this not be implemented until after my "composite
reissue" relationship[1] has had a chance to pass (or fail)?

cheers,
Alex / caller#6



[1]
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-331-add-composite-reissue-relationship-tp4667196.html

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

bflaminio
In reply to this post by bflaminio
Here's hoping the newly designated Style BDFL looks kindly upon this proposal and blesses it into the style guides.
Loading...