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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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
|

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.