RFC: Release Groups guideline

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
60 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

RFC: Release Groups guideline

Nikolai Prokoschenko
Administrator

Dear fellow Brainerz,

it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I
won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works
better than me. 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!

Thank you.

Nikolai.
--
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/RFC%3A-Release-Groups-guideline-tp3079029p3079029.html
Sent from the Style discussions mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Bogdan Butnaru
Question: If we have a box like “The Singles Collection”, which
contains a lot of singles (or albums, live releases, etc), is the
release group of type “single” or “compilation”?

A similar case: a box called “The [label name|date interval] Era”,
which contains releases (of one or several types) with a certain
common property. Is that release group's type “compilation” or one of
the contained types?

The second case seems to better match our definition of “compilation”
as we use on releases (i.e., there's a common criteria for selection),
which the first case doesn't. However, even in the first case it does
seem logical, according to the normal sense of the word “compilation”,
to use that release group type.

The main problem I see is that under the first definition, most box
sets RGs will be of type compilation; if we don't use that definition,
however, we'd be going against the instinct of a lot of editors, I
think. (I've already seen an edit according to the first case, on a
singles box set.)

-- Bogdan Butnaru

On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Nikolai
Prokoschenko<[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

Sami Sundell-3

On 15.6.2009, at 19.27, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:

> Question: If we have a box like “The Singles Collection”, which
> contains a lot of singles (or albums, live releases, etc), is the
> release group of type “single” or “compilation”?

Neither, just add a new release event into the existing releases (http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Box_Set_Name_Style 
, first point) ;)

Yeah, I know there are lots of box sets with duplicated albums /  
singles / something else. So far I have found no good reason for  
those, and as the page mentions, "Duplicating releases has its own  
problems".

--
  Sami Sundell
  [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: Release Groups guideline

Bogdan Butnaru
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Sami Sundell<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 15.6.2009, at 19.27, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
>> Question: If we have a box like “The Singles Collection”, which
>> contains a lot of singles (or albums, live releases, etc), is the
>> release group of type “single” or “compilation”?
>
> Neither, just add a new release event into the existing releases (http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Box_Set_Name_Style
> , first point) ;)
>
> Yeah, I know there are lots of box sets with duplicated albums /
> singles / something else. So far I have found no good reason for
> those, and as the page mentions, "Duplicating releases has its own
> problems".

Still, there may be cases where the discs in the box set are different
from those released previously. For instance, “The Early Period” box
set of some band may include six discs, one for each of the bands
first six albums; however, each disc may include “not previously
released” bonus tracks. According to the guidelines, these would be:
(a) separate releases, (b) of type “album”, (c) with later-release-of
ARs toward the originals, (d) in a separate “The Early Period” release
group. What's the release group's type?

-- Bogdan Butnaru

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Brian Schweitzer
In reply to this post by Sami Sundell-3
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Sami Sundell <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 15.6.2009, at 19.27, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:

> Question: If we have a box like “The Singles Collection”, which
> contains a lot of singles (or albums, live releases, etc), is the
> release group of type “single” or “compilation”?

Neither, just add a new release event into the existing releases (http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Box_Set_Name_Style
, first point) ;)

Yeah, I know there are lots of box sets with duplicated albums /
singles / something else. So far I have found no good reason for
those, and as the page mentions, "Duplicating releases has its own
problems".

Rather than rehash all those reasons, I'd refer back to the last time we discussed this: http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04821.html (and the acompanying discussion in that thread) for just some of the reasons why we could have these duplicated (apart from the title being different, due to inclusion in a box set) releases.

Brian

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Sami Sundell-3

On 15.6.2009, at 19.49, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> Rather than rehash all those reasons, I'd refer back to the last  
> time we discussed this: http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04821.html 
>  (and the acompanying discussion in that thread) for just some of  
> the reasons why we could have these duplicated (apart from the title  
> being different, due to inclusion in a box set) releases.


So, to summarize it, the reason would be "Because", but not important  
enough "Because" for anyone to even make a suggestion to change the  
current, official guide line?

Yeah, there are valid reasons for adding box sets, but in many cases  
it's just a buttload of duplicated releases.

--
  Sami Sundell
  [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: Release Groups guideline

Sami Sundell-3
In reply to this post by Bogdan Butnaru

On 15.6.2009, at 19.49, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:

> Still, there may be cases where the discs in the box set are different
> from those released previously. For instance, “The Early Period” box
> set of some band may include six discs, one for each of the bands
> first six albums; however, each disc may include “not previously
> released” bonus tracks. According to the guidelines, these would be:
> (a) separate releases, (b) of type “album”, (c) with later-release-of
> ARs toward the originals, (d) in a separate “The Early Period” release
> group. What's the release group's type?


Hmm. I'd probably use Compilation, but then again, I might be  
completely wrong :P If the "Box Set" is combined into a release group,  
it's a compilation, even if the individual releases have their own  
release type.

--
  Sami Sundell
  [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: Release Groups guideline

Brian Schweitzer
In reply to this post by Sami Sundell-3
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Sami Sundell <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 15.6.2009, at 19.49, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> Rather than rehash all those reasons, I'd refer back to the last
> time we discussed this: http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04821.html
>  (and the acompanying discussion in that thread) for just some of
> the reasons why we could have these duplicated (apart from the title
> being different, due to inclusion in a box set) releases.


So, to summarize it, the reason would be "Because", but not important
enough "Because" for anyone to even make a suggestion to change the
current, official guide line?

Yeah, there are valid reasons for adding box sets, but in many cases
it's just a buttload of duplicated releases.


Actually, there was quite a long debate over changing the guideline, it just never resolved into anything we could agree to do.  There was an agreement, however, to not merge away (or vote down) box set releases which, apart from the box set bit, would be duplicates of non-box set releases.

Brian

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Chris B-2
i don't recall that agreement! BoxSetNameStyle was never changed

2009/6/15 Brian Schweitzer <[hidden email]>:

> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Sami Sundell <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On 15.6.2009, at 19.49, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>>
>> > Rather than rehash all those reasons, I'd refer back to the last
>> > time we discussed this:
>> > http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04821.html
>> >  (and the acompanying discussion in that thread) for just some of
>> > the reasons why we could have these duplicated (apart from the title
>> > being different, due to inclusion in a box set) releases.
>>
>>
>> So, to summarize it, the reason would be "Because", but not important
>> enough "Because" for anyone to even make a suggestion to change the
>> current, official guide line?
>>
>> Yeah, there are valid reasons for adding box sets, but in many cases
>> it's just a buttload of duplicated releases.
>>
>
> Actually, there was quite a long debate over changing the guideline, it just
> never resolved into anything we could agree to do.  There was an agreement,
> however, to not merge away (or vote down) box set releases which, apart from
> the box set bit, would be duplicates of non-box set releases.
>
> Brian
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Release Groups guideline

Brian Schweitzer
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Chris B <[hidden email]> wrote:
i don't recall that agreement! BoxSetNameStyle was never changed

Some agreement:

http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04837.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04842.html

and the RFC which I stalled to wait until we had a better situation under NGS:

http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg05456.html

If this is not the current working case, and people are still merging box set discs away, or renaming/merging non-box set discs into box set releases, then the problem which specifically had led to that whole discussion is back.

Brian

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Chris B-2
2009/6/16 Brian Schweitzer <[hidden email]>:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Chris B <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> i don't recall that agreement! BoxSetNameStyle was never changed
>>
> Some agreement:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04837.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04842.html

some disagreement
http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg05388.html

> and the RFC which I stalled to wait until we had a better situation under
> NGS:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg05456.html

right; NGS changes everything, but NGS isn't here yet.

> If this is not the current working case, and people are still merging box
> set discs away, or renaming/merging non-box set discs into box set releases,
> then the problem which specifically had led to that whole discussion is
> back.

the guidelines stipulate we need to merge away box sets, under certain
circumstances. we also merge away country releases and vinyl releases
under certain circumstances. as a collector i see equal value in all,
but that's why we're doing NGS :)

lets no go down this route again - there is nothing new to add.

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Sami Sundell-3
In reply to this post by Brian Schweitzer

On 16.6.2009, at 6.44, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> Some agreement:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04837.html
> http://www.mail-archive.com/musicbrainz-style@.../msg04842.html

That's not agreement, that's two people talking on a mailing list.

> If this is not the current working case, and people are still  
> merging box set discs away, or renaming/merging non-box set discs  
> into box set releases, then the problem which specifically had led  
> to that whole discussion is back.


As Chris said, the guideline was never changed. I'm reasonably sure  
not all people follow the style list, nor do they think a couple of  
comments revert the official style guide.

Personally, even though I get style list, I pass pretty much  
everything that says "CSG" in the title, because nothing good will  
ever come out of those :P So that was the first time I saw the  
discussion. I bet I'm not the only one.

--
  Sami Sundell
  [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: Release Groups guideline

Brian Schweitzer


On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:13 PM, Sami Sundell <[hidden email]> wrote:
That's not agreement, that's two people talking on a mailing list.

> If this is not the current working case, and people are still
> merging box set discs away, or renaming/merging non-box set discs
> into box set releases, then the problem which specifically had led
> to that whole discussion is back.


As Chris said, the guideline was never changed. I'm reasonably sure
not all people follow the style list, nor do they think a couple of
comments revert the official style guide.

Personally, even though I get style list, I pass pretty much
everything that says "CSG" in the title, because nothing good will
ever come out of those :P So that was the first time I saw the
discussion. I bet I'm not the only one.

People may ignore the CSG posts, but hopefully the entire discussion about that RFC - and the discussion here, and in IRC, in which there was agreement to - for the moment, until NGS - let them both coexist...  let's hope that isn't being ignored.  Otherwise, speaking as just one person who has worked hard to enter large box sets, I would be rather upset, were I to find that someone were merging / renaming box sets away again, just because disc 37 of some box happened to also have been separately released at some other point in time.

Brian

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Chris B-2
2009/6/17 Brian Schweitzer <[hidden email]>:
> Otherwise, speaking as just one person who has worked
> hard to enter large box sets, I would be rather upset, were I to find that
> someone were merging / renaming box sets away again, just because disc 37 of
> some box happened to also have been separately released at some other point
> in time.

that would be against the current guidelines -
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/BoxSetNameStyle and
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/What_Defines_A_Unique_Release#What_about_BoxSets.3F

merging is only accept if *all* the discs in the boxset are available
separately.

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Sami Sundell-3
In reply to this post by Brian Schweitzer

On 17.6.2009, at 15.38, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> People may ignore the CSG posts, but hopefully the entire discussion  
> about that RFC - and the discussion here, and in IRC, in which there  
> was agreement to - for the moment, until NGS - let them both  
> coexist...  let's

As I tried to say, discussion is meaningless if it's only left as  
discussion. In this case, there's a valid, official guide about how to  
handle Box Sets, and no amount of discussion in IRC or mailing list  
will magically revert that if there's no action to change that  
guideline.

People shouldn't be expected to follow discussions, but they can be  
pointed towards style guide.

> sets, I would be rather upset, were I to find that someone were  
> merging / renaming box sets away again, just because disc 37 of some  
> box happened to also have been separately released at some other  
> point in time.


I bet you would be, but we aren't talking about boxes that have unique  
content, we're talking about boxes that are re-releases of existing  
releases. Guess what the current guidelines say about boxes with  
unique content?

--
  Sami Sundell
  [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: Release Groups guideline

Brian Schweitzer


On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Sami Sundell <[hidden email]> wrote:

On 17.6.2009, at 15.38, Brian Schweitzer wrote:

> People may ignore the CSG posts, but hopefully the entire discussion
> about that RFC - and the discussion here, and in IRC, in which there
> was agreement to - for the moment, until NGS - let them both
> coexist...  let's

As I tried to say, discussion is meaningless if it's only left as
discussion. In this case, there's a valid, official guide about how to
handle Box Sets, and no amount of discussion in IRC or mailing list
will magically revert that if there's no action to change that
guideline.

People shouldn't be expected to follow discussions, but they can be
pointed towards style guide.

> sets, I would be rather upset, were I to find that someone were
> merging / renaming box sets away again, just because disc 37 of some
> box happened to also have been separately released at some other
> point in time.


I bet you would be, but we aren't talking about boxes that have unique
content, we're talking about boxes that are re-releases of existing
releases. Guess what the current guidelines say about boxes with
unique content?

To be honest, this entire debate already took place, with exactly this case as one of the discussed situations.  I really would rather not rehash the entire discussion all over again, when it can just as easily be read in the archives already.  Specifically with reference to the type of case you mention, that would be where the distinctions we discussed back then, with regards to how the box is packaged (a "true box" vs "tied together with string") would come into play, in my opinion.

Brian

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Aurélien Mino-2
In reply to this post by Nikolai Prokoschenko
Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:

> Dear fellow Brainerz,
>
> it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I
> won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works
> better than me. 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!
>  
For those who aren't already aware of it, there's an open edit and a
(long, long) "discussion" about merging different bootlegs recording of
a live show:
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10956897

This goes against the proposed guideline, but I would like to propose
that this particular point being changed.

My main argument is that the purpose of release-groups, as far as I
understand it, is to present a general overview of discography of an
artist, and not a detailed view as we have with releases.
Thus separating different recordings (audience, soundboard, ...) of the
same live show seems to go against that purpose.

- Aurélien // murdos



_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Aurélien Mino-2
In reply to this post by Nikolai Prokoschenko
Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:

> Dear fellow Brainerz,
>
> it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I
> won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works
> better than me. 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!
>
>  
In the last section of the page, we have:
"The title of a release group should usually be the title of its
individual releases, removing Extra Title Information
<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Extra_Title_Information> added due to Disc
Number Style <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Disc_Number_Style>, Volume
Number Style <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Volume_Number_Style> etc"

Could we remove the reference to Volume Number Style
<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Volume_Number_Style>?
This is in contradiction with the section "When Not to Group Releases
together", where it's said that "A Series
<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series> of different volumes" should not be
grouped (and thus there's no reason to not have the volume number in
release-group title).

- Aurélien

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Pavan Chander
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Aurélien Mino <[hidden email]> wrote:

In the last section of the page, we have:
"The title of a release group should usually be the title of its
individual releases, removing Extra Title Information
<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Extra_Title_Information> added due to Disc
Number Style <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Disc_Number_Style>, Volume
Number Style <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Volume_Number_Style> etc"

Could we remove the reference to Volume Number Style
<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Volume_Number_Style>?
This is in contradiction with the section "When Not to Group Releases
together", where it's said that "A Series
<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series> of different volumes" should not be
grouped (and thus there's no reason to not have the volume number in
release-group title).

- Aurélien
+1
Makes sense to me.


Pavan Chander // navap 

_______________________________________________
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: Release Groups guideline

Brian Schweitzer
In reply to this post by Aurélien Mino-2
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Aurélien Mino <[hidden email]> wrote:
Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> Dear fellow Brainerz,
>
> it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I
> won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works
> better than me. 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!
>
For those who aren't already aware of it, there's an open edit and a
(long, long) "discussion" about merging different bootlegs recording of
a live show:
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10956897

This goes against the proposed guideline, but I would like to propose
that this particular point being changed.

My main argument is that the purpose of release-groups, as far as I
understand it, is to present a general overview of discography of an
artist, and not a detailed view as we have with releases.
Thus separating different recordings (audience, soundboard, ...) of the
same live show seems to go against that purpose.

- Aurélien // murdos

Well, no surprise, I object. 

True, the guideline first defines that a release group is "used to group several different releases into a single logical entity."

However, it doesn't stop there.  It then specifies the main problem with the conceptual grouping you suggest, namely: "Every release belongs to one, and only one release group."

This limitation makes perfect sense when we're talking about different versions of the same album.  However, the conceptual grouping suggested seems to have as a goal only the "decluttering" of artist listings.  It groups together releases based not on the audio content, but on something outside of the recorded audio.  It no longer is "basically the same release", but now becomes "they both are recordings of the same 'something'". 

This edit isn't the only place this is being attempted.

Grouping because they're the "same concert": http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10956897
Grouped simply because they were readings of the "same book": http://musicbrainz.org/artist/569c0d90-28dd-413b-83e4-aaa7c27e667b.html
(I can't find some of the others, but we've seen "same movie", etc being used as rationale.)

The problem is, "variation of the same album" is pretty much a situation where there's a 1:1 relationship between a release and a group consisting of other variations on that same release.  This is not the case for these conceptual groupings.  They all are n:1 - there's no *one* correct "sameness" that applies... and, once we get into grouping for subjective, rather than objective, reasons, why should we expect anything different?

Why do we want to group different versions of an album together, even if one has bonus tracks, or one has a bonus disc?  At heart, they're still essentially the same audio, even if there is more audio (via extra tracks, etc) on some versions.  We group stero and mono versions together, but that's still the *same* audio, just (relatively minorly) different mixes of it. 

As pbryan pointed out in that edit, we *don't* group together an album and a remix release based on that album.  There's clearly some sufficient "different-enough-ness" there that we're respecting.

I agree, soundtracks are really a messy point, but luckily, that's outside of this particular debate.  However, I think audiobooks and live concerts both have the same type of different-enough-ness here that we should stick to grouping on an objective, not subjective, basis.  As the essential "sameness" of an album is that it is a distinct recording, I've suggested we be consistent, and apply that same standard to live bootlegs (and audiobooks).  If two+ concert bootlegs stem from the same recording, group them.  If they don't, don't group them.  If two+ audiobooks are versions of the same release (say a digital download version and a CD version), merge them.  If they're two entirely separate readings (and often even different languages being spoken), keep them separate.  After all, are we trying to achieve clean-looking artist listings, or are we actually trying to acurately document audio release groups, using some consistent standard?

On this basis, (to copy from my note in edit 10956896), I've suggested edit http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10989727 and the following guideline for RG merging with respect to live concert recordings, be they official or bootleg.  (murdos, you can consider this my proposed alternate to your proposal):

----------------------------------------------

For official live releases, and bootleg live / studio releases:

Keep the wording in the draft just as it is:

"When Not to Group Releases together: ... Different bootleg ****recordings**** of a live show, e.g. bootleg 1 and bootleg 2 of a 1970 Pink Floyd concert in San Francisco. ..."  (Emphasis added)

Then, for live concert recording RG titles:
1. Use "yyyy-mm-dd: location" as the title.
2. If there are multiple recording sources for the same bootleg, a separate RG should be used for each recording source. Then use "yyyy-mm-dd: location (source)" as the title.
3. If there is an official release, using the same recording source as a bootleg, then the title of the official release should be used for the RG title.

So, the resulting RG titles:
1995-09-20 Wed: Toronto, ON, Canada - #1 applies
2009-07-07 Tue: Le Zenith, Paris, France - #1 applies
2008-12-12 Fri: Arco Arena, Sacramento, CA, USA (AUD) - #2 applies
2008-12-12 Fri: Arco Arena, Sacramento, CA, USA (PRO) - #2 applies
1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK (AMT1b) - #2 applies
1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK (AUD1) - #2 applies
1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK (AUD2b) - #2 applies
MTV Unplugged: Live in New York - #3 applies

This keeps "same recording" together, keeps the artist listing comprehensible (rather than simply three visually identical RG "1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK" listings), avoids the problem of multiple bootleg titles using the same recording source, yet official releases remain simple to find.

We won't always know the lineage; esp with bootlegs, our data about lineages isn't all that great. However, it gives us something clean to work towards, and the number of cases where we have not one, but 2+ listings for the same concert, yet don't have known lineage for at least one of the two recordings, is pretty much a statistical blip, and as we get better data, those would get dealt with. Re: "AUD", "PRO", "AMT", "SBD", "Matrix", etc, there's not too many of them, and for anyone who would care about these releases, those are meaningful terms.  In accordance with the decision in the other edit to not include this (source) info in the release titles, this removes the bootleg title, while adding the source info, but only in the RG title.  LiveBootlegStyle, as is, would still be used for release titles.

-----------------------------------------------

Brian

PS: My apologies.  I know my response is long.  However, I feel very strongly about this.  This change in guideline, as I see it, doesn't just change some minor point, but rather, it changes the entire RG concept, making it a totally subjective concept, rather than a defined objective concept.  And, if that change were to be made, not only do I see it as weakening the utility of RGs, but I also see it as *requring* a change to the ngs schema, such that a release could be a member of multiple RGs (n:1), rather than just one (1:1), as otherwise we're simply letting some majority (via vote) decide what they consider, on a case by case basis, to be the most preferred subjective grouping.

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
123
Loading...