[mb-style] RFC: Audio ripped from DVD video designation

[Chris Bransden]

On 03/11/06, Michelle . <i.hate.pink.floyd at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> From:  "Chris Bransden" chris at whenironsattack.com
> >the way i see it, it just so happens that people will tend to be
> >tagging mp3 rips of DVDs, but they could feasibly in the future be
> >tagging audio/video rips. infact they could basically do that now,
> >if
> >the tagger supported it.
> >
> >so i say the release type should be official, as it's entry on the
> >DB
> >reflects that of an official release, regardless of our current
> >tagging limitations.
>
> That's an excellent point. The only problem I see is, to what extent should
> DVD videos be ripped into MB?
>
> I have in front of me Starshaped, a Blur DVD with a documentary which is
> about 50% live footage and 50% candid video, and 2 live concerts with
> separated tracks. Would I tag just the live tracks, or both the live tracks
> and the documentary? If just the live tracks, that would be an inaccurate
> representation of the disc, and shouldn't be placed under "official". If
> both the documentary and live footage, then we ought to enter _all_ music
> documentaries into the database... which I suppose would make MB a more
> comprehensive database, but I'm not sure where the line is drawn between
> "musicbrainz" and "culturebrainz".

yeah i think this is the main problem :/ i think our current scope
means that only the live/actual song parts of the DVD are worth
indexing, but even if we did index everything, it's still not perfect
as chapters on DVDs aren't necessarily sequential, or split up in a
useful way, so the 'tracklist' becomes less meaningful.

for me it's that we cannot currently represent these releases all that
well, but none-the-less they are an official release, just a poor
representation of one :)

perhaps this is a good case for the forthcoming 'pseudo-release' as
proposed in the transl(iter)ation discussion? though even then i think
this is a slightly different scenario.