[mb-style] RFC: Change BoxSetNameStyle

[Paul C. Bryan]

+1

On Tue, 2008-03-25 at 20:32 +0100, Lauri Watts wrote:
> > (Writing too fast, maintain = "faux ami")
> >
> > So I still say we should try to limit duplicate releases to useful
> > situations.
> >
> 
> I'm just gonna do a leiv style 'stream of consciousness' reply to a
> bunch of thoughts here.
> 
> 1) 'useful situations' is quite ambiguous,and subjective (but then so
> is 'common sense'). But it's pretty clear that there are quite a few
> people who feel this is a useful situation, it's not just me.
> 
> 2) I know we should really change the DB. Ideally we should travel
> back in time, and fix the problems way back when, but we can't do
> either _today_.  The pragmatist in me says 'here's a way that we can
> keep both sides fairly satisfied using the tools we have available _at
> this moment_ and without making it too difficult in the future to do
> things in a better way.'
> 
> 3)  It's trivial to merge releases, when we get 'alternate release
> names' or whatever the right answer is, it's quite hard to pull them
> apart if it turns out they were merged too soon though.  An AR or
> annotations even makes them pretty easy to find to 'fix' when a
> permanent solution presents itself.
> 
> 4) Track merging which is already in the works, may be sufficient to
> take care of the AR's issue.  I'll have to play with it a little more
> so I don't want to say 'it's the answer',  but it's definitely a
> start.
> 
> 4a) I just don't see people adding complete track level AR's to 160 CD
> box sets anyway, whether they are entered as a set, or standalone. If
> we're lucky we get the orchestra and the featured artists/conductors.
> And that's fine with me too, adding bulk AR's is a tough job. With an
> AR in place, interested parties can at least get at the data.
> 
> 4) The AR argument is a non-starter anyway, because we already have
> this AR problem anyway, with all the rock albums that have multiple
> releases, and that's a far more common phenomenon in rock than in
> classical (I own one little album by a not that well known artist that
> had 11 releases over 2 years, in 5 markets, and all 11 have a
> different tracklisting! And that's not even that unusual either.)  I
> sure as heck am not going to AR them all, but I did AR the version I
> own, and try to hook up the others to it by annotations and the
> appropriate AR's.
> 
> 5) The Bach page passed the point of being useful with the current UI
> a couple of years past, imho, and it's far from alone.  I doubt anyone
> is actually going to duplicate every disc in a box set any time soon
> with a standalone version, anyway.  The actual amount of duplication
> we see in psuedo-releases (where it's downright encouraged) is
> actually not that high, at least on the artists I know about.  I doubt
> we're really talking about doubling the entries in the classical
> composers pages here.
> 
> So yeah, in an ideal world you're entirely right Frederic, no doubt
> about it.  But in this imperfect one, we do the best we can with the
> tools at our disposal.   And NGS is our path to 'less imperfect' at
> the very least.
>