[mb-users] Question about inconsitencies in track naming

[999]

Chris B wrote:
> we do support vinyl :) a musicbrainz 'release' can be anything. the only 
> issue is how we deal with 'sides' of other media - eg vinyl/tapes. it 
> seems the general consensus is a music brainz 'disc' represents one 
> 'item' of media (eg one lp/12"/7"/etc, one tape, one 8track :P). that 
> leads to a certain amount of duplication, with the vinyl release of a 
> lot of 2xLP releases needing a seperate entry on top of their (often) 
> single CD release.
> 
> i'd argue that having them seperate is worthwhile since the act of 
> swapping the LPs affects the dynamics of a release quite a lot (so does 
> flipping the individual LPs infact) to the extent that I have a lot of 
> single CD releases that have a period of silence in the middle to give 
> the impression of two distinct 'halves' of music.
> 
> however maybe we could represent this better in the annotation, rather 
> than a seperate release. but then, a lot of vinyl releases have/don't 
> have bonus tracks, so would need a seperate entry anyway, so you know, 
> whilst we're there :)
> 
> of course, if a release was first released one one individual peice of 
> vinyl, then it wouldn't need a seperate entry anyway, and you can just 
> add the first release date to the CD entry. HOWEVER, *all* vinyl 
> releases are mastered differently to CD releases, so you could argue 
> that they should all be seperate.
> 
> sorry i'm going massively off topic here... :)

Maybe this will be even more OT, but how about flag on an album that 
says "This is a vinyl record" or something similar?

  - Nine99 (aka darkshyne)