[mb-users] Question about inconsitencies in track naming
9.9.9 at gmx.net
Sun Jun 19 18:37:48 UTC 2005
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)
More information about the MusicBrainz-users