[mb-users] Re: what's with the crusade against adding legit NATs?

[Edward Branham]

My feeling exactly!  

We keep the old 45 singles even though they often are exact duplicates 
of album releases!


teknojnky wrote:

> Frankly, I don't understand why it's un-reasonable to *KEEP* the NAT 
> and *IF/WHEN* the track becomes available on an album, to *LEAVE* the 
> download track as a NAT and simply add the album as a normal release.
>  
> This goes for *ANY* downloadable file available from an officially 
> sanctioned artist site.
>  
> It should be common sense to realize that *ANY* track that is 
> downloadable in an individual format (ie not downloading the whole 
> album) should be considered a valid NAT, *EVEN IF* that track is 
> available in an album format on CD or anything else. Why? because it 
> is it's own *release*.
>  
> To put this in perspective, what exactly is the difference between a 
> track on a compilation vs album, and a downloadable "NAT" vs an album 
> track?
>  
> IMO, not a damn thing. They are all different 'releases' and thus 
> should be classified as such. Otherwise, it should be valid to move 
> all tracks that are on a compilation and an album, to the applicable 
> album (obviously this isn't right).
>  
> my 2c
>
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: Stefan Kestenholz <mailto:keschte at gmail.com>
>     To: General discussions about MusicBrainz
>     <mailto:musicbrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org>
>     Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 10:41 AM
>     Subject: Re: [mb-users] Re: what's with the crusade against adding
>     legit NATs?
>
>     Hi
>      
>     There was a mediation [1] lead by lauri yesterday in IRC -- please
>     go back and read the reasoning of the involved parties, and the
>     proposed solution in the discussion session on the NAT wiki page.
>      
>     regards, Stefan
>      
>     [1]
>     http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/2006/2006-08/2006-08-27.html#T19-45-34-770599
>      
>
>      
>     On 8/28/06, joan WHITTAKER <joan at whittaker1966.fsnet.co.uk
>     <mailto:joan at whittaker1966.fsnet.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>         Maybe an oversimplistic question - but why would anyone want
>         to add  a NAT
>         for a track that will be coming out in four weeks anyway.
>
>         Could it be because somebody wants to tag their downloaded
>         copy just in case
>         the version on the released album does vary?
>
>         I can understand the reasoning behind this, but what concerns
>         me is that
>         whilst I am sure Brian would go back and delete the NAT if the
>         track turned
>         out to be identical, I am very sure that very many others
>         would not and it
>         would take someone who was on a mission to clean up a
>         particular artist to
>         finally remove it.
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     _______________________________________________
>     MusicBrainz-users mailing list
>     MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
>     http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>MusicBrainz-users mailing list
>MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
>http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20060829/40c388c4/attachment-0001.htm