[mb-users] "Disc #" v. "Vol. #"

[Chris Bransden]

On 07/12/06, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/7/06, Andrew Conkling <andrew.conkling at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/7/06, Chris Bransden <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
> > > the fact that they were initially available separately outweighs all
> as far
> > > as i'm concerned. BoxSetNameStyle strikes again :) they should be
> > > represently solely as "Songs for Christmas, Volume I" and so forth.
> >
> > As mentioned in the edit, I have yet to see a source for this. As I
> > understand, these were recorded and passed around by Sufjan to family
> > and friends, but were not publicly available.
>
> Confirmed by the label page:
> http://www.asthmatickitty.com/music.php?releaseID=63
>
> "As some of you may or may not know, for the past few years, as a
> holiday tradition, Sufjan has embarked on an extraordinary experiment
> to record an annual Christmas EP. It started in 2001, the year of
> Epiphanies, and continued onward (skipping only 2004), culminating
> into an odd and idiosyncratic catalog of music that has only existed
> in the Asthmatic Kitty archives (and on a number of file sharing
> sites)."
>
> These were never publicly released standalone. I don't personally
> think the fact they leacked onto the p2p sites counts.


i personally own releases with even less distribution than that, yet are
still considered valid parts of the artists discography.

what's more, i believe that once a release is available separately (in
whatever quantity), it proves there is no real artist intent for it to be
part of a set, so it's best to add them separately. the fact they are
referred to as 'volumes' proves it IMO.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20061208/5997078d/attachment-0001.htm