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

[Lauri Watts]

On 12/8/06, Chris Bransden <chris at whenironsattack.com> wrote:
> On 07/12/06, Lauri Watts <krazykiwi at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.

Of course they are a part of his discography. And they've been added,
correctly, as a box set.

> 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.

If the _artist_ released them.  I don't think artist making a few
cd-r's and handing them out to friends, is "releasing".  The label
claims they are unreleased, and you can't possibly claim artist intent
for things that were leaked illegally to p2p.

The fact he's releasing them publicly at all, as a box set, is
obviously also artist intent to release them... as a set.   This is no
major label, AK is pretty "special" and so is this artist, it's not
like they are rushing out a compilation he didn't 100% approve of.  He
probably personally hand wrote the liner notes.

Finally many box sets are labelled 'volume 1' etc on each disc
contained, that's largely irrelevant, and in fact speaks strongly for
labelling them volume in their MB entries.

-- 
Regards,
Lauri Watts