[mb-users] an album has to have bonus tracks to be a remaster?

Tue Oct 3 10:18:42 UTC 2006

2006/10/3, P. HarryE. Coenen <PHarryECoenen at aol.com>:
>
>  So if in future we would want to split a realese we have to create 2 (or
> more) new ones with the right PUIDs and DiskIDs and than delete the old one?
> Or keep the old one as the most likely amalgamate satisficing most users'
> tagging needs, while giving the option for others to go to map to the
> "right" release?
> Or does the DB already maintain a link between a specific PUID and a
> specific DiskID, whihc could make disaggregating a release easier (at least
> for everything that's on CD)
>

AFAIK, MB does not, and that is part of the problem. Another part is that if
we currently merge them, how will we know in one or two years (I guess this
is a reasonable estimation for NGS) where the PUIDs we'd like to
discreminate are?

It should not be that difficult, but it relates to what MB wants to be "all
> things to all users", or just catering for the greatest common denominator.
> That's essential an issue of strategy. Even if MB wants to cater for
> different groups of users this will require choices about what first and
> what later.
>

I agree. If MB wants to be minimalist on some points such as this one (which
I can understand, although this is not what I would have chosen), let us
just say clearly so. But if not...

If I know that I am at the end of the queue, I won't get frustrated now and
> just wait. If I expect it to happen tomorrow, just like everyone else, I
> probably end up frustrated.
>
>
> For myself I already keep them seperate, so as soon as the DB allows for it I can feed it in,
> if the system allows me to do so (including composer, label, contributing
> artists etc.).
>
> Background:
> I attempt to get my whole Miles Davis collection digitised and properly
> tagged, and I actually have multiple releases with the same tracks. (LP,
> 1980s CD and recent legacy remasters)
> It's probably a specific jazz issue, but the Miles Davis entries on MB are
> certainly a bit of a mess.
> First I sort it out from my side and then feed it into MB.
> from the few times I tried MB on MD I learned that either complete
> different releases already have been mapped to the same MB release (users
> getting confused by seeing 3 different "Live in Stockholm 1960" albums and
> choosing the wrong one) OR the threshold for PUIDs might be a bit low in
> this case, as it tried to assign my release to the wrong one on MB.
> I have downloaded the MB database to pull out all the MD details to see
> what has happened here (still have to find time for it).
>
> Harry
>
>  ------------------------------
> *From:* musicbrainz-users-bounces at lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:
> musicbrainz-users-bounces at lists.musicbrainz.org] *On Behalf Of *Frederic
> Da Vitoria
> *Sent:* 03 October 2006 09:59
> *To:* General discussions about MusicBrainz
> *Subject:* Re: [mb-users] an album has to have bonus tracks to be a
> remaster?
>
> 2006/10/3, Chris Bransden <chris at whenironsattack.com>:
> >
> > On 02/10/06, Brian Gurtler <brian at gurtler.net> wrote:
> > > my example is an album and it's remaster.
> > >
> > > why have a remaster AR if you can't use it?
> >
> > well, the vinyl/cassette/etc versions will all have been differently
> > mastered also (to wit - all different formats have to be seperately
> > mastered - a lot of "remasters" in the 80s were just remastered for CD
> > out of neccesity as they couldn't use the vinyl master on that format,
> > not without it sounding total, gash anyway), yet traditionally we have
> > not added seperate releases for the vinyl/cassette unless the
> > tracklist differs.
> >
> > the PUIDs will be different, yes (will they, though? i know they
> > 'sound' different, but i'm not aware of what thresholds PUIDs work
> > with), but there's nothing wrong with more than one PUID being on the
> > same track. same with CDIDs.
> >
> > IMO they remasters should all be merged into the same release,
> > assuming the tracklist is different
> >
> > the only time i'd use the remastered AR is to connect 2 releases of
> > differing tracklist which contain a remastered release within them (eg
> > the remaster probably has bonus tracks). other than that, you're going
> > to be tagging with the same tracklist anyway (we don't say "remaster"
> > in the ReleaseTitle) so i don't see the benefit?
> >
> > obviously NGS would change all this.
> >
>
> I agree we don't really know if the PUIDs would be different (if a MB user
> has both an original and a remaster, maybe she/he could tell). If they don't
> differ, then the distinction is meaningless. But if they are different, then
> it is important. If we merge the PUIDs now, we won't have any way to
> re-separate them when we enter NGS (we won't even know if an old-style MB
> release contains PUIDs from different masterings or not). But if we separate
> them now and later discover that the PUIDs are identical (and that the
> distinction can be considered as meaningless), then we sill still be able to
> merge the releases. Furthermore, it will be easy to track such "problems" by
> browsing the remaster ARs.
>
> --
> Frederic Da Vitoria
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
> MusicBrainz-users at lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>
>

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20061003/84d1cbb8/attachment.htm