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

[Sami Sundell]

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:03:42AM +0100, P. HarryE. Coenen wrote:

> Remasters, especially of early 1980s CDs, even with exactly the same
> tracks often have a much better sound than the 1980s release (a whole
> lot of early CDs are simply cr** in terms of sound quality).

On the other hand, so are the new CDs - the sound in new releases is
often so compressed that there are really neither high nor low points.
Of course, it's a matter of preference, and newer CDs usually sound
"better" on your average boombox.

And yeah, there are lots of lousy old CDs, and new technology definitely
gives better tools for remastering those old releases.

> I see them often wrapped up with the 1980s release on MB, but I think
> they should be considered as a different release. I am almost sure
> Disk_IDs and PUIDs will also differ.

Disc IDs will surely differ - they may differ even between different
pressings of the same release. PUIDs will probably change as well, if
there's an audible change in the track.

> MB apparently doesn't want us to include something like (2005 remaster
> of 1983 release) in the album title,

At least I wouldn't want that. Album title isn't the place for that
information. Release dates and ARs already convey that information.

> The solution could be simple if this type of annotation could be added
> to the title (just in the same way you see this on the music shoppng
> websites), but that isn't MB practice (yet)?

It might be possible to add that information into the files by using
scripting capabilities of the future Picard. I don't know how many
people would actually find that kind of information sensible in the
title.

> And to complete the solution the annotation could be in fishhook
> brackets "{}" so it's even machine parsable (I haven't seen an album
> or song title with these type of brackets yet, tough I have seen
> normal brackets "()" as well as square brackets "[]")

Again, that's quite alright to add that information to a personal file
collection, but the database shouldn't resort to that kind of gimmicks.
We already have a place for that kind of information - let's use it.

-- 
 Sami Sundell
 sami.sundell at kotikone.fi