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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

Ok, I yield to all these convincing arguments ! The ghost of bad data is too
much for me, anyhow.

2006/10/3, Kerensky97 <kerensky97 at xterra101.com>:
>
>
> I agree with sticking to the current standard of mergeing the releases
> when
> the tracklistings are identical, and wait till NGS is a bit closer before
> dealing with this.  If we split off the remaster editions, limited
> editions
> and LP versions would have to be split too.  How many beatles releases
> have
> disc IDs and a release date in the 1960's?  Each one of those would be
> split
> into the modern CD release and the old LPs; and every n00b that comes on
> trying to merge identical albums will have to be told they have to
> research
> if it ever had a remaster version of it made.  And that could turn
> potential
> editor/voters away.
>
> I don't think we need to be needlessly complicating the process now by
> adding another rule when we don't even know when or how exactly NGS will
> be
> setup to accomodate that rule.
>
>
> Gecks wrote:
> >
> > On 03/10/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2006/10/3, Chris Bransden <chris at whenironsattack.com>:
> >> 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.
> >
> > IMO the problem is non-fixable at this point. NGS will also allow for
> > seperate releases for each label's pressing (eg the UK pressing, the
> > US pressing, etc etc), and sometimes these have been seperately
> > mastered/cut differently such that the PUIDs/CDID would be different
> > (which is why most major releases have 5+ CD-IDs).
> >
> > i think when/if it arrives we're all gonna be re-submitting our record
> > collections anyway.
> >
> > to me (and i stress this is only my opinion!) it is more useful to
> > stick to what the current schema is good for (1 release = 1 tracklist)
> > and then worry about NGS when it arrives, which, will be some years(?)
> > yet!
>

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20061003/5c2d9697/attachment-0001.htm