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

[Sami Sundell]

On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 01:31:08PM -0700, Kerensky97 wrote:

> 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.

Of course, this applies to the not-so-n00bs as well. Take a look at just
about any popular artist and see if he/she/it has several versions of
the same album. Then see if those albums are linked together by remaster
or earliest version relationship. More than likely the answer is "No."
If you're not convinced, take a random compilation and see if its tracks
have those relationships...

Also, "remaster" is a hazy concept. As someone said, if a release is
re-relased as a CD, it's a "remaster". Drawing the line between
"earliest release" and "remaster" is not easy with albums, and it's even
harder with individual tracks.

Finding out about remasters is hard. As you said, having similar
remasters as different releases would complicate the process, a lot.
And because we can't enforce it when, for example, adding PUIDs, the
benefit would be quite small.

-- 
 Sami Sundell
 ssundell at iki.fi