[mb-users] Vinyl sides vs disks.

[Bogdan Butnaru]

I don't think this should be a cause for much trouble. I think we
could make a few compromises to cover most cases, as I expect this is
not _very_ common (after all, it only occurs on many-disc releases).

I think the biggest issue is with releases that have also appeared on
CD. I propose a compromise:

(1) If there's a CD release _and_ its discs are easily mapped to vinyl
(say, disc one has sides A for vinyl 1 and B from vinyl 3), then we
use those entries, with an annotation.

(2) If there's no release on any continuous medium, or if no other
release matches the vinyl release meaningfully, I say we enter each
"side" separately, explain in the annotation, and be done with it.
This second part would need a RFC/RFV on the style mailing list, as it
adds a new "keyword" for titles (side #). But I think it should be
acceptable; after all, it's a medium-independent way of organizing a
release; it could apply just as well to tapes and other (hypothetical)
sided media. And it doesn't make much sense to group physical sides
into logical discs unless there actually is a CD or something where
that applies.

I think this would be a good system: number (1) compromises a bit of
accuracy in exchange for simplifying large discographies, and (2) is a
good way to make everything nice and ordered when the first compromise
isn't enough. No (2) is a bit complicated, but it's something for
demanding users, those who actually care enough to make things neat.

And the annotations will make it possible to make everything even more
neat when the database will support it.

I also propose we choose a special tag for such annotations, that will
allow us to find and fix such cases when new database features are
available. Something like "LP:special" or "Medium:LP:interleaved", I
don't know. And if the proposal above (or something similar) is
accepted, we make a wiki page where we describe what's with the tag,
and make the annotations link to it.

We should make a test for this. I don't own any LPs, but how about
some of you who own such releases add a couple for each variant above
on the test server? I could draft a wiki page and a RFC afterwards and
we can comment on that.

I'm sure there are some cases I didn't consider, please give examples
(and enter them on test.musicbrainz.org !) if you have any.

-- Bogdan Butnaru — bogdanb at gmail.com
"I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O.

On 10/4/06, Kerensky97 <kerensky97 at xterra101.com> wrote:
>
> I VERY MUCH think we should have it be Side1+Side2=Disc 1, Side3+Side4= Disc
> 2 etc. regardless of whether it's on the same media.
>
> I have a bunch of classical and opera LPs that are made up of 5-6 vinyl
> records and they're set up so you run though the side A of all records then
> flip the stack and run theough side B on all records.  They're actually
> numbered sides 1-12 with dics 1 having side 1 (A) and 6 (B).  But labeling
> that one disc as one release in a box set on MB will seriously screw up the
> acts of the opera.  Then after ripping all to my computer, playing the CDs
> through in order (Disc1 track 1-10, Disc2 Track 1-10) will throw the whole
> opera out of whack.
> Going from Act 1-Scene1, to Act 3-Scene 2, to Act 1-Scene2 is seriously not
> cool.
>
> I think grouping the sides in the order they were numbered pertains to
> Aritst Intent in a big way.  I can see that argument that this is
> technically incorrect for archiving purposes but the number of people who
> will prefer and use this information in the correctly archived way is FAR
> outnumbered by the people who will be pissed off that MusicBrainz reordered
> their music in a bizzarre unlistenable order.  Plus if the old vinyls were
> converted to CD the CD distributor is going to re arrange them in the order
> they were meant to be listened to anyway.
>
> Perhaps some NGS magic will allow the record to be labeled corretly in an
> archival sense and tagged to digital files in the correct track order.  But
> that is all speculation and will be a long time off.  For now I think
> ordering per artist intent and leaving an annotation how the LP is arranged
> should be entered into the database.
>
> -Dustin (Kerensky97)
>
>
> Trong Trongersoll wrote:
> >
> > I am in the process of ripping my vinyl collection.
> > Generally if it is a one record set i just treat it as
> > one disc since physically it is on disk. If it is a
> > mutiple disk set and the disk one is side 1 & 2, disk
> > 2 is 3 & 4, then this still makes sense to treat each
> > disk li a CD disc.
> >
> > My problem, is that i am currently ripping the concert
> > for Bangladesh album and the first disk contains sides
> > 1 & 6, the second sides 2 and 5, and the thirs sides 3
> > & 4. since the existing CD versions don't even match
> > the track labeling as the original album, i would like
> > to enter it again for the vinyl and instead of using
> > (disc 1) etc. i would like to enter each side as a
> > entry, ie. (side 1)
> >
> > Does anyone have a problem with this?