[mb-users] Vinyl sides vs disks.

[Chris Bransden]

On 04/10/06, Bogdan Butnaru <bogdanb at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I think all this is perfect! You're right - listing by 'sides' is far
more logical in this situtation.

> 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?

done! one 2xLP:
http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/e98f8b1e-eac4-42ae-b0d6-20a452221b7e.html
http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/c8bbc99c-a49b-46dc-8614-09ccb49e362c.html
http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/470528c5-5f42-4be6-b55e-71d7d87f94d2.html
http://test.musicbrainz.org/release/b5db7f0b-dfde-483b-b479-5917f1e46c00.html

one thing i noticed - should it be "(side A)" or "(side a)"? i'm
inclined to go with the latter, as it seems this is kind of like
ExtraTitleInformation, and that's all in lowercase. also "side" is in
lowercase so...

also, guesscase would need to be updated to not capitilise "Side" (or
indeed single letters, if they followed side, if others agree that
they should be lowercase, anyway)

> 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.

perhaps things like 7" singles (typically 1 song per side) would seem
a bit unncessary to split into Side A and Side B? maybe this rule
should be for non-singles only? but then, some 2xLPs have 1 song per
side, so maybe it's not really worth having a fussy rule.