[mb-users] Remastered Reissues with same/different content

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2007/7/6, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com>:
>
> 2007/7/6, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>:
> > 2007/7/6, Mike Lerch <mike.lerch at gmail.com>:
> > > I'd like some guidance before I do an edit.  The artist Mike Keneally
> > >
> > (http://musicbrainz.org/artist/b018a7c2-2f56-4f01-ac7e-ad9b4c73226c.html
> > )
> > > recently gained control of some of his early releases from the old
> > > record label and is remastering and reissuing them on his own record
> > > label.
> > >
> > > In the case of the album hat,
> > >
> > http://musicbrainz.org/release/3b3ac7c8-8820-4a63-8f0b-13292b8a4df4.html
> ,
> > > the remaster includes new content (no new tracks, but some tracks have
> > > formerly edited pieces restored and are thus longer).  In the case of
> > > the album Boil That Dust Speck,
> > >
> > (
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/bbdcbdb9-c2d1-45eb-91c3-751138d18bb9.html),
> > > while it sounds different, there isn't any new content
> > >
> > > So my question is what are the guidelines here?  I looked up Pink
> > > Floyd's Dark Side of the moon to get an idea of what to do when
> > > something is remastered/re-released.  It looks like I can add a
> > > release event and that would take care of Boil That Dust Speck.  I
> > > looked up Pink Floyd's The Final Cut to get an example of an album
> > > that was remastered and re-released with an additional track and in
> > > that case it is listed as a whole separate album.  Note that in the
> > > case of hat it doesn't actually have a new track, just longer versions
> > > of tracks.  In both cases I noted that the title of the album stayed
> > > the same (while at Amazon they have "hat" and "hat. (remastered)".
> > >
> > > If anyone can provide me with detailed advice or a better place to
> > > look on the Wiki I'd really appreciate it.  Thanks much!
> > >
> >
> > I'd enter both as separate releases. In the first case, the track
> durations
> > are significantly different, so it is a different release.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The second is
> > less obvious, but I believe most editors agree that if the sound is
> > different, then it should be a separate release.
>
> I don't agree on this one.
> Vinyl versus CD sound different.
> Cassette versus vinyl sound different.
> ... etc (you got the idea).
>
> Though we don't create a unique release entry per media on which it's
> released.
>
> So, why would we create a separate entry for something which may be
> less different than the difference between a vinyl and a cd?
>

Ok. Once again, I wasn't clear enough :-) I did not say we should separate
them, just that last time I checked, other voters tended to say that
remastering was a sufficient reason for creating a new release. I agree that
it means that the medium should be linked to the release, not to the release
event. OTOH, it means we lose the information that the new release is
different, not only re-release, but with a different musical content. Let's
say Mike wants to add an AR to say that Mike Keneally edited the release.
How can he do so if the 2 releases are entered as one? He can't put the AR
on the original release since the original was not edited by the artist...

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20070706/8c6d9281/attachment-0001.htm