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

[Chris B]

On 06/07/07, Olivier <viapanda at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?

 in my experience you're not always likely to get the same sound
between a vinyl and another vinyl of the same release since it changes
so much with age, pressings, record player, etc. PUIDs must be all
over the place with analogue stuff...

ultimately it's the ever moving line between a new 'release' and a new
release date entry. personally i think all releases with the same
tracklisting should be merged OR all different releases (ie all the
ones under different labels, discogs style) be split out. ultimately
the latter makes less sense until NGS is here, but this strange middle
ground we have never sat that well with me :P

anyway that's getting off topic! split or don't split, generally up to
you if you don't mind convincing other editors :)