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

[Olivier]

2007/7/7, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg at gmail.com>:
> 2007/7/7, Edward Branham <ebb at usa.net>:
>
> > We may being a bit sidetracked by semantics here.   First, lets agree on a
> > definition.
> > Remastering is, at its core, the process of creating a new master (the
> > recording which is duplicated for production or transferred to other
> > formats) for an album, movie, or any other creation. It tends to nowadays
> > specifically refer to the process of porting a creation from one medium to
> > another, but this is not always the case. For example, a vinyl LP
> originally
> > pressed from a worn-out copy tape many tape generations removed from the
> > "original" master recording could be remastered and re-pressed from a
> better
> > condition tape.
> >
> > Here buzz-speak and practical application collide. In actuality, all CDs
> > created from analogue sources are technically digitally remastered. The
> > process of creating a digital transfer of an analogue tape re-masters the
> > material in the digital domain, even if nothing "special"--no
> equalization,
> > compression, or other processing--is done to the material.
> >
> > Given that basis ...
> >
> > IMHO - If the material has simply been ported from one type distribution
> > media to another (from Vinyl to CD for instance), and either left
> completely
> > as original, or if sound enhancing has been applied (compression, rumble
> > reduction, etc), the resulting product is not a new release.  It is that
> > same old release in a different format.
> >
> > HOWEVER - If tracks of the original master are altered in any other way,
> by
> > remix, addition or deletion of material, by addition or deletion of new
> > tracks, this IS a new release as it has been substantially altered from
> the
> > previous version.  This situation deserves to be treated as a new release.
> >
> > FOR the two cases below:
> >
> > "hat" has tracks with added material and should be treated as a new
> release
> >
> > "Boil That Dust Speck" has sonic differences, but no substantial changes
> in
> > the original material.  This is a true re-issue and should be reflected in
> > the existing release record.
> >
>
> I agree with your definition (although the fact that the word "remastered"
> appears often falsely on releases is bound to mislead MB editors). This
> leaves us with the problem I raised: the re-issue of "Boil That Dust Speck"
> was engineered by Mike Keneally. How and where do I enter an AR to say so
> (admitting I wanted to do so, which is recommended by MB guides AFAIK)?
>

This problem is not different from other AR specific to an edition.
Say you have an exact reprint of release A (same sound, same titles),
the only difference being new liner notes.

Right now you can only:
- not enter the new AR
- enter the AR, and write something in the annotation mentioning that
this AR applies only to edition X (which is what I usually do)

Not really ideal, sure...

- Olivier