[mb-users] Re: Re: Clean vs. Explicit versions

[Chad Wilson]

Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> Remember that for most of us arguing the "other way", our argument only
>
>     applies if the track times are the same. The majority of clean vs.
>     explicit versions around have differing track times and/or tracks
>     anyway, and I don't think anyone would argue to keep those
>     instances in
>     a single release.
>
>
>
> This too I don't buy into.  By the same argument, two remixes by 
> different people of the same song, but with the same track time are 
> identical?  (exaggeration, but you get my point).  Different example - 
> on my machine right now I have two versions of the same album.  One 
> had the master mixed by one producer, the other had the master mixed 
> by a different producer (and is much rarer, as it was only 
> accidentally even released at all).    We have both in the database, 
> with annotations on them.  The puids for each are different.  The 
> tracktimes, however, are identical.  So we ought to merge them, even 
> though they're audibly different releases, only because a) the release 
> has the same name, b) the tracklist is the same, and c) the times for 
> the tracks are the same, even though they're audibly and 
> production-credit-wise *not* the same?
I think you misinterpret the point of that strand of my comments, as of 
course they aren't the same in your example and shouldn't be together. 
You're taking my argument outside that of clean vs. explicit and I never 
implied it should be taken outside that.

Having said that, this debate is the usual conflict of practicality vs. 
purity. In this case I go for practicality because botched data across 
two releases has no more value to anyone than an annotation saying there 
are two versions in a single release; given the current schema and 
technical limitations we have.

Chad / voiceinsideyou