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

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

2007/10/26, Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com>:
>
>
> > The problem with keeping multiple releases is that PUIDs and disc ids
> > etc will /always/ be incorrectly attributed even if there is some funky
> > annotation explaining it because very few users actually look at that
> > info. It means you have two logical entities in theory, but you get a
> > big mess of actual data relating to them making them essentially the
> > same release after any period of time. That mess is difficult for anyone
> > to clean up because the data is difficult to obtain reliably and few
> > people have both copies.
>
>
> Mis-identified PUIDs and TOCs doesn't seem, to me, to be a great reason to
> merge data...  It seems more an argument for trying to better prevent things
> being added to the wrong release, not a reason to simply merge non-identical
> releases for the sake of simplicity.
>
> 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 know this argument has been brought up before with respect to remasters,
> and I still think those perhaps ought to be separated.  But merging releases
> that are so different that even the label bothers to label them as
> different?  ("Clean" / "Explicit")  I agree with Frederic - that wouldn't be
> us being discriminant enough, and would definitely not be cool.
>

Brian, Chad said explicitly "same PUIDs and same durations". So admitting
whole releases such as these exist (all tracks are identical in length and
PUIDs but differ in the audible content), what should we do?

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.musicbrainz.org/pipermail/musicbrainz-users/attachments/20071026/3c2294cd/attachment.htm