On 05/05/06, derGraph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Bransden wrote:
>> > 1)
>> http://musicbrainz.org/album/d7838033-55fe-4fa4-949a-7bb96cc88839.html
>> > was released as a 2 disc version -
>> > http://musicbrainz.org/album/45fb70b6-a8af-4f44-9ea8-b03dc528b3b6.html
>> > and
>> > http://musicbrainz.org/album/d7cebc7d-b5b8-4821-bc6c-148481907b92.html
>> > - so it's "tri repetae" and "tri repetae++" - the "++" is on the
>> > cover, but i suppose it's version info and should be deleted?
> but isn't the "++" just a fancy way of saying "special edition"?
On the one hand it is, but on the other hand it is also some kind of
artistic expression. Or at least we cannot prove it is only a marketing
statement.
well it's just a "++" showing that it has more content IMO, but i
agree there's no real way of telling, but the same could be said for
any special edition...
i wish there was some kind of consensus on this - my tags are so
inconsistant. i have situations like global communication's 76:14
special edition being a seperate release (
http://musicbrainz.org/showalbum.html?albumid=413942 ), yet all of the
falls special editions have been merged together (
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/d5da1841-9bc8-4813-9f89-11098090148e.html
). examples like these repeat themselves through my collection and (i
assume) the DB.
> i just wish there was another way of seperating the actual album from
> the extra disc. although it's only available as 2 discs in that
> configuration, the original album is contained in the first disc, if
> you see what i mean...
Sure. But isn't that what AR is for?
i'm not sure how ar could help here. the issue is in the tags -
there's a difference between an album that's split over 2 discs, and
an album that's reissued with bonus tracks, and an extra disc(s).
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
