On 19-Aug-08, at 12:19 PM, Sami Sundell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got into a conversation about the additional information that's used
> to differentiate between versions of a release - deluxe edition,
> limited
> edition, remastered, or in the case of
> <http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=9200106>, "not final
> master".
>
> To cut the long story short: I've the impression that we remove that
> kind of information from release titles, unless there's some other
> reason to leave it there (such as it being the whole name, as in Led
> Zeppelin's Remasters compilation). However, I couldn't find anything
> in
> the guide lines to actually verify that; the closest thing is part of
> discussion in http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ExtraTitleInformationStyle
> and
> even there it's only "leave out information not discussed in official
> style guidelines".
>
> Some people are of the opinion that if it says "deluxe edition" in the
> release then it should say so in MusicBrainz as well. Others think
> it's
> superfluous information that can very well reside in annotations. I
> think it might be a good idea to actually decide on the policy and say
> it out loud in the guidelines.
I really don't like filling the release titles with stuff that isn't
part of the release title (performers in classical, mastering info,
etc.).
Perhaps we could solve this with a "version" AR for linking releases
(and tracks!).
"X is a(n) { acoustic | abbreviated | instrumental | live | remastered
| remix | unmastered | etc. } version of Y"
As for things like "deluxe/limited" editions, I'm more than happy to
see that in the annotation since there is no difference in the audio
on the release (except for extra tracks). Things where the music is
different (acoustic, live, remixed, remastered, etc) I think would be
best solved using ARs.
-Aaron
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
