Re: [mb-style] RFV: STYLE-331add 'composite reissue' relationship (aka 'includes')
tl;dr: Maybe this relationship shouldn't be used for singles. On 09/11/2014 12:00 PM, lixobix wrote: 1) A release group includes another when it retains: The track list in essentially the same order as the original The original title, possibly as a medium title, a super-title in the track list, or in reproduced cover art It's not clear to me whether this means that both conditions must be met in order to use the relationship. Generally and, or at least that's what I had in mind. 2) Does the relationship apply when only certain releases in the RG contain the included release? For example, when a certain release of an album contains an EP as bonus tracks. No. [ReleaseGroup 1]includes[ReleaseGroup 2]? For this to be true, all editions of ReleaseGroup 1 should include some version of ReleaseGroup2. 3) A release group generally doesn't include singles unless it is explicitly a compilation of singles. To link a single to the album it appears on, use the Single from relationship. Does the relationship apply only when there is a compilation of singles in their entirety, i.e. including all b-sides, or does it apply to any singles compilation? Also, cannot a release include a single's lead track and then it's b-sides as bonus tracks? In my mind, b-sides, remixes or whatever are not required, because they don't define the single. They're more like bonus tracks, and often are not present on all versions of the single. But now that you mention it, maybe this relationship isn't a good fit for singles for that reason. There is often no canonical version of a single, the way there is with a an album or EP. 4) There could be a few more examples, particularly to illustrate singles compilations, and releases with added ep tracks or b-sides as bonus material. Hmm. My goal with this relationship is to link boxes and 2-in-1s to the releases they include. I suspect that for a release w/ bonus tracks, that will usually be a specific release and won't apply to the entire release group. I think there's also a need for two other similar relationships. 1. [Release]includes[ReleaseGroup]. example: a release is reissued with an EP included as bonus tracks. 2. [Release]contains[Release] example: linking a box (or similar) set to the discs it contains (if they are also available separately). ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: STYLE-331add 'composite reissue' relationship (aka 'includes')
On 12.09.2014 08:17, caller#6 wrote: tl;dr: Maybe this relationship shouldn't be used for singles. Except for singles boxsets. 3) A release group generally doesn't include singles unless it is explicitly a compilation of singles. To link a single to the album it appears on, use the Single from relationship. Does the relationship apply only when there is a compilation of singles in their entirety, i.e. including all b-sides, or does it apply to any singles compilation? Also, cannot a release include a single's lead track and then it's b-sides as bonus tracks? In my mind, b-sides, remixes or whatever are not required, because they don't define the single. They're more like bonus tracks, and often are not present on all versions of the single. But then there's the question whether e.g. 1 by The Beatles includes all their number-one hit singles in terms of this relationship and should be linked to them. Just the lead track doesn't seem restrictive enough. Then you could link it to the singles to any VA comp as well. I think there's also a need for two other similar relationships. 1. [Release]includes[ReleaseGroup]. example: a release is reissued with an EP included as bonus tracks. 2. [Release]contains[Release] example: linking a box (or similar) set to the discs it contains (if they are also available separately). I'm not a fan of having relationships describing essentially the same thing at different levels. It just leads to ambiguity and inconsistency where it should be added. Release contains Release seems like trivia in many cases. E.g. I know that Eminem's The Singles boxset contains mostly the European/German single versions of his albums up to The Eminem Show, plus a promotional single. So I could link to the specific releases on their own, but there's not that much additional value gained from this over RG-RG or release-RG. Plus there might be slight (e.g. packing) differences between the original releases and the compilation that might render the relationship effectively incorrect. For the 168-disc boxset that has been linked to a few times, things would be clearer. But the box and the individual sets are already in the same RG. And the least the behemoth needs is being clogged with 42 additional release-release relationships stating the obvious. I think it should be better to have just one AR for this, either between RG and RG or release and RG. Clearness and consistency weighs higher for me than catching every slight nuance. And the better solution doesn't have to be the RG-RG one proposed here. Which is why I would have preferred for this to stay in RFC just a wee bit longer. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: STYLE-331add 'composite reissue' relationship (aka 'includes')
On 12 September 2014 09:24, KRSCuan donc...@gmx.de wrote: On 12.09.2014 08:17, caller#6 wrote: ... I think there's also a need for two other similar relationships. 1. [Release]includes[ReleaseGroup]. example: a release is reissued with an EP included as bonus tracks. 2. [Release]contains[Release] example: linking a box (or similar) set to the discs it contains (if they are also available separately). I'm not a fan of having relationships describing essentially the same thing at different levels. It just leads to ambiguity and inconsistency where it should be added. That can be a problem (I'm thinking about this with series at the moment), but with the right guidance it needn't be. Release contains Release seems like trivia in many cases. E.g. I know that Eminem's The Singles boxset contains mostly the European/German single versions of his albums up to The Eminem Show, plus a promotional single. So I could link to the specific releases on their own, but there's not that much additional value gained from this over RG-RG or release-RG. Well isn't trivia largely in the eye of the beholder. Wouldn't many think most of the info on MusicBrainz was trivia? But sure, they might not be worth having until if/when a 'set' entity comes about. Plus there might be slight (e.g. packing) differences between the original releases and the compilation that might render the relationship effectively incorrect. In which case it shouldn't be used For the 168-disc boxset that has been linked to a few times, things would be clearer. But the box and the individual sets are already in the same RG. And the least the behemoth needs is being clogged with 42 additional release-release relationships stating the obvious. Yes, don't use such a relationship within release groups makes sense (but all of this is not really relevant to this RFC/V) I think it should be better to have just one AR for this, either between RG and RG or release and RG. Clearness and consistency weighs higher for me than catching every slight nuance. And the better solution doesn't have to be the RG-RG one proposed here. Which is why I would have preferred for this to stay in RFC just a wee bit longer. They would both do quite different things. There's no point in loads of duplicate relationships where all members of a RG include another, so this relationship should stand. But Release includes RG is still useful when RG doesn't include RG. To repeat my current favourite example: Sounds to Consume [1] includes Turbo EP [2] (RG-RG) Sounds to Consume (champion edition) [3] includes Sonic Boom Six EP [4] (Release-RG) [1] http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/a0ca0669-8468-3d4b-9cfb-35befb0c0bda [2] http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/22e31f56-469a-3d48-9065-7c495ff45a33 [3] http://musicbrainz.org/release/e855df59-8cb2-4fe1-a094-4d0f5daeddf5 [4] http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/7083b353-bd78-31d7-87da-ae35744b76ed ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: STYLE-331add 'composite reissue' relationship (aka 'includes')
I think it can be a bit complicated or unclean with both a RG-includes-RG relation, and a Release-includes-RG relation. Still I wouldn't want to miss the possibility of indicating when only some releases have that as extra material. Thinking more about what I think the main relation here really is in the real world I'm thinking it's actually from the *mediums*. When I look at a box set like the 18cd http://musicbrainz.org/release/792fef6a-a89c-4687-a1e3-31e17c51eaec the thing that for me makes this into a boxset of earlier releases and not just a big collection, is that the individual 18 cds correspond to previously existing entities. It's not only the case that this release includes the LP Ramlösa kvarn but more specifically it is the case that *disc 2* of this release is like Ramlösa kvarn. That more specific link is useful to get links from the right places and not just a bunch of unsorted links to included RGs. The problem about linking from releases or RGs would disappear. If a particular release doesn't have a particular medium then it doesn't have that link. Even though links would be from mediums that information would be *shown* at release and RG level as well. At the display of an RG something like this includes RG1, RG2 och RG3 or some releases include RG4 could be shown. Maybe this is too far out, but I wanted to mention it anyway as an alternative way to think about this. The somewhat more exact meaning of such a link from a medium to an RG would be that this medium (together with other mediums of this release that have the same link, if any) is like a reissue of that RG. (The paren for example if one of the albums in a box set is a double album.) ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: STYLE-331add 'composite reissue' relationship (aka 'includes')
On 09/12/2014 05:09 AM, Tom Crocker wrote: On 12 September 2014 09:24, KRSCuan donc...@gmx.de mailto:donc...@gmx.de wrote: For the 168-disc boxset that has been linked to a few times, things would be clearer. But the box and the individual sets are already in the same RG. And the least the behemoth needs is being clogged with 42 additional release-release relationships stating the obvious. Yes, don't use such a relationship within release groups makes sense (but all of this is not really relevant to this RFC/V) /Should/ a box and it's components be in the same RG? That doesn't fit my understanding of what an RG is. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: STYLE-331add 'composite reissue' relationship (aka 'includes')
On 12.09.2014 14:09, Tom Crocker wrote: They would both do quite different things. There's no point in loads of duplicate relationships where all members of a RG include another, so this relationship should stand. But Release includes RG is still useful when RG doesn't include RG. To repeat my current favourite example: Sounds to Consume [1] includes Turbo EP [2] (RG-RG) Sounds to Consume (champion edition) [3] includes Sonic Boom Six EP [4] (Release-RG) [1] http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/a0ca0669-8468-3d4b-9cfb-35befb0c0bda [2] http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/22e31f56-469a-3d48-9065-7c495ff45a33 [3] http://musicbrainz.org/release/e855df59-8cb2-4fe1-a094-4d0f5daeddf5 [4] http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/7083b353-bd78-31d7-87da-ae35744b76ed The flaw with this example is that the Champion edition doesn't really include the Sonic Boom Six EP, but only four songs from it. Plus I don't know whether those are the same versions as on the original release. But if we still added that relationship, it would be between two of three releases of Sounds to Consume and the Sonic Boom Six RG. That's not much less than the three of three releases that include songs from the Turbo EP, so we might as well do the whole relationship between releases and RGs. A more famous example that is best handled as release-RG might be Lady Gaga's The Fame Monster[1]. As you might know, most releases of the album come with her debut The Fame[2], but there are also versions without it. This can't be handled at RG-RG level at all. Release-release would require associating releases with the correct version of The Fame: the US got the US version of it as disc 2, Japan the Japan version etc. And we don't even have the German stand-alone version of The Fame entered so far (or it was lost during NGS migration). Even then it would arguably still be incorrect, as the packaging, cat.# etc. don't correspond. Linking releases of The Fame Monster that include The Fame to its RG would work, while being much more foolproof than release-release. Another example that is somewhat similar to yours would be Porsche - Genscher - Hallo HSV by Die Goldenen Zitronen[3]. It was initially released on vinyl in 1987. When it was released on CD, it also included their maxi single Am Tag als Thomas Anders starb and the EP Das ist Rock as well as two new tracks. This version was re-issued at least once with a different barcode. (On a side note, Am Tag als Thomas starb includes their first single Doris ist in der Gang in its entirety) Again, this can't be described through an RG-RG relationship at all. Release-release wouldn't work either, as the maxi single and the EP were previously vinyl-only, while in the CD version the songs are just tacked on at the end of the album. Because of releases like these, I think this relationship should be between a release and an RG. An RG-RG relationship would be completely unsuitable for re-releases or bonus editions with additional, previously released content. One of the most common scenarios where we'd want to link to the content's origin. [1] http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/d8707dc0-18ad-4f04-8d84-e81ceda4c681 [2] http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/e5495719-b3ad-3eea-a533-fb70af43c23d [3] http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/1a49b884-9d0f-3302-97c5-58db9e93e9cd ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
