A RG is currently just a title, a type and a list of releases, it
clearly isn't (presently) "a tracklisting, with various release
events, with various tracks from that RG tied to the particular
event". I agree with Chad here that we should go with something simple
and that the primary use case is t
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Philip Jägenstedt wrote:
> I don't really know or care about bootlegs that much, but in the
> Nirvana case mentioned I don't see why one shouldn't merge that as a
> single release group. I don't think that belonging to the same release
> group should imply that the
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:12 PM, Chad Wilson wrote:
> Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> > The several different threads running at the moment all seem, to me,
> > to be pointing to the fact that we have not actually defined what a
> > release group is.
> >
> > The soundtracks case has the problem of incr
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:55 PM, Atedos wrote:
>
> 2009/5/26 Brian Schweitzer
>
>> However, the recently discussed cases seem to be moving towards a case
>> where the RG isn't being treated as a way to bring together those "so
>> identical it's annoying that we have to add yet another release to
Doh, premature send-hitting. Corrections below.
Chad Wilson wrote:
> What you actually seem to be saying,
> is that you think of it as a >different< release group.
>
Chad Wilson wrote:
> I think "common theme" is almost exactly what a release group is. And
> usually a means to group release
+1
Thanks a lot, Kuno!
Kuno Woudt wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 08:44:41AM +0800, Chad Wilson wrote:
>
>> While I realise that it will be reasonably straightforward in this case,
>> I'd rather see the documentation page beforehand, as a matter of
>> principle. Since documentati
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> The several different threads running at the moment all seem, to me,
> to be pointing to the fact that we have not actually defined what a
> release group is.
>
> The soundtracks case has the problem of increasing scope; the more we
> expand what we would or wouldn't gr
I don't really know or care about bootlegs that much, but in the
Nirvana case mentioned I don't see why one shouldn't merge that as a
single release group. I don't think that belonging to the same release
group should imply that the audio is identical. Some low level of
"same album"-ness should be
2009/5/26 Brian Schweitzer
> However, the recently discussed cases seem to be moving towards a case
> where the RG isn't being treated as a way to bring together those "so
> identical it's annoying that we have to add yet another release to cover
> this other version of a release" cases, but rath
The several different threads running at the moment all seem, to me, to be
pointing to the fact that we have not actually defined what a release group
is.
The soundtracks case has the problem of increasing scope; the more we expand
what we would or wouldn't group, the more we start to bring togeth
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:54 PM, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Brian Schweitzer
> wrote:
> > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Aaron Cooper
> wrote:
> >> I like the idea of grouping multiple versions of the same concert.
> >> Let's you see what other versions are avail
In the case of re-releases of historic opera recordings it is not uncommon
for later re-issues to have the same performance broken into different
numbers of tracks of different lengths. For example, these are two release
groups for one famous recording of Der Rosenkavalier with Karajan and
Schwarzk
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Barry Platt wrote:
> A situation I've seen in a few cases today relates to merging of "standard"
> and "expanded" releases of film scores. This remains an undecided point on
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Talk:Release_Group
>
> Right now, the Release_Group wiki pa
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Atedos wrote:
> If we keep each score variation as a separate group, then the idead of
> release groups goes useless, as we'll get tons of groups of the only
> concept, which is the work title.
> If we get Ttitle, Title (Complete Score), Title (Expanded Score), Tit
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Brian Schweitzer
wrote:
> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Aaron Cooper wrote:
>> I like the idea of grouping multiple versions of the same concert.
>> Let's you see what other versions are available - some contain bonus
>> tracks, some are abridged, others have m
Hello,
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 08:44:41AM +0800, Chad Wilson wrote:
> While I realise that it will be reasonably straightforward in this case,
> I'd rather see the documentation page beforehand, as a matter of
> principle. Since documentation == guideline I think we need to
> vote/withold veto
If we keep each score variation as a separate group, then the idead of
release groups goes useless, as we'll get tons of groups of the only
concept, which is the work title.If we get Ttitle, Title (Complete Score),
Title (Expanded Score), Title (Deluxe Edition) - what is the use of release
groups a
A situation I've seen in a few cases today relates to merging of "standard"
and "expanded" releases of film scores. This remains an undecided point on
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Talk:Release_Group
Right now, the Release_Group wiki page has a FAQ entry added by navap that
gives the example of
In my opinion the same release in different languages ought to be
merged regardless of whether they are official or transliterations.
Quite often (for Chinese releases) two languages appear on the cover
and these are entered as two releases. Keeping these separate when
they aren't even a separate p
Just because some other site does it, doesn't mean everyone should
follow. As I said, it's fine to use the original language by default,
but it makes no sense to force people to use say, Japanese, when
official or unofficial translations are available.
Besides, imdb uses latin script, regardles
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:28 AM, Aaron Cooper wrote:
> IMDB gets away with this just fine. It isn't hard to remember that
> "Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo" = "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly".
> Personally, I think it is more correct to use the original language
> and I'm sure most people wou
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Aaron Cooper wrote:
> I like the idea of grouping multiple versions of the same concert.
> Let's you see what other versions are available - some contain bonus
> tracks, some are abridged, others have multiple discs, etc.
>
> -cooperaa
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 25, 2009
I think it is very useful. For example, there are some older
Metallica bootlegs that have 15+ different issues on vinyl, CD, etc.
Here are some good examples that I've worked on at RYM:
http://rateyourmusic.com/release/unauth/metallica/san_francisco_march_14th_1985/
http://rateyourmusic.com/relea
That sounds like you're suggesting that all the live bootlegs of a concert
should be merged together; not just when there is an official release, but
always. At first I was against that idea, but I'm warming to it, maybe there
is a case for merging all the various releases of the same concert.
Afte
IMDB gets away with this just fine. It isn't hard to remember that
"Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo" = "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly".
Personally, I think it is more correct to use the original language
and I'm sure most people would agree.
-cooperaa
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 8:52 AM, Mika Hei
Aaron Cooper wrote:
> We're talking about the same music though. It personally doesn't
> matter to me which group name they're filed under but I would expect
> the movies original language (Spanish for "good bad n ugly"?)
"Il buono, il brutto e il cattivo", Italian by the way.
I see a similar prob
I like the idea of grouping multiple versions of the same concert.
Let's you see what other versions are available - some contain bonus
tracks, some are abridged, others have multiple discs, etc.
-cooperaa
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Pavan Chander wrote:
>
> I think the two rules are talk
I think I agree with you.
This whole release grouping is easier for other sites (like
RateYourMusic and Discogs) because they only or primarily only link
one release event with one release.
If multiple discs were displayed on a single release's page, then we
would probably group all releases toge
I think the two rules are talking about two separate scenarios, but maybe
the text should be amended to further clarify that.
"Different bootleg recordings of a live show, *that don't have an official
release*, e.g. [...]".
Would this wording help, what would you suggest?
Pavan Chander // navap
Hi!
>From the page:
“There are a number of cases where it is not appropriate for releases
to be part of the same group: [...] Different bootleg recordings of a
live show”
“Promotional and bootleg versions of albums, singles etc should be in
the same release group as the regular official release.”
This is what I hope for, or something close to it. Not just for official
translations, but for pseudos as well. I'm all for having original
language as a default, but there is something to be said about usability
of the site, and quite frankly, browsing the release listings of some
foreign arti
We're talking about the same music though. It personally doesn't
matter to me which group name they're filed under but I would expect
the movies original language (Spanish for "good bad n ugly"?)
On 24-May-09, at 11:55 PM, Brian Schweitzer > wrote:
Well, for a more 'familiar' case, where
Hello,
what should the release group guideline be for re-releases with bonus discs?
Release "Foo Bar" has been released in 2007. In 2008 it is re-released in 2-
cd limited edition with another complete album "When I was younger" as
additional bonus disc.
Pre-release groups we would have
"Foo B
33 matches
Mail list logo
