History:Object Model/Depeche Mode Remixes Example

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Example: Depeche Mode - "Remixes 81-04"

There are 4 different versions of this release (note, the slightly different titles):

  1. "Remixes 81··04" (two discs)
  2. "Remixes 81·04" (one disc)
  3. "Remixes 81···04" (three discs)
  4. "Remixes 81····04" (6 vinyl discs)

The one disc release (2.) contains some of the tracks of the two disc release (1.), so the disc is different from all the others.

The two disc release (1.) and the first 2 discs of the three disc release (3.) are identical.

The third disc of the three disc release could be seen as a bonus disc or just "disc 3", it contains additional tracks that are not on 1. and 2.

The 6LP release is just a nice example of a vinyl-box with multiple discs and 12 sides.

The three disc came with a code to access a hidden web-site where one could download an additional '4th disc' with different remixes.

How this should be represented

  1. All 4 examples belong to the same "album idea".
  2. The different titles of the different releases must be shown somehow, even when they share identical discs as 1. and 3.
  3. The "4th disc" (the bonus web album) needs be related to the 3 disc release in some way, but not to the others.
  4. The vinyl release must be represented in a way that allows seeing what is on which disc an which side of the disc.
  5. In the sense of the ObjectModel: All the tracks that represent the same remix on all releases must share the same ../MixObject, the LP and CD versions of the same mix would create different ../MasterObjects, and each master has exactly one ../TrackObject.

Note that I do not think you are using the object the way I understand them. In my reading there will be a ../TrackObject for each single track on each single disc. The tracks of releases 1-3 will all be based on the same ../MasterObject, but will, as you noted, have a different master than the vinyl tracks. All are based on the same ../MixObject. --DonRedman

  • Actually, I meant exactly the same thing you described. ;) All tracks on different CDs that represent the same audio (are the same mix) belong to the same ../MasterObject and all tracks for the vinyl release need a different ../MasterObject. Maybe it's just a misunderstanding? --Fuchs
    • Well, the way I concieve the ../AlbumGroup, each album has a unique set of ../TrackObjects which are not shared betwen different albums. Therefore some masters must have more than one ../TrackObject. We seem to agree on the ../MasterObjects though. --DonRedman
      • Yep, I was one step ahead with my thoughts, meaning I already merged master and track objects in my mind. ;) I think it is not necessary having 2 100% identical (meaning bit to bit identical audio and meta-information) instances of a track. On the other hand, if the track has a different name on one release, then it will be very unlikely that it has the same master. So this is a good argument IMO to merge both object types in the implementation. --Fuchs