Difference between revisions of "Talk:Release Group"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
(Questions)
(Additional scenarios)
Line 23: Line 23:
  
 
::: Just a quick comment on Pronik: Remixed releases should not be included into the same release group unless it's e.g. a bonus disc coming with the normal release. Otherwise they don't have much to do with one another. Example: Puscifer - [http://musicbrainz.org/release/6529af84-0761-4a81-85d4-b288bbc52478.html V Is for Vagina] and [http://musicbrainz.org/release/d08fd024-19ee-40be-9d56-66749ff7d925.html V Is for Viagra: The Remixes] [[User:Prodoc|Prodoc]] 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 
::: Just a quick comment on Pronik: Remixed releases should not be included into the same release group unless it's e.g. a bonus disc coming with the normal release. Otherwise they don't have much to do with one another. Example: Puscifer - [http://musicbrainz.org/release/6529af84-0761-4a81-85d4-b288bbc52478.html V Is for Vagina] and [http://musicbrainz.org/release/d08fd024-19ee-40be-9d56-66749ff7d925.html V Is for Viagra: The Remixes] [[User:Prodoc|Prodoc]] 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
::I think re-recorded releases should be in the same group as original one, as they still keep the same concept. Same goes to remixes. I don't see why [[User:Prodoc|Prodoc]] want to keep them all separated. Remixed albums still bears "remix" mark in its release type, and it is also a part of the same work, of the same concept. So they should be kept in original's RG, similar to how [[User:PavanChander|navap]] pointed on Demos section on this page (I tend to agree with that). Once again, if we keep each variation of the same work as a separate RG, we lose all the advantage of such implementation. Here are some examples I worked with: [http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/d9a178ed-d3b8-3775-88f3-6a67d42506bf.html RG with re-recording] ([http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10665925 edit]) and [http://musicbrainz.org/release-group/97fa2e91-a0ea-34c9-8777-9f0c19ab537c.html RG with remix] ([http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10666561 edit]) - these are all the same work, these are all in the same release group. --[[User:Atedos|Atedos]] 20:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  
 
;Soundtracks
 
;Soundtracks

Revision as of 20:17, 27 May 2009

Additional scenarios

Translations

Transliterations and psueduo releases would be merged, because it's essentially just the packaging around the album that has changed. But what about different audio translations, do they deserve their own release group? e.g. If an artist records an album in English, and then the same album in French. What if the "translated" release also has additional/new material? --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I really hope that pseudo-releases (either for translation or transliteration) will be a non-issue with NGS. Currently, they probably should be in the release group. (subgrouping would be really nice :(). An album released in different languages is obviously a separate release with a separate release group -- lyrics would be different, so we can't group those. pronik 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added both of these to the merged page now. Let's see if there's any debate on the lists? Voiceinsideyou 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed your example, I think perhaps the discussion/debate should take place on the discussion page instead of on the (un)official guideline. The text was as follows:
"2 in 1" releases

Is it worth mentioning that when two separate albums are reissued together for their 20th annivesary that it would form it's own third release group, and not be merged with one of the two earlies release groups? --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd have a perfect solution if one release could be assigned to several RGs. Otherwise, yes, mention it. Could be easily confused. pronik 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Musicals

Is it worth mentioning that each release of a musical would probably be a different release group, unless we are sure it's the same cast/year and it' only a re-issue/remaster. --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a really important remark. We probably need to make this more general -- where do we put a re-recorded release, which is not just remixed or cleaned, but really re-sung and re-played)? I'd think it'd be a separate RG, just like Musicals pronik 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any examples of this? At first glance I wouldn't have thought we would even keep the releases separate, but just add the release event information and merge the two. --navap 17:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick comment on Pronik: Remixed releases should not be included into the same release group unless it's e.g. a bonus disc coming with the normal release. Otherwise they don't have much to do with one another. Example: Puscifer - V Is for Vagina and V Is for Viagra: The Remixes Prodoc 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think re-recorded releases should be in the same group as original one, as they still keep the same concept. Same goes to remixes. I don't see why Prodoc want to keep them all separated. Remixed albums still bears "remix" mark in its release type, and it is also a part of the same work, of the same concept. So they should be kept in original's RG, similar to how navap pointed on Demos section on this page (I tend to agree with that). Once again, if we keep each variation of the same work as a separate RG, we lose all the advantage of such implementation. Here are some examples I worked with: RG with re-recording (edit) and RG with remix (edit) - these are all the same work, these are all in the same release group. --Atedos 20:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Soundtracks

Would different "versions" of the soundtrack belong in the same release group? e.g. One version is the "pop song" soundtrack, one is the score, and one is the expanded score. --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say none, since it's not a version of another album. It's rather a Film<->Sound AR which every soundtrack release could have. Then you could easily group those releases, but via AR, not via RG. pronik 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point, I think we need to make use of are release-url ARs better, instead of saying "Has an IMDB page at" maybe we should make the user aware that any other releases that have stemmed from that movie can be found by clicking "here", and that same thought could be applied to quite a few release-ARs that get multiple releases attached to the same URL. --navap 17:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see that the pop soundtrack should be separate to the score; but score vs. expanded score? Surely those later two could part of the same release group? Voiceinsideyou 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they should form one release group, as all those expanded, complete, remixed scores they all are variations of the same work (the soundtrack itself), and are released just like some reissues with bonus tracks for example. --Atedos 06:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Audiobooks

Popular books are sometimes read by multiple narrators, and in various languages, take a look at Harry Potter's J.K. Rowling's page for a good example. If an author releases a new book, is that the same as a band saying that they're releasing a new album? An author can be considered an artist, and here at MB we definitely already do by accepting audiobook submissions.
It's a little abstract, but the various readings of an audiobook we have in the database all contain the same "lyrics" (words), and "tracks" (chapters), the only difference is the artist who is doing the vocal performance. Sure there are abridged versions of a book that would contain different lyrics and tracks, but then there are also "abridged" albums (promos and such). I think audiobooks should be merged, although I'm not sure about cases where the translated version of the book has been narrated. --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Additional documentation

The last paragraph talks about only needing to merge releasegroups, is an article needed to explain the process, or is the process pretty self explanatory? --navap 15:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd removed this comment (but it has been re-added now); it would sit better inside edit documentation IMO. Voiceinsideyou 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Misc

How should these scenarios be incorporated into the main article? A Q/A section perhaps? --navap 09:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally rather they were incorporated into the lists of "what this is for" and "when not to use". FAQs, IMHO, tend to become unstructured, wordy and difficult to read, and should be reserved for corner cases. Voiceinsideyou 08:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I found an extreme case of a release group of many different international release versions (one disc, two disc, bonus disc, etc.) of the compilation album Best of Bowie (Wikipedia link) which all share one release group. Maybe this one can be used as an example? --MightyJay 12:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Questions

Singles

One short question: should different releases of singles be merged? Because there are many singles that have different releases, with more tracks, less tracks or totally different tracks.

Yes, for the most part the various versions of a single should be merged, there will be documentation coming that will address this. --navap 23:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Beaten to the answer but I'll add what I had. I agree single sets should be under one release group e.g. UK singles are often marketed as a '3-disc set', sold separately in CD, vinyl, download form but are still part of the same basic 'release' entity. However, some singles are re-released at a point in the future, these shouldn't be merged into the original release group as they aren't part of the same 'set', instead they're a release group in their own right.
An example I've been editing recently: Maxïmo Park - The Kids Are Sick Again has 3 formats under one release group, they were all released as part of one marketing campaign so should be grouped. Apply Some Pressure was released twice in 2005 (February and October), as two campaigns (different catalog numbers), so I don't think these should be merged. -- Jarvo 23:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with you, Jarvo, based on the wikipedia page I see no reason why the different release campaigns of the single should be separated. After all, one of the main advantages behind having a release group is the ability to view all the (re)issues of a particluar "Album", "Single", "Soundtrack" etc. Being reissued at a later date is something I see as a normal part of a releases' life. If I've missed something about this particular case, please do correct me. --navap 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with them all being under one release group, it's by far the simplest option and it makes sense the way you've described. -- Jarvo 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Demos

What to do with demos, which later were released as full-lenght albums (with addition of some tracks, bonus tracks, or eve without)? Should they share the same group type (i.e Album or Other), or we should keep them as separate groups? What about converting Demos from Other, Official to Actual type (ep/single/album), Promotion (which may be more correct for demos)? Perhaps this could help in resolving this. --Atedos 10:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in a demo sharing the same release group as it's official release, I feel that is one of the benefits/features of using a release group - all the related material of an album or single are collected on one page. Additionally, I don't think demos should be marked as promotional, as I don't think they're used as marketing material when promoting an artist, I think they're usually found as a bonus track or two on a full length album, or on bootleg releases. --navap 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So which release type will such release group have? Other, as the first demo was, or Album/EP/Single, as a later release is. --Atedos 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the Album/EP/Single release types should take priority over Remix/Live/Other, I feel that the latter types are more "modifiers" to the former types. For example we could have two releases in the database, one marked as "Single", one as "Remix", the remix is infact a remix of the single, and so the overall release group type should be single. If you look at the question on remixes below you'll see an example of that. --navap 12:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Remixes

Should a remix release that is released a few months/years later than the original single release and contains a completely different set of tracks be merged into the original single's release group?

No, that is usually an entirely separate "Album" and should belong in it's own release group. For example, it's a separate entity on the artists discography page. --navap 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And another question: I've got a set of 4 releases containing remixes of a track. 2 of these releases don't contain the original track so their release type is "Remix". But the other two do contain the original tracks so their release type could also be "Single". The track wasn't released as a single before. Should the type of the merged release group be "Remix" or "Single"? vinyl without the original track: http://musicbrainz.org/release/c9c368c0-6fa8-4ab7-b729-6b57473b8c2c.html digital edition including the original track: http://musicbrainz.org/release/15436f95-6df1-4790-923c-66e90e7aa759.html

I would merge those two as they're both "Singles" (from the artist's point of view, not the publishers), and the first link is just marked as "Remix" because it contains primarily remixed material (which is when the guideline says to use the "Remix" type). --navap 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So I should merge this (digital), this (vinyl) and this (unknown, maybe CD) release into one "Single" release group. But what about this vinyl? It was released the same day the other vinyl was released and contains the same two tracks only as "dub" version and "instrumental" version. I don't know wether to regard this as a completely different release or only as some kind of "bonus disc" that is sold separately.
Yes I feel that it should also be merged into the "Moan" release group. If you look carefully it's somewhat similar to the vinyl release you're already planning on merging, in that the release only contains remixed materal — the original "album version" or "vocal version" is not present. --navap 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)