Tom Crocker | 1 Sep 23:36 2014

RFV: STYLE-335: Add "Box set" as a primary type of Release Group


The proposal is to add "Box set" as a primary type of Release Group, e.g. instead of Album. The rationale is that box sets are often substantially different in scope and scale from albums. They are often also sought in a way other compilations are not. It is a type that (at least in English) is familiar and well populated.

The text to be added to the Release Group/Type documentation is on the wiki page.

The proposal got +1. The only discussion was whether box set would be better as a secondary type, but that doesn't fit as well.

Thanks :)
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Rachel Dwight | 27 Aug 02:34 2014

Artist collectives/Japanese soundtrack style

This is a continuation of Staffan’s discussion on Various Artists credits.
In Japan, it is extremely common for composers to form loose groups with other composers. These groups are commonly called “collectives” among English-speaking J-Pop fans.  Usually these collectives consist of freelance composers, but many major video game developers (e.g. Nintendo, SEGA and Namco Bandai) will employ a group of composers and sound designers and organize them like a freelance collective.

The reason I bring this up is because there is currently some controversy over the legitimacy of collectives as artists, more specifically if a collective can be used as a release artist on a video game soundtrack. 
Firstly, says to credit the artist listed on the cover. This is inapplicable as Japanese soundtrack releases almost never list the names of composers or performers on their cover art. The only place to find the composers is to look in the booklet, which our current guideline expressly prohibits.
Secondly, there’s, which states to use Various Artists if the release contains tracks by more than one artist. This is an extremely broad instruction and it ignores releases by collectives and other temporary groups (e.g. doujin circles).

It’s time we fix the style guidelines (either by appending Style/Language/Japanese or narrowing some definitions on the main style pages) to address this issue. It seems every time one of us attempts to add a Japanese soundtrack it becomes an uphill battle.

Here are the changes I propose:
- If a soundtrack does not list an artist on the cover, it may be acceptable to check the booklet.
- If the composers are listed as being part of a collective, use the collective as the release artist. If none exists or there are tracks contributed by outside artists, use Various Artists.

You can tell if an artist belongs to a collective if his or her name is accompanied by the name of the collective, with either half in parentheses. Here is an example of the presentation of such a relationship:

I’m unsure about making a ticket, so I’ll leave this open to input for a while.
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Staffan | 25 Aug 20:33 2014

When various artists releases aren't various artists releases

A series of my edits where I changed some releases to various artists releases since, well, they were various artists releases have been downvoted with no comment

According to "

  • Various Artists - Used only for compilation-type releases or release groups containing tracks by multiple different artists."

So what's the deal here?

MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Tom Crocker | 24 Aug 23:15 2014

RFC: STYLE-335: Add "Box set" as a primary type of Release Group

The proposal is to add "Box set" as a primary type of Release Group, e.g. instead of Album. The rationale is that box sets are often substantially different in scope and scale from albums. They are often also sought in a way other compilations are not. It is a type that (at least in English) is familiar and well populated.

The text to be added to the Release Group/Type documentation is on the wiki page.

Thanks :)
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Daniel Sobey | 24 Aug 06:30 2014

Re: RFC: STYLE-331 "add 'composite reissue' relationship" -- compilation?

Would it make sense to include the medium?
Medium 1 is available as part of release group.

MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Rachel Dwight | 18 Aug 17:53 2014

RFC STYLE-332: Even more new packaging types

As we are all aware, there are a plethora of packaging types that we have yet to account for in MB. Here are two big ones:

SnapPack - The classic 8cm CD packaging. A plastic frame with a cardboard outer cover (sometimes with an additional plastic outer shell), designed so it can fold ("snap") in half. Sometimes mistakenly called "snap case."

Library case - A box designed to hold a VHS tape. Usually made of hard plastic but some (usually tapes containing feature films) were made of vinyl with padding inside. May or may not have hubs inside to hold the tape spools in place. While this packaging was mainly used for VHS, smaller versions were sometimes used for audio cassettes. 
Image without hubs: 
Image with hubs:
Image of compact cassette-size case:

Expected expiration date: 2014-8-24
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Rachel Dwight | 15 Aug 06:49 2014

Pre-RFC: Rename disambiguation field "Description" states that disambiguation comments are intended to differentiate between/among 2 or more identically named artists/labels/entities. It explicitly states that the field is not to be used as a general description field, yet some editors are dead set on using it for this purpose. They claim it’s a pre-emptive strike, but I don’t buy it. If we’re going to abuse the disambiguation field in this manner, it should be renamed to better suit its purpose.

This thread is to only be used to discuss renaming the disambiguation field. If enough support is shown I will open a new thread to alter the disambiguation document to allow for similar or confusing names.
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
caller#6 | 6 Aug 20:17 2014

RFC: STYLE-331 "add 'composite reissue' relationship"

Hi all,

This proposal would add a relationship linking original release-groups 
with what I'm calling 'composite reissues', (e.g. box sets, 2-in1s etc).

The purpose would be: to indicate that an earlier release-group is/was 
also availble as part of a later, larger release-group. This will become 
more important if 2-in-1s are reclassified as compilations (where they 
might become lost in a long list of "best of" titles).

The appropriate use for this relationship would be: when a composite 
reissue reproduces cover art, track lists and release titles from 
previous release-groups. So, merely including a single in a generic 
"best of" compilation would not be an appropriate use (since that is 
already clear when looking at the recording).

I'm not super-happy with the term 'composite reissue'. Please suggest 
something better!

(I'm not crazy about 'bundle' either, mostly because it implied (to me) 
several products bundled together at a reduced price)

Alex / caller#6


     proposal to reclassify 2-in-1s as compilations:

    relevant forum thread:
Tom Crocker | 4 Aug 19:04 2014

box sets etc.

I'm starting a separate thread for all discussion of a new type (be it primary or secondary) for box sets (or whatever we might call them) so bflaminio's RFC [1] doesn't get hijacked.
There's some existing discussion on this at [2]

Personally, I'd be in favour of this as a primary type. I think box set is a good choice of name because it's recognisable and understood in the sense we mean [3] but a bad choice because it conflates packaging and release group content. Perhaps just 'set' would do, but I still think it's difficult to define in a useful way.
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Patrick Hubenthal | 4 Aug 08:29 2014

Auto Response

From July 27–August 10, I'll be traveling and will be checking my e-mail only occasionally.  I'll respond as soon as possible after I get back.

MusicBrainz-style mailing list
bflaminio | 4 Aug 05:01 2014

RFC: Make 2-on-1 (or generically, M-on-N) release groups "Compilations"

The Release Group style guide indicates that the following is not considered
a "compilation":

"A release containing two albums and/or EPs." (1)

Musicbrainz defines a compilation as:

"a collection of recordings from various old sources (not necessarily
released) combined together." (2)

A 2-on-1 release fits this definition precisely, and is only excluded from
being a compilation because the style guide says so, and not for any
particularly logical reason.

Furthermore, if we ignore the number of discs as being significant, there
are a great many "M-on-N" releases, with all but the 2-on-1 variety already
considered compilations without question.


2-on-1 :
4-on-2 :
5-on-5 :

All the way up to releases like this:

The 2-on-1 is different only in the sense that it is a single disc, but it
is still a collection of previously released recordings, and not a new
release, and therefore it should be a compilation.

The proposal is to remove the line "A release containing two albums and/or
EPs." from the official style guide and associated documents.


View this message in context:
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at