1 Aug 02:40 2009
Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline
Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer@...>
2009-08-01 00:40:03 GMT
2009-08-01 00:40:03 GMT
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Aurélien Mino <a.mino-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:For those who aren't already aware of it, there's an open edit and a
> Dear fellow Brainerz,
> it seems that my earlier mail got lost in the depths of Gmane gateways :( I
> won't repeat everything I've written in the last mail, you know how it works
> better than me. So here it goes again: we are now ready to receive comments
> on the Release Groups guideline for it to become official!
> It's located in our wiki at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Group ,
> please comment!
(long, long) "discussion" about merging different bootlegs recording of
a live show:
This goes against the proposed guideline, but I would like to propose
that this particular point being changed.
My main argument is that the purpose of release-groups, as far as I
understand it, is to present a general overview of discography of an
artist, and not a detailed view as we have with releases.
Thus separating different recordings (audience, soundboard, ...) of the
same live show seems to go against that purpose.
- Aurélien // murdos
Well, no surprise, I object.
True, the guideline first defines that a release group is "used to group several different releases into a single logical entity."
However, it doesn't stop there. It then specifies the main problem with the conceptual grouping you suggest, namely: "Every release belongs to one, and only one release group."
This limitation makes perfect sense when we're talking about different versions of the same album. However, the conceptual grouping suggested seems to have as a goal only the "decluttering" of artist listings. It groups together releases based not on the audio content, but on something outside of the recorded audio. It no longer is "basically the same release", but now becomes "they both are recordings of the same 'something'".
This edit isn't the only place this is being attempted.
Grouping because they're the "same concert": http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10956897
Grouped simply because they were readings of the "same book": http://musicbrainz.org/artist/569c0d90-28dd-413b-83e4-aaa7c27e667b.html
(I can't find some of the others, but we've seen "same movie", etc being used as rationale.)
The problem is, "variation of the same album" is pretty much a situation where there's a 1:1 relationship between a release and a group consisting of other variations on that same release. This is not the case for these conceptual groupings. They all are n:1 - there's no *one* correct "sameness" that applies... and, once we get into grouping for subjective, rather than objective, reasons, why should we expect anything different?
Why do we want to group different versions of an album together, even if one has bonus tracks, or one has a bonus disc? At heart, they're still essentially the same audio, even if there is more audio (via extra tracks, etc) on some versions. We group stero and mono versions together, but that's still the *same* audio, just (relatively minorly) different mixes of it.
As pbryan pointed out in that edit, we *don't* group together an album and a remix release based on that album. There's clearly some sufficient "different-enough-ness" there that we're respecting.
I agree, soundtracks are really a messy point, but luckily, that's outside of this particular debate. However, I think audiobooks and live concerts both have the same type of different-enough-ness here that we should stick to grouping on an objective, not subjective, basis. As the essential "sameness" of an album is that it is a distinct recording, I've suggested we be consistent, and apply that same standard to live bootlegs (and audiobooks). If two+ concert bootlegs stem from the same recording, group them. If they don't, don't group them. If two+ audiobooks are versions of the same release (say a digital download version and a CD version), merge them. If they're two entirely separate readings (and often even different languages being spoken), keep them separate. After all, are we trying to achieve clean-looking artist listings, or are we actually trying to acurately document audio release groups, using some consistent standard?
On this basis, (to copy from my note in edit 10956896), I've suggested edit http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10989727 and the following guideline for RG merging with respect to live concert recordings, be they official or bootleg. (murdos, you can consider this my proposed alternate to your proposal):
For official live releases, and bootleg live / studio releases:
Keep the wording in the draft just as it is:
"When Not to Group Releases together: ... Different bootleg ****recordings**** of a live show, e.g. bootleg 1 and bootleg 2 of a 1970 Pink Floyd concert in San Francisco. ..." (Emphasis added)
Then, for live concert recording RG titles:
1. Use "yyyy-mm-dd: location" as the title.
2. If there are multiple recording sources for the same bootleg, a separate RG should be used for each recording source. Then use "yyyy-mm-dd: location (source)" as the title.
3. If there is an official release, using the same recording source as a bootleg, then the title of the official release should be used for the RG title.
So, the resulting RG titles:
1995-09-20 Wed: Toronto, ON, Canada - #1 applies
2009-07-07 Tue: Le Zenith, Paris, France - #1 applies
2008-12-12 Fri: Arco Arena, Sacramento, CA, USA (AUD) - #2 applies
2008-12-12 Fri: Arco Arena, Sacramento, CA, USA (PRO) - #2 applies
1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK (AMT1b) - #2 applies
1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK (AUD1) - #2 applies
1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK (AUD2b) - #2 applies
MTV Unplugged: Live in New York - #3 applies
This keeps "same recording" together, keeps the artist listing comprehensible (rather than simply three visually identical RG "1991-11-05 Tue: Astoria Theatre, London, UK" listings), avoids the problem of multiple bootleg titles using the same recording source, yet official releases remain simple to find.
We won't always know the lineage; esp with bootlegs, our data about lineages isn't all that great. However, it gives us something clean to work towards, and the number of cases where we have not one, but 2+ listings for the same concert, yet don't have known lineage for at least one of the two recordings, is pretty much a statistical blip, and as we get better data, those would get dealt with. Re: "AUD", "PRO", "AMT", "SBD", "Matrix", etc, there's not too many of them, and for anyone who would care about these releases, those are meaningful terms. In accordance with the decision in the other edit to not include this (source) info in the release titles, this removes the bootleg title, while adding the source info, but only in the RG title. LiveBootlegStyle, as is, would still be used for release titles.
PS: My apologies. I know my response is long. However, I feel very strongly about this. This change in guideline, as I see it, doesn't just change some minor point, but rather, it changes the entire RG concept, making it a totally subjective concept, rather than a defined objective concept. And, if that change were to be made, not only do I see it as weakening the utility of RGs, but I also see it as *requring* a change to the ngs schema, such that a release could be a member of multiple RGs (n:1), rather than just one (1:1), as otherwise we're simply letting some majority (via vote) decide what they consider, on a case by case basis, to be the most preferred subjective grouping.
_______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@... http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style