Brian Schweitzer | 1 Aug 02:40 2009
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Aurélien Mino <a.mino-GANU6spQydw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
> 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!
>
For those who aren't already aware of it, there's an open edit and a
(long, long) "discussion" about merging different bootlegs recording of
a live show:
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10956897

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.

-----------------------------------------------

Brian

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
Paul C. Bryan | 1 Aug 03:00 2009
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

I think the "different-enough-ness" of which you speak is when there is
artistic merit in differentiating one release from another. The example
cited in edit #10956897 -- the McCartney remix of "Let It Be" entitled
"Let It Be... Naked" warrants a separate release group through this
distinction.

Your argument leads us down the path of having several release groups
for every concert a popular band performs. Theoretically, if 100 people
record and publish a concert, by your logic every recording deserves to
be its own release group. IMO, it should be a single release group
(representing the work of the *artist* -- in this case the band
performing the concert) with potentially 100 versions listed within the
group.

As was also pointed-out, we're not losing information here. We're not
merging releases. We're grouping them in a way that makes their listing
and consumption manageable.

Paul

On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 20:40 -0400, Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Aurélien Mino <a.mino <at> free.fr> wrote:
>         Nikolai Prokoschenko wrote:
>         > 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!
>         >
>         
>         For those who aren't already aware of it, there's an open edit
>         and a
>         (long, long) "discussion" about merging different bootlegs
>         recording of
>         a live show:
>         http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=10956897
>         
>         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.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> 
> Brian
> 
> 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 <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Brian Schweitzer | 1 Aug 03:34 2009
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 9:00 PM, Paul C. Bryan <email-Xf9ZKMLjR+qsTnJN9+BGXg@public.gmane.org> wrote:
I think the "different-enough-ness" of which you speak is when there is
artistic merit in differentiating one release from another. The example
cited in edit #10956897 -- the McCartney remix of "Let It Be" entitled
"Let It Be... Naked" warrants a separate release group through this
distinction.

Your argument leads us down the path of having several release groups
for every concert a popular band performs. Theoretically, if 100 people
record and publish a concert, by your logic every recording deserves to
be its own release group. IMO, it should be a single release group
(representing the work of the *artist* -- in this case the band
performing the concert) with potentially 100 versions listed within the
group.

As was also pointed-out, we're not losing information here. We're not
merging releases. We're grouping them in a way that makes their listing
and consumption manageable.

We're not losing some specific bit of data, no.  But what we are losing is the semantic concept of a "release group" being consistently "a group of releases with the same audio".  Each entity type in the database describes some consistent "something".  The proposed change, making RGs conceptual groupings, rather than groupings based on "same audio", changes that.  Now you have one "sameness" for albums, a different one for remixes, a different one for audiobooks, yet another for soundtracks, and still yet at least two others for live releases, depending on if they're bootleg, or official.

Thus, we are losing information, in losing the specific meaning of a basic entity type.  We're not doing it for any real benefit, either.  It doesn't help those who collect bootlegs, as now they have all recordings for a show dumped in together, even though they are entirely different.  It only serves to gain "cleaner looking artist listings".  Honestly, since when did we ever decide to actually change data, the meaning of entity types, or decide to make an objective field into a subjective field simple because it made one view of the data look "cleaner"?  If people want session entities, to group all tracks/releases recorded on a given date together, they ought to support the SessionProposal after NGS, not try to change RG's in a manner which lessens the utility of RGs.

Brian
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Chad Wilson | 1 Aug 03:47 2009
Picon
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

Pavan Chander wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Aurélien Mino <a.mino <at> free.fr 
> <mailto:a.mino <at> free.fr>> wrote:
>
>
>     In the last section of the page, we have:
>     "The title of a release group should usually be the title of its
>     individual releases, removing Extra Title Information
>     <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Extra_Title_Information> added due to
>     Disc
>     Number Style <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Disc_Number_Style>, Volume
>     Number Style <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Volume_Number_Style> etc"
>
>     Could we remove the reference to Volume Number Style
>     <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Volume_Number_Style>?
>     This is in contradiction with the section "When Not to Group Releases
>     together", where it's said that "A Series
>     <http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Series> of different volumes" should
>     not be
>     grouped (and thus there's no reason to not have the volume number in
>     release-group title).
>
>     - Aurélien
>
> +1
> Makes sense to me.
>
>
> Pavan Chander // navap 
Yup, I've removed that now. It was me that wrote that, and I did so 
without thinking properly, as it's clearly inconsistent with the rest. 
It was unintended - thanks for catching that murdos. What I was trying 
to get at with that line was also a "wider" implication, that where 
(Deluxe Edition) or (Expanded Edition) ETI is in titles of some 
releases, it probably won't be in the RG. But I'm not sure it's really 
necessary to be too prescriptive there.

Chad / voice

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Chad Wilson | 1 Aug 04:06 2009
Picon
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> Honestly, since when did we ever decide to actually change data, the 
> meaning of entity types, or decide to make an objective field into a 
> subjective field simple because it made one view of the data look 
> "cleaner"?  If people want session entities, to group all 
> tracks/releases recorded on a given date together, they ought to 
> support the SessionProposal after NGS, not try to change RG's in a 
> manner which lessens the utility of RGs.
>
> Brian
Firstly, there's nothing subjective about a possible guideline to merge 
different recordings of the same live show.

Secondly, we're not "changing" the meaning of anything. The feature is 
new; we're defining it for the first time. So don't paint it as if 
someone is skewing the original developer intention of the concept - 
that's not the case, and you're weasel wording.

 From my perspective - you're trying to skew it to fit your own obscure 
view of what an RG is which lessons the utility to everyone else with 
respect to their view. Your argument is that what we are losing is a 
concept of an RG that is different than most others define it as, which 
is pointless when those disagreeing with you are arguing that your ideas 
lessen the utility for them.

This whole discussion is pointless IMO until one side accepts that what 
they want an RG to be is not what the majority of people want it to be. 
Sorry to state the obvious, but given the likelihood of anyone backing 
down being very low, as usual, this will go nowhere without an executive 
ruling and the guideline will be left in the confused state it is, just 
like the rest of the guidelines.

Chad / voiceinisdeyou
Brian Schweitzer | 1 Aug 04:38 2009
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Chad Wilson <chad.wilson <at> gmx.net> wrote:
Brian Schweitzer wrote:
> Honestly, since when did we ever decide to actually change data, the
> meaning of entity types, or decide to make an objective field into a
> subjective field simple because it made one view of the data look
> "cleaner"?  If people want session entities, to group all
> tracks/releases recorded on a given date together, they ought to
> support the SessionProposal after NGS, not try to change RG's in a
> manner which lessens the utility of RGs.
>
> Brian
Firstly, there's nothing subjective about a possible guideline to merge
different recordings of the same live show.

Secondly, we're not "changing" the meaning of anything. The feature is
new; we're defining it for the first time. So don't paint it as if
someone is skewing the original developer intention of the concept -
that's not the case, and you're weasel wording.

"Bring together variant versions of an album into a single listing" was the original intent.  The proposed guideline respected this, even to the point of specifically stating that different recordings of the same show shouldn't have their RGs be merged.  So how am I then skewing anything?  The wording in the guideline is quite clear, and nothing in "variant versions of an album" encompasses "same concert", "same book", etc.
 
  From my perspective - you're trying to skew it to fit your own obscure
view of what an RG is which lessons the utility to everyone else with

Obscure?  My view is exactly what is written in the guideline, now.
 
respect to their view. Your argument is that what we are losing is a
concept of an RG that is different than most others define it as, which

Define it then.  "Same somethingness" is not a consistent definition, and we've never defined any entity type using a different basis depending on the type or status of the entity.

"Artist" - "same (group of) performer(s) using some constant name"
"Label" - "same imprint releasing mediums"
etc.

So, how is "Release Group" - "collection of releases of the same audio" obscure or hard to comprehend?

If anything, "Release Group" - "1) If type is audiobook, then same book.  2) If type is live AND status is bootleg, then same concert.  3) If type is album, then versions of the same album. 4) ..." is the self-satisfying and obscure definition of what a "Release Group" should be.
 
is pointless when those disagreeing with you are arguing that your ideas
lessen the utility for them.

This whole discussion is pointless IMO until one side accepts that what
they want an RG to be is not what the majority of people want it to be.
Sorry to state the obvious, but given the likelihood of anyone backing
down being very low, as usual, this will go nowhere without an executive
ruling and the guideline will be left in the confused state it is, just
like the rest of the guidelines.

Well, I honestly feel that the Release Group concept is broken if we decide it to be something which is subjective, and where the definition differs, depending on the particular type, status (and voters voting on that RG merge edit).  I feel RGs can be quite useful, and I see them as useful already, using the "same audio" defintion, for albums.  As of yet, I've seen no rationale provided for the proposed confusing definition you want to use, except that it makes the artist listing "cleaner".  IMHO, "cleaner listings" vs "clearly defined entity" and "easy and consistent applicability of the entity definition, no matter the release type and status"...  easy choice.

Brian
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Brian Schweitzer | 1 Aug 04:53 2009
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

Secondly, we're not "changing" the meaning of anything. The feature is
new; we're defining it for the first time. So don't paint it as if
someone is skewing the original developer intention of the concept -
that's not the case, and you're weasel wording.

"Bring together variant versions of an album into a single listing" was the original intent.  The proposed guideline respected this, even to the point of specifically stating that different recordings of the same show shouldn't have their RGs be merged.  So how am I then skewing anything?  The wording in the guideline is quite clear, and nothing in "variant versions of an album" encompasses "same concert", "same book", etc.
 
  From my perspective - you're trying to skew it to fit your own obscure
view of what an RG is which lessons the utility to everyone else with

Obscure?  My view is exactly what is written in the guideline, now.
 
respect to their view. Your argument is that what we are losing is a
concept of an RG that is different than most others define it as, which

Just a followup; digging through the proposed guideline's history brings up some interesting details.  In direct contradiction to your comment, Chad, if you go all the way back to almost the very first version of this guideline, the notion that "Release groups that should not to be merged ... Different bootleg recordings of a live show" is present.  http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Release_groups_usage_guideline&diff=30074&oldid=30073

Also, I would note, it was *you* yourself, Chad, who copied over that guideline's contents to incorporate that page into the current page, including the language: "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. " http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/?title=Release_Group&diff=30170&oldid=30169

So...  how again am I weasel wording, given that this was present just about from the very beginning of this guideline?  How is my view that different recordings of the same show should not be merged so obscure, given that, right from the very first, that viewpoint was part of the earliest drafts of the guideline?

Brian
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Chad Wilson | 1 Aug 05:16 2009
Picon
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

Brian Schweitzer wrote:
>
>     Secondly, we're not "changing" the meaning of anything. The feature is
>     new; we're defining it for the first time. So don't paint it as if
>     someone is skewing the original developer intention of the concept -
>     that's not the case, and you're weasel wording.
>
>
> "Bring together variant versions of an album into a single listing" 
> was the original intent.  The proposed guideline respected this, even 
> to the point of specifically stating that different recordings of the 
> same show shouldn't have their RGs be merged.  So how am I then 
> skewing anything?  The wording in the guideline is quite clear, and 
> nothing in "variant versions of an album" encompasses "same concert", 
> "same book", etc.

Shall I remind you that _I_ wrote most of the guideline incorporating 
pronik, gioele and navap's work? The term "variant" isn't even on that 
page, so I don't know what you're talking about. The bootleg clause was 
inserted by navap, IIRC, based on maybe one or two people's comments on 
IRC or a talk page. That clause was never part of some "grand plan for RGs".

>    >From my perspective - you're trying to skew it to fit your own obscure
>
>     view of what an RG is which lessons the utility to everyone else with
>
>
> Obscure?  My view is exactly what is written in the guideline, now.
I'm talking about your argument about why recordings should be separate; 
that somehow they are not what an RG is for. It's foolish to invoke the 
current guideline as some sort of backup. The only reason that clause is 
still there in the guideline is because of your bitching on the talk 
page at the time. I didn't remove it because I wanted to write a 
guideline that had a hope in hell of passing initially; to be augmented 
and tidied up later. So much for that.

>  Define it then.  "Same somethingness" is not a consistent definition, 
> and we've never defined any entity type using a different basis 
> depending on the type or status of the entity.
Look brian, others have told you what it means to them about a thousand 
times. You don't listen. It's fundamentally subjective - it's music!?

As for "we've never defined any entity type"; absolutely untrue. We 
debate often about whether a set of mp3s on an artist's website are NATs 
or a Release. We debate endlessly about whether a remaster should be a 
separate release to the original, or merged. This is no different an 
argument.

 From the other side's perspective, it's /you/ who are trying to treat 
live bootlegs differently. Trying to introduce now that you have to take 
into account the "recording". THAT's obscure to most people.

> Well, I honestly feel that the Release Group concept is broken if we 
> decide it to be something which is subjective, and where the 
> definition differs, depending on the particular type, status (and 
> voters voting on that RG merge edit).  I feel RGs can be quite useful, 
> and I see them as useful already, using the "same audio" defintion, 
> for albums.  As of yet, I've seen no rationale provided for the 
> proposed confusing definition you want to use, except that it makes 
> the artist listing "cleaner".  IMHO, "cleaner listings" vs "clearly 
> defined entity" and "easy and consistent applicability of the entity 
> definition, no matter the release type and status"...  easy choice.
I'm quite happy for you to think it's broken; since you flatly reject 
everyone else's arguments. Saying "no rationale provided" is plainly 
offensive to others who've actually bothered trying to debate with your 
brick wall.

Chad
neothe0ne | 1 Aug 05:19 2009
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

"Honestly, since when did we ever
decide ..... to
make an objective field into a subjective field simple because it made one
view of the data look "cleaner"?" -Brian

OFF-TOPIC TO RG:
One could argue existing style guidelines over abbreviations, acronyms, and volume style are subjective changes to objective data, assuming that the data is 100% consistent on the publisher's side.  Unless your definitions of "objective" and "subjective" differ from mine, this would be a case of subjectively changing data for a "cleaner" look or search (unless there's another reason I don't know about?).

And plenty of people have voted down my edits on existing anime character song artists for completely subjective reasons - as in, ignoring the booklets and official websites, then providing no other reason than "keep all works of same artist on same page" (even though that undermines the existence of performance names).

ON-TOPIC TO RG:
I am leaning slightly in the direction that different (amateur) recordings should be kept in separate release groups.  But it brings up the important question of, where do you draw the line?  Because currently, remasters of the same release are to be included in the release group of the original (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Groups#Definition), but some remasters may be DRASTICALLY different - even surpassing the audible differences between two amateur bootleg recordings of the same concert!

One such example would be Machinae Supremacy's "Redeemer" album, which was initially released as an in-band production, and later released through a third-party company for mainstream retail.  That company mixed and mastered the sound so differently, some sounds are drowned out at best, MISSING at worst.  I'm sure this isn't the only such case.

In such a case, it could be argued the bootleg recordings would hold more in common than the remastered album and the original!

So once again - where do you draw the line for bootleg recordings?  Or, do you _change_ the line and not include remasters in the same release group as the original?  Because depending on what material we're looking at, it could be argued that RGs would have a double standard regarding what audio a RG "contains".

-neo
_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Andrew John Hughes | 1 Aug 05:31 2009
Picon

Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

2009/8/1 neothe0ne <neothe0ne1 <at> gmail.com>:
> "
> Honestly, since when did we ever
> decide ..... to
> make an objective field into a subjective field simple because it made one
> view of the data look "cleaner"?" -Brian
> OFF-TOPIC TO RG:
> One could argue existing style guidelines over abbreviations, acronyms, and
> volume style are subjective changes to objective data, assuming that the
> data is 100% consistent on the publisher's side.  Unless your definitions of
> "objective" and "subjective" differ from mine, this would be a case of
> subjectively changing data for a "cleaner" look or search (unless there's
> another reason I don't know about?).
> And plenty of people have voted down my edits on existing anime character
> song artists for completely subjective reasons - as in, ignoring the
> booklets and official websites, then providing no other reason than "keep
> all works of same artist on same page" (even though that undermines the
> existence of performance names).
> ON-TOPIC TO RG:
> I am leaning slightly in the direction that different (amateur) recordings
> should be kept in separate release groups.  But it brings up the important
> question of, where do you draw the line?  Because currently, remasters of
> the same release are to be included in the release group of the original
> (http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release_Groups#Definition), but some remasters
> may be DRASTICALLY different - even surpassing the audible differences
> between two amateur bootleg recordings of the same concert!
> One such example would be Machinae Supremacy's "Redeemer" album, which was
> initially released as an in-band production, and later released through a
> third-party company for mainstream retail.  That company mixed and mastered
> the sound so differently, some sounds are drowned out at best, MISSING at
> worst.  I'm sure this isn't the only such case.
> In such a case, it could be argued the bootleg recordings would hold more in
> common than the remastered album and the original!
> So once again - where do you draw the line for bootleg recordings?  Or, do
> you _change_ the line and not include remasters in the same release group as
> the original?  Because depending on what material we're looking at, it could
> be argued that RGs would have a double standard regarding what audio a RG
> "contains".
> -neo
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>

As I already pointed out on the edit, this "same audio" argument
breaks down in a number of cases and a remaster is another.  I also
still fail to see where it originates from, except in Brian's own
head; I don't see anything about the same audio in the existing
guideline and Brian seems to be the only one subscribing to this view
so far.
--

-- 
Andrew :-)

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style <at> lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Gmane