Re: RFC: Release Groups guideline

2009/8/1 Brian Schweitzer <brian.brianschweitzer <at> gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Paul C. Bryan <email <at> pbryan.net> wrote:
> The problem as I see it is that there would not be a single semantic meaning
> to the RG entity, were this proposed change to pass.  "Same audio" (in the
> sense of having a shared raw audio source at the recording level) is a
> concept that works no matter the type+status.
>

Not true.

The same recording can be printed as is, then later overdubbed with a
new part (see Quintet of the Year vs Debut) and released again. This
is the same sound by your definition ("(in the
sense of having a shared raw audio source at the recording level)"),
yet a (very) different release.

Not going that far, a specific release may appear as a disc in a
boxset, with the exact same content. Still not part of the same
Release Group.

IMHO, you try to present things as "clear" and unambiguous in this
definition (and as unclear and ambiguous in the other), while they are
not.

All in all, I'm not shocked by the suggestion that the same concert
should belong to the same release group. This makes a lot of sense,
and even add some interesting "semantic" in the artist page (eg: by
grouping all variants of the same concert).

2 cents,

Cheers,

- Olivier

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