zevulon wrote:

...I made a mental switch - partly because this didn't "interact" with other tracks to any extent - hence, re-release was included.

OK?
http://www.discogs.com/Talk-Ta...Make-It/master/25824

...no fear of entering large MRs.. Sandman is away...

nik wrote:

It's the same body of work, just in different languages. 100% should be in the same Master Release. MR Notes should be used to point out any differences.




That is totally fine, release date should not be a consideration for whether something is eligible to be in a MR.

zevulon wrote:

Again.

Should re-released singles with quite different material, apart from "high-lighted" track, be included in the same MR?

Kergillian wrote:

I was referring to the people who were editing releases just to get them to fit into MRs, which is certainly not external to the release data ;)

[quote-nik]I appreciate your POV and the discussions that were had. The conclusion in that thread, as well as my personal feelings regarding the best use of this function, was to group as many releases as possible, within the bounds of reason. Therefore, things such as number of tracks, release format, release date, reissues etc etc are not to disallow a release from being part of a Master Release, we are looking for the common artistic denominators that can be reasonably used to group releases. This is not the only way to do it, but it is the chosen method. No method will be 'perfect'.

Going with the inclusive method, it is easy to parse out things like formats or dates at some point in the future, either on Discogs, or external using the API. An exclusive method would not be nearly as versatile.[/quote]

1) I tend to agree with hvmh that format-separate MRs would still substantially reduce page clutter, but would make more sense MR-wise.

My suggestion in that regard: can we, when INSIDE the MR, split the releases into format sub-sections? ie: CASSETTE VERSIONS; CD VERSIONS; VINYL VERSIONS; etc...

2) I still feel that the issue with 7"s and 12"s being combined, and 12"s with the same title track but vastly different tracklistings, all being grouped together is not being dealt with.

While an album with bonus features (video tracks, extra tracks, etc) still fits with a 'regular' version of an album within an MR, IMO, we have to tread more carefully with regard to singles and 12"s, because they won't have 10+ tracklistings that connect them. A single song or two connecting releases is not enough, IMO, to MR them.

When you have a 2-track 7" with the same a-side but with a different b-side, according to the guidelines, it DOESN'T get MR'd. So why would a 12" with 4 extra tracks beyond the 7" get grouped together??

We need to align the rules with a little more stringency, IMO, and we need to make them more clear in the guidelines...

zevulon wrote:

..I was getting a similar feel. Or it was just with double A sides that couldn't be entered with other "normal" tucked away b-sides..

hmvh wrote:

Could. If you have reservations about lumping it causing confusion, I'd recommend against it (it's in the guidelines, too).


Sometimes, nik, I wonder if you disagree with me purely for the same of not agreeing... :))

But seriously: I'm seeing some good benefits coming out out of this, we're on the right track. Implementation is a little choppy but on the whole -- good work!
____________________________________________________________

Now, without belittling anyone else's concerns and worries, I have one urgent request:

Please enable line breaks (CRLF) in the MR notes as soon as is humanly possible.
____________________________________________________________

I'm jotting down a list of other quirks and bugs as well (which I can work around for now) but I really do need line breaks in the MR notes for the whole picture to fall into place. Please.



Ability to sort by format? Yes, please.

Internaut wrote:

Could I have some second opinions here please: http://www.discogs.com/history?master=22228#latest

-yard- wrote:

Okay, thanks!
I also think it makes the most sense this way.
While continuing with Albert Aylers discography, I encountered a bit different variant of the same issue:

I created this MR:
http://www.discogs.com/Albert-...Spirits/master/26679
which includes several releases of the same material (that is: exactly the same four tracks), but under two different release titles, with a bit different track order.
I think they all should be part of one MR, but I am not totally sure about it.

Additional question:
when submitting such an MR, should I comment on these fact (same material, different title) in the release notes, or just in the submission notes? I assume (and did) the latter.

danBLOO wrote:

now we need a code for masters
http://www.discogs.com/help/text-formatting.html

hmvh wrote:

Here you should describe what that grouping signifies which will be seen by everyone, so select your wording wisely.


That's for idle chit-chat between you and the voter.

hmvh wrote:

http://www.discogs.com/master/15355

Queen - It's A Hard Life via [ m 1 5 3 5 5 ] (without the spaces) already works.

wiredforsound wrote:

How about DJ mixes where you have another release with the same title but where the tracks aren't mixed.

Here is an example:
http://www.discogs.com/Depth-C...nerator/master/15065

And here is an example of where there's two master releases (one for each version):
http://www.discogs.com/Swayzak...logy-v13/master/1815
http://www.discogs.com/Swayzak...e-Tracks/master/7213

Furthermore, there's also where an artist presents a mix of their own work on CD, and then unmixed tracks on the vinyl:
http://www.discogs.com/Hellfis...tation/release/21995
http://www.discogs.com/Hellfis...tation/release/22009

caitlynmaire wrote:

What about when the artist(s) are different on different versions of the same album. An example would be Anthony Phillips album "The Geese and the Ghost". The original release credited this album to Phillips alone. At least one CD reissue has three artists on the cover: Phillips, Mike Rutherford, and Phil Collins.

If I lump this version into the MR what will happen to this release on the artist pages for Collins and Rutherford?

Internaut wrote:

Same album -> MR





Nothing spooky, and parallel to what happens when the same album is released on different labels.

fisonic wrote:

If a song is just sung in a different language, it's exactly the same as with different mixes of a song, imo. The voice is just another instrument, that can be played differently.

consort wrote:

past few minutes, page not refreshing after creating MR - must manually refresh

edit: actual creation of MR seems faster though

consort wrote:

also suddenly edit to include others not working;
not possible to tick through warning (doesn't show up)

mjb wrote:

Right, but is this meant to be an argument in favor of adding a sampler to an album's MR? To me it seems a sampler and many-a single are released to give people a taste of the album, not to be the album.




^As above. :)




Probably not, but I'd want to see the actual example.

Here's how I did The Beloved's "The Sun Rising":
The Sun Rising (1989-1990)
The Sun Rising (1997)




I agree. [m#######] and [m=#######] maybe? teo/ nik/ moob?

consort wrote:

problems mentioned above resolved - seems faster too :)

-yard- wrote:

And here's another question, still using Albert Aylers' discography as kind of a training course for how to handle the MR feature:

http://www.discogs.com/master/27286
Again, all releases containing exactly the same material, even in the same track order, but: under TWO different titles, and even under FOUR different Artist names (Albert Ayler; Albert Ayler Quartet; Albert Ayler & Don Cherry; Albert Ayler, Don Cherry, Gary Peacock, Sunny Murray).
I first thought that would create to much confusion on the respective artist pages, but I just tried it nevertheless, and now I see that everything appears properly on all the artist pages, the number of releases for the MR on the respective artist pages varying depending on whether that artist's name is appearing on the various releases.
Makes sense to me, and seems to work very well.
Anybody?

P.S. I just see there was a similar question some minutes ago, with regards to different artist names for different versions of the same release, and it was already answered.
I am posting this nevertheless, just as an example where the artist names as well as the release titles are differing.

And also the question remains: how much explanation is needed in the release notes in cases like this?

simfonik wrote:

It's already in place. [m#######]

teo wrote:

Ok, We've just pushed out a few changes:

- Releases on the Master Release page are now sorted by date, title, then format, with releases having no date at the end of the list. We may add sorting options to this page later.

- This same sorting change has been made to artist and label pages when sorted by date. Although there are some pages that have cached data and may still sort in the older way. In most cases this will resolve itself within the next few days.

- For users who had problems with the red and green dots displaying incorrectly, this should be fixed. It was a browser caching issue.

- Coloring of release rows should be correct now. Please post if you see any problems that we may have missed.

- We're aware of the problem with the "Edit Master Release" page when previewing. We haven't been able to duplicate it consistently and are still looking into it.

fisonic wrote:

This reminds me of a bug I had encountered, regarding MR-notes.

I'd like to take the opportunity to summarize all bugs I had experienced.
(I know at least two of those topics were already mentioned - and I am not aware, whether some of those might have already been fixed. So, I apologize for a certain degree of redundancy here.)

(A) When editing on the "raw mode" page, I have to click the "Preview" button several times. Reaction seems unpredictable and arbitrary. (After the preview finally gets displayed, it seems to be working fine.)
N.B.: Working directly from the artist's page seems to be working fine in general.

(B) The MR history page shows incorrect information.
The lists of releases (old and new) are often incomplete. Also, removals aren't consistently shown in those lists.
Furthermore, edits from the journal aren't correctly matched to the data of that edit (including the MR notes), when clicking to see "changes" for previous edits.

(C) When I removed a release from an MR, the MR's notes were silently removed from the MR.

(D) When a release is added to an MR, this gets documented in the individual release's history as well. However, when a release gets removed from an MR, this is not documented accordingly in the individual release's history.
(In case it makes a difference: I am usually working directly from the artist's page.)


(B) and (C) can be seen here: http://www.discogs.com/history?master=3063#latest


Edit: Composing my message apparently overlapped with teo's post - so please ignore point (A).

fisonic wrote:

I don't know! :)
I was merely analyzing, and hadn't found a firm opinion yet.

In the meantime, nik's post helped me find an opinion though! ;)

TomKay wrote:

That's a good argument. But what when the versions are titled differently, like A Família (Hungarian) and Dandelion (English)?

Thinking about it, it would be nice to be able change the name of the MR, to show title variants etc. For example the Kraftwerk example would be better titled Computerwelt / Computer World.

Unint wrote:

I was wondering about that myself. I guess the most obvious way is to go by the artist's native language?

Of course, given that we also have a directive to make Discogs focus primarily on English, such as by translating release notes... Maybe this is a job for master release notes, but then you still end up with non-English titles on the artist page when English alternatives exist.

TomKay wrote:

I think it's right to prioritise the artist's native language, or whichever was released or recorded first (USUALLY the same thing). From what I understand the ide to make Discos as English focused as possible is only in terms of communication, and the way that the site runs, I don't believe there is any intention to exclude foreign language music - I definitely hope not at least.

teo wrote:

Just made some changes.

- Line breaks are now maintained in the Master Release notes field.

- Notifications about releases added to Masters should now be going out. If anyone would like a one-time mail listing things that were affected up until now, please PM me, and state if it should be based on collection, contributions, or items for sale. thanks

fisonic wrote:

Hmm... that's a good point too!
Tricky.

I was also thinking an optional custom MR title field would be nice (sometime yesterday in a different case)...
but on the other hand: new fields == new battle-fields! ;)

I guess, if there's a high risk that different language users might not find a particular release, it would be better to not put them into the same MR.

polar-sequence wrote:

Nik, can you update the Guidelines or make it a sticky post? Might be useful... ;)

SeRKeT wrote:

does 'Extracts from' a full release mean that one sided promos of full release cannot be added?? if it doesn't it makes it sound that way |:)

SmotheredHope wrote:

Not really the same thing as the 'Extracts from' thing. I would definately add it.

hmvh wrote:

EXCELLENT! Thanks, Kevin -- works great.



All things considered, I've been toying with that same idea: The ability to "name" the MR instead of it automatically (the default) deriving the name from the key release. It could cause some conflict, though -- not too sure how to safely deal with differing opinions.

I would regard it as a useful and powerful function, especially when the subordinate releases don't all have the same name, such as this lot.

Anyone else?

teo wrote:

I've just fixed the problem with Master Release histories not showing the differences correctly. All future MR edits will have a correct history entry.

Internaut wrote:

That would be a very useful update to the MR feature...

Internaut wrote:

saved "MR" subs does not show up in my list of saved subs. Bug?

SeRKeT wrote:

this maybe good for when a release has variants that use aliases too so both aliases/anv could show as the artist name

zevulon wrote:

Suggestion:

When moving over a supposed release (in MR edit mode and normal)
could the tracklist show up in a box?

KrissO wrote:

To quote nik "I think we have to make a call on a case by case basis".
So yes and no. The Recloose page is very small, few releases... not much scrolling needed. So there's no harm having them as seperate MR's, but I would have used the same MR because gathering "one single" in one MR simply looks better.
I guess if both of those MR's had say 20 releases each... it would make more sense to keep them seperate.
Take a look at the Gouryella page. Very neat right? One MR for each single... and if you expand Gouryella - Gouryella the three remix titled versions are in that MR.



Yes you misunderstood me, the 1999 release is indeed an own MR.



So the samplers here, here and here should be seperate sampler MR's?

Scoz wrote:

how do you undo an incorrect master release addition?

also how do you make the main version the master master release as it were?

under spritualized the master master release is something that was released 5 years after the original.

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Spiritualized

http://www.discogs.com/Spiritu...Want-Me/master/30236

ok worked it out, shame it won't let me do anything about it though, it just goes previewing, leaves an empty box then returns to the editor.

KrissO wrote:

Thanks. I assumed you used normal URL formatting to make that link?
Will there be "Master Release Link" formatting just like we use Release Links?
For example [mr=18274] / [mr18274]. Sorry if this was asked about / announced already.

Scoz wrote:

as a voter it seems I can't even vote on incorrect additions of things that I submitted, if there has been nothing else done to them since I subbed them.

mjb wrote:

KrissO wrote:

Oops I missed that, thanks!

Internaut wrote:

Why do you want to vote on them? Better to correct it? You can both add/remove releases to MR + you can delete the whole MR if you want to.

Scoz wrote:

because it's not letting me correct the MR. at least if I was able to vote them EI I could actually do something about it.

Internaut wrote:

I don't understand. I have corrected and deleted several MRs I have submitted myself. To edit; hit the "edit master release" link and make your edits. To delete; hit the same link and just delete all info and submit the change.

Scoz wrote:

well you might be able to but for some reason I seem to be suffering from the bug mentioned by teo.

swapped to ie and I get an error after removing a release and it says "This list contains too few releases."

ah ha I was doing it wrong

hmvh wrote:

Possible bug (which someone else already mentioned yesterday, IIRC):
Index Tracks should not be included in the "Tracks included on these releases" list. It may have been repaired since, I'm not sure. As an example I can offer Queen - Queen II -- the key release was Queen - Queen II (which won't be around for much longer since I'm going to rebuild that MR now).

Internaut wrote:

Yes they should, but it should be in bold. If they are not included, tracklisting for most classical releases will look pretty weird....

LaCargo wrote:

in my opinion an important expansion for the database would be to include a new data section for TRACK IDs

Every Song gets an ID, like it is developed now in the database.
ONLY masters, for a relevant recording appearing on several soundcarriers, there's only one ID for it, unless the version is really different (such as a cover version or remix)

Now, when a master appears on a vinyl, mp3 sale, CD compilation, a mix or only as a radio cut edit, it can indicate that it IS the full master release or just a participal appearance.

This will also allow discogs users to use the site even if they have a release in digital form (MP3 / WAV) or just fragments of a release.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

trying to delete an master release, but an error pops up requesting me to selected the key release. i thought it is supposed to detect deletion??

LaCargo wrote:

Mike & Charlie

how do i know which is the "master" release without knowing the original release date / label who signed the track first.

Also the word "master" is a bit confusing as it is used for the best possible media of a recording, used in pressing plants (=Master CD) or DAT in early years. This will ultimatively cause all VINYLS to become slave of the original MASTERS, which are Maxi CD releases of the same kind, as they're in higher quality?

fisonic wrote:

It should work, if you do that via the "Edit Master Release" link on the artist page:
- click the link
- press the "Edit" button next to the MR you want to change
- uncheck the tik-box of the release you want remove
- check the radio-button for the release you want to set as key (inside the gray edit panel in the bottom area of the page)
- press "Save"



This, in turn, should work when editing in "raw mode":
- go to the MR you want to delete
- click the "Edit Master Release" link
- empty all fields (Notes, Releases, Key Release)
- press "Preview"
- pray/wait/press-again/...
- fill in the captcha that will appear in the preview area
- press "Delete"

fisonic wrote:

I find, it should be possible to give positive votes for a master release as well. Not that it was an issue yet, but this would allow to balance negative votes. Currently a handful of voters could vote against a particular MR, but nobody could express their approval, even if they were the vast majority.

consort wrote:

What happens if one is voted incorrect though? It doesn't just go *poof*?

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

yes, the only way for now, it seems





no good idea. master releases should not take away the responsibility from the last editer/submitter. i just realised when combining some "pending" compilations that i would get all the bad votes for them if somebody did a review. not a good idea at all.

fisonic wrote:

No, I don't think anything happens. It's just collecting and documenting the votes, I think.

And I was thinking of 'balancing' purely for documentation reasons: Like a poll/election, just to be able get an overview of people's opinions (without any automated consequences).



I'm not sure if we have a misunderstanding.
Votes on MRs are not for the data of the releases within the MR, but merely on the fitness of the selection someone has made. (?!)

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

this is a more controversal MR i would think

http://www.discogs.com/Various...ndtrack/master/31456

i decided to group the limited edition together with the deluxe edition of this soundtrack, because they are called "editions", implying they are the same basic piece of work - the soundtrack. in reality, however, the deluxe edition has not only a few bonus tracks but an additional cd of bonus tracks plus a dvd.

have i understood MR correctly?

fisonic wrote:

If the bonus CD (the score) has not additionally been available as a separate release, I'd say the Deluxe Edition belongs in that MR.

consort wrote:

The whole MR looked 100% solid imo.

mjb wrote:

I think we need to draw a line between these two concepts:

1. a simple double-pack, which is two releases in their full original packaging, sold as one item; and...

2. a 'deluxe' album that includes a bonus disc which happens to be another release's media, sans packaging. That is, the bonus disc isn't packaged the same way it was in its separate release.

We'd never enter that bonus disc, sans packaging, as an item unto itself in Discogs. So why treat it like it's anything but a disc of bonus tracks? So I say include the deluxe edition.

Not sure how this works with file releases though.

consort wrote:

^^ +1 and, why would anything be different for files?

PeterDeVilbis wrote:

I still don't understand.
People are combining releases which only have the same title, like an 80's and 90's version with different artwork and tracklisting.

KrissO wrote:

Well how different tracklisting are we talking about?
If it's just new remixes of the same track, then it's fine.
Cause then it meets same release title + "remix" criteria.


I think you are worrying too much about that. There is really no such thing as THE master release. We just select one of the releases in the master release itself as the key release.
This does NOT have to be the label with the original license of the track (usually this isn't hard to find out, check notes / artwork for sound recording copyright -> ℗).
Preferably you should use the one with the most appropriate title and artwork. Although it will use the tracklist of the key release, I think this will be changed in the future to extract from more releases in the MR (or let us select). So I don't think the tracklists should make you choose one over another.

KrissO wrote:

Sorry, using the original label is actually very high up on the list for me because in listing it will show the label of the key release. Look at Thomas Bronzwaer. Most of the singles were released by Yakuza, but three of them were also licensed to Vandit. All key releases have good images so that page is perfect.

PeterDeVilbis wrote:

Remixes, yes.
But 10 or 20 years later?
That's not done in direct response to or related to the original version.
Sorry but I can't escape the feeling that we are literally stretching the concept of alternative version/remix.
Better to create more master releases than cramming every same-titled release into one - IMHO.

DaveRowat wrote:

I just noticed that when you copy something to draft that is in an MR, it keeps that association in the new draft. Not sure if this has been mentioned already (I only skimmed up to middle of page 4), but just thought I would point it out as a nice little convenience.

Cheers!

KrissO wrote:

Well it depends imo. For example if there were 15 releases in 1980-1981... and then 5-10 releases in 1990... then I'm sure seperate MR's would make more sense. Ofcourse if they are just re-issues / remasters I think they should be in the original release.
But you have a point, better to have more than one MR if in doubt because it could sometimes be easier to find what you are looking for.

mjb wrote:

Any chance we could get an "Are you sure you want to cancel creation of this Master Release?" confirmation dialog when we hit the Cancel button? I accidentally clicked on it after a painstaking edit and was quite sad.

fistondub wrote:

Tracks included on this released is not correct.
eg : http://www.discogs.com/Patrick...ron-Man/master/25882 as per
http://www.discogs.com/Patrick...n-Man/release/816935

fistondub wrote:

Either you choose to display all tracks on these releases with the variations from one to another or. you simply don't display the tracklisting.

fistondub wrote:

- Teen Planet*
- Megatron Man
- Thank God For Music
- Menergy*
- Get A Little
- Lift Off
- I Wanna Take You Home*
- Sea Hunt*
- If You Feel It*
*Tracks may not appear on certain releases.

Then i'd agree

Because ...
if you say :

"Tracks included on these releases" :


* Megatron Man
* Thank God For Music
* Menergy
* Get A Little
* Lift Off
* I Wanna Take You Home
.
I have to say that it is wrong.
I do not have Menergy track on my Canadian release of Megatron Man : http://www.discogs.com/Patrick...-Man/release/1530308

DaveRowat wrote:

....and i stumbled upon a bug?

I believe that if you copy something to draft that is in an MR, it appears in the MR as soon as its in your drafts. And if you don't submit it, and delete it from your drafts, it stays in the MR. Even though you haven't submitted it, you will have to edit it out of the MR manually.

Just a heads up I guess (sorry if this already came up).

Cheers!

mjb wrote:

The MR edit form tells me my formatting options for the Notes are the normal forum/email formatting codes, but they don't seem to work. Nor does HTML. Links, at least, get stripped out (including the linked text). Example: Pet Shop Boys - Always On My Mind

Kaytron wrote:

About the key release, it shouldn't be the original label release?

For example, I found that one of my submissions (italian release of 12" Space - Magic Fly http://www.discogs.com/Space-Magic-Fly/release/1482069 was added to the master release http://www.discogs.com/Space-Magic-Fly/master/30512 , and the key used there is the US pressing. Since it was a french production, it would be more logic to choose the Disques Vogue release as the KR.

Ory wrote:

do I put CD-Compilation and 2x12"-Sampler together? examples:

http://www.discogs.com/Various...Dubstep/master/34511

http://www.discogs.com/El-B-Am...Of-El-B/master/34431

mrformic wrote:

[quote=teo][/quote]
- For users who had problems with the red and green dots displaying incorrectly, this should be fixed. It was a browser caching issue.

still not working for me, examole:
http://www.discogs.com/label/Clone
Clone#15, Duplex EP3.
I have put the regular release for MR and added the white to MR and my collection.
Clone labelpage shows no green dot.

-yard- wrote:

I am still not sure how to handle these:

http://www.discogs.com/master/26679
All releases containing exactly the same material, just the track order is differing a bit, but there are TWO DIFFERENT RELEASE TITLES.

http://www.discogs.com/master/27286
Again: same material, even same track order, but TWO DIFFERENT RELEASE TITLES, and varying artist names (that last point has been discussed already: can go into one MR).

My question remains:
should releases with different release titles be merged into one MR, when they contain exactly the same material?

An advantage would be that this way it would be obvious on the first sight that these different titles contain the same recording; a complex reissue history would become more transparent.
Only disadvantage that I see: certain release titles would be invisible when you visit an artist page; you would only see them when you open the respective MR. This would probably result in increasing duplicate submissions.

Looking through the MR guidelines and this forum, I didn't find an advice for this. I think we should define a clear rule, whether releases with different titles (apart from language variations) can be grouped into one MR or not.

djindio wrote:

duplicate post

-yard- wrote:

P.S.
In the second case that I posted in my previous message there are even three different release titles (not two), for the same recording.

Internaut wrote:

imo yes, but adding MR-notes should be mandatory, for example :

http://www.discogs.com/Ambrose...innings/master/34155

Edit: and here I have bundled different artists, titles and artwork, but it is the same recordings. Adding the notes makes this OK I belive: http://www.discogs.com/Holger-...Canaxis/master/23135

djindio wrote:

The ONLY way to make true the following statement found on EVERY master release:
"Tracks included on these releases:"
is to set the release with least amount of tracks as the primary?
http://www.discogs.com/Twiligh...Kingdom/master/12033
^if I set one of the 4 track 12" singles as the primary/first release, the statement is rendered untrue.


In some cases it could never be made true...
http://www.discogs.com/Bobby-O...s-A-Way/master/26524
^may releases with a different B side, May are also double A side releases though double A side is not printed on the release anywhere. Still others are "2 track 12" compilations" released several years later...

And now I'm told that the 7" singles, Cassette singles and CD singles are to be added all to the same Master Release?!? Discogs is moving to cater to album collectors only?

mawiles wrote:

nik, there is uncertainty about the "add all remixes".

Please join the special thread
http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/187113

sinbox wrote:

Really glad about this. :)
Just created my first: 999 - Wild Sun
3 x 7" & 1 x 12" so as to fuel the debate; to be sure, the 12" version only has 1 track more than the 7" versions so I guess it would fit in this case.

sinbox wrote:

deleted: dplicate

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

are unofficial releases to be included in the official release's mr?

i.e. here
http://www.discogs.com/Superfu...-Star/release/708689

MR in question
http://www.discogs.com/Superfu...ky-Star/master/36476

Internaut wrote:

Yes, if they qualify based on the standard criterias. See example: http://www.discogs.com/Organis...e-Float/master/26806

Works like a dream :-) On the artist listings they stay in the unofficial section, but they turns up on the MR listing.

fleshmeatdoll wrote:

ok, thanks.

another question:


there is some confusion in another forum whether to include remix albums into the MR.
see here
http://www.discogs.com/Bloc-Pa...t-Alarm/master/11669

PeterDeVilbis wrote:

The MR requires 2 matches.
Only the same tracklisting is not enough.

Internaut wrote:

But if it has the same tracklisting , and can be considered a re-release or similar, two criterias are OK. Each case has to be individual judged though, imho.

-yard- wrote:

That's what I thought too: tracklisting and re-release are two of four criteria met, according to the guidelines. This counts definitely for the second example that I submitted.
But in the first example the track order is a bit different for the two titles: it's the same four tracks, but 1 and 2 are switched.
http://www.discogs.com/master/26679
So when "same tracklisting" means it must be the same tracks in exactly the same order, then this criterium is not met here. Do we have to understand it in that strict way? Or is the criterium met when two releases contain exactly the same tracks, even when it's in a slightly different order? Probably sounds like a pedantic question, but somehow in this case it seems to be decisive.
Anyway, it remains the fact that it's definitely re-releases of the same material. Imo that should be the main criterium, but I'm not sure whether it is sufficient.

TomKay wrote:

I tend to do that, but if there is one with a nice picture cover and the same tracks, I'll use that instead :)

Any chance of adding a "view master release" line to the recent changes PMs by the way? Makes it easier than sorting through 20 submission to histories to see if something's just been added to an MR.

-yard- wrote:

I totally agree, and I will add notes to these submissions.
First I was trying to get some opinions on this matter.

fisonic wrote:

You have a good point there.

It might make sense to make it depend on whether the bonus material's original title/artwork (if it was ever released separately) is prominently featured in the package's overall title/artwork? (A bit like the guideline for a double-A single.)

If the bonus material has no or only minor impact on how the overall release presents itself, I tend to agree.
But I am not sure, whether that's already too much in conflict with the "If a release partially belongs to two or more Master Releases, it should not be added to them" guideline.

Internaut wrote:

I agree with you. I hate to say this, but over at RYM they have been working on these questions for some time now, and it is sometimes useful to see what they do (yes, I know RYM isn't Discogs, thank God..). They have chosen to group these releases: http://rateyourmusic.com/relea...lbert_ayler/spirits/ (for what it is worth.....). One thing we can do though, that the RYM database does not handle, is to add MR-notes in such cases.

fisonic wrote:

Yeah, in my opinion, this MR complies pretty well with the spirit of the MR feature.

Mop66 wrote:

Should they go on a MR: Various - Pop & Wave Vol. 1 - The Hits From The Fantastic 80's and Various - Pop & Wave Vol. 1 - The Hits Of The 80's?
* Has the same artwork (including derivatives) > Kind of.
* Has the same tracklisting > Almost
* Has the same release title (including translations) > Almost
* Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, or other such variation > More or less.

TomKay wrote:

Can anyone tell me what I've done wrong with the notes in Ace Of Base - Cruel Summer ? I know it's m###### not m=###### but why don't the release links work?

By the way, aside from the IE issues, Firefox will not save edits to MRs done in the advanced way...

Internaut wrote:

in the notes to one of them one can read: "Reissued in 1998 as of Pop & Wave Vol. 1 - The Hits From The Fantastic 80's with a new cover and different track order, without Holly Johnson's Americanos, but with Always The Sun by The Stranglers instead." If this is correct, the spirit of the MR feature (as fisonic called) imho should make them MR-material