• habitant over 5 years ago

    I have a little argument with other user about two albums of Polish band Artrosis.
    Group recorded debut album Ukryty Wymiar in 1997 and year after the follow up W Imię Nocy. In year 2001 they recorded them both anew, released them with slightly changed artwork, with new label, when first editions were no longer manufactured. All these recordings were published in different formats, so they need Master Releases.
    My question is - should we have 2 Master Releases (with both original and re-recorded albums), or 4 - originals and re-recordings separated?

    In my view we should have 2 - one for first album, one for second album, based on RSG §16.2.1 and RSG §16.2.2
    - there is obvious connection between them -
    - they were not remade - no lyrics were changed, instrumentation is almost the same (that's for "core" album, I'm not taking bonus tracks into discussion),
    - they have exact same title, same tracklisting (again, not counting bonus tracks, but that's not important here),
    - were clearly marketed as re-editions (no labels as "Ukryty wymiar '01" or such), replacement of original issues for new buyers,
    - if we were to separate them into 4 releases, we also should separate their debut's and third album (Pośród Kwiatów i Cieni/In Flowers' Shade), because vocals were recorded at sessions at least year after Polish versions were released.

    Another user is convinced we should have 4 Masters:
    - he says releases shound not be forced into one Master,
    - he sees new recording as entirely new album,
    - he brings example of Jean Michele Jarre discogs - that his "new master recordings" were separated.

    I kind of get his point of view, but then I think it's fair use of MR, there is clear, undeniable connection between old and new Artrosis' albums and there is no need to multiply MRs of this one band (take into account Jean Michele Jarre has VASTLY more releases that need to be sorted with more variables, for me Artrosis' more Master Relases would only clutter their page). Also please consider consistency in that artist's discogs - what about English versions vocals recorded afrer 2 years?
    I'll add that discography on official site is, well, let's say scarce, and just a "teaser" of their work.

    The other user seems reasonable, but I still stand my gorund. Please, you be the judge.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    To correct one of your points, they actually were "remade", rerecorded, however the decision to keep rerecordings in masters along with original should bring more consequences spanning over other artists, then Jarre's Oxygene and it's 2007 rerecording should be put in one master, Manowar's Battle Hymns MMXI should be then placed in master with the original.

    As it comes to different language, in my opinion this should be categorized as remix and be placed in oen master with alternate language version, however I have seen masters which separate them, if so wfrom 2 masters we will have 6 in Artrosis case.

    We should discuss also the status of alternate langiuage versions, if they should have their own masters, or be placed in one master along other language versions, for example Graveland's Creed of Iron and Prawo Stali, also Graveland's rerecorded Memory and Destiny is in one master with it's Polish version Pamięć i Przeznaczenie.

    Lest me justify my opinion by showing the statements from guidelines:

    Has the same artwork (including derivatives) - in most cases
    Has the same tracklisting - exactly
    Has the same release title (including translations) - key word: TRANSLATIONS, the album's title, the tracks' titles, the lyrics.
    Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, or other such variation - rerelease, well I understand that some might seem rerecorded album as rerelease, but this is new recording, so not a rerelease, rerelease can be the original album, with bonus tracks, remastered, or even remixed, key word, remixed, in case of different language versions I consider them as remixes, the same instrumental mix with different vocal mixed over it, "or other such variation" well the alternate language is such a variation, first of all, most of bands had one vocalist (let's ommit the issue of backing vocals) and 4-5 instrumentalist, so the instrymental tracks are about 10-16 (most of them are drums) and there are 2-3 tracks of vocals recorded during the sessions, so we see, that different language versions are mathing themselves with about 80%, which is the instruments, the only differance is the language the vocalist is singing the same lyrics, so the vocals are actually minority of the track, and even sometimes we have instrumental tracks on those albums, so they match themselves in 100% because they are the same tracks.

    My conslusion is:
    Alternate language version over the instrumental mix the same as in other versions = more than 51% the same => one master
    Rerecording = new release => new master

    The consequences of considering rerecordings to be in one master are as I said putting Jarre's 2007 Oxygene (which includes few new tracks) into one master with original release, putting Manowar's Battlehymns into one master with original, and those are only 2 examples and there are many other releases.

    In case of different language versions, Sabaton released Carolux Rex in two different language versions as 2CD album, and this is considered an album, not a compilation of two different albums (because they are not different enough), Ensiferum or Korpiklaani has released their most recent album in two language versions, but Graveland's rerelease of Creed of Iron as 2CD with english and polish version is considered as compilation, but this is just an album rerelease, in my opinion releases which were released as two language version, should be in one master because they have more in common, than differances. It's like dividing Germany into East Germany and West Germany.
  • brunorepublic over 5 years ago

    SF01
    My conslusion is:
    Alternate language version over the instrumental mix the same as in other versions = more than 51% the same => one master
    Rerecording = new release => new master


    It's a tricky debate, but I agree with you on this.
    SF01

    The consequences of considering rerecordings to be in one master are as I said putting Jarre's 2007 Oxygene (which includes few new tracks) into one master with original release, putting Manowar's Battlehymns into one master with original, and those are only 2 examples and there are many other releases.


    There's another factor regarding JMJ's 2007 Oxygene: how much of it is re-recording vs remix? I seem to recall that Jarre got sued by the label that owns the original, claiming that he had used the original multi-tracks for portions of the new recording (which seems to be so, given the seemingly exact duplication of certain random synth effects which would be almost impossible to accurately recreate). FWIW, Jarre's real motive for re-recording the album was due to business/ownership reasons (as is the case with most re-recorded albums, I suspect) not artistic or technical.
  • Clogwhistle over 5 years ago

    May I bring the following examples into the discussion?:
    http://www.discogs.com/Enid-In-The-Region-Of-The-Summer-Stars/master/3011
    http://www.discogs.com/Enid-Aerie-Faerie-Nonesense/master/3022 - both albums were re-recorded / remixed in the early 80s but all versions reside in the same MRs.
    http://www.discogs.com/Le-Orme-Felona-E-Sorona/master/15370 - where the English vocals version resides in the same MR.
    I did bring this issue up a while ago and will try to add the link here - http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/521512dd9469733cfcfa88e2#521512dd9469733cfcfa88de : and also http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/521514ab9469733cfcfad370#521514ab9469733cfcfad36f .
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    As it coems to Jarre, I don'r exactly know the story behind the rerecording, nor how much he had used of the old masters, but this was only an example.

    My opinion id, if majority was rerecorded (either almost all tracks as in case if Enid, or most of the instrumentals parts) then the release should be considered as new release, as for remixes, Blind Guardian albums were remixed and remeastered in 2007 and they are in masters with original, because they used the original masters, as it comes to Dragonforce two first albums, they were remixed and remastered in 2010, but only few, literally only few parts were given rerecordings, but this was an aesthetic treatment, for example the different rain/storm sample was used for intro to one song and the rest were from masters.

    As for different language versions, they have more in common then differances (I don't talk about the visual content, because the booklet might also be in different language, but this why it gets a separate entry).
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    And there is Vader's XXV and Burzum's From the Depths, which are listed as compilation, but they are rerecorded albums, so should be rather categorized as new studio album.
  • Kefas_de_Merciful over 5 years ago

    I agree with habitant. Less masters.
  • Kefas_de_Merciful over 5 years ago

    But for 'Format' section should be added 'Rerecorded' od something.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    Kefas_de_Merciful
    [/quote]

    But releases shouldn't be forced into masters, for rerecordings are not the same as originals, so they cannot be identified as them.

    [quote=Kefas_de_Merciful]


    But there isn't a "Rerecorded" tag, there is reissue, remaster, remix, but no rerecording, this might mean, that this cannot be entered as format, so cannot be bound with the original recording, because it's new recording.

  • HM-2 over 5 years ago

    SF01
    And there is Vader's XXV and Burzum's From the Depths, which are listed as compilation, but they are rerecorded albums, so should be rather categorized as new studio album.

    Both of these aren't re-recordings of an old album but rather selected songs from several old albums getting re-recorded, so compilation is right in these cases.
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    HM-2
    Both of these aren't re-recordings of an old album but rather selected songs from several old albums getting re-recorded, so compilation is right in these cases.

    So you are saying because the artist covered their own songs for a new release of their own makes it a compilation? If all tracks are newly-recorded, then it is a new release. Compiled tracks does not equal to "Compilation" tag.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    So you are saying because the artist covered their own songs for a new release of their own makes it a compilation? If all tracks are newly-recorded, then it is a new release. Compiled tracks does not equal to "Compilation" tag.


    You are right, the basic definition of compilation is a release that contains tracks already released, in this case those tracks weren't released before, because they are new recordings.

  • Kaptain_Kopter over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    If all tracks are newly-recorded, then it is a new release. Compiled tracks does not equal to "Compilation" tag.


    Definitely: 're-recorded' means new interpretation, makes a different release.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    Kaptain_Kopter
    Definitely: 're-recorded' means new interpretation, makes a different release.


    So in your opinion, as they are uniwue releases to the original, they should have new master release?
  • Mr.Mystery over 5 years ago

    SF01
    So in your opinion, as they are uniwue releases to the original, they should have new master release?


    If the recordings are different, it's a different release.

    For example:
    Tarot (2) - The Spell Of Iron - recorded in 1986.
    Tarot (2) - The Spell Of Iron MMXI - recorded in 2011. Same tracks and track order, but remade completely from scratch.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    If the recordings are different, it's a different release.

    For example:
    Tarot (2) - The Spell Of Iron - recorded in 1986.
    Tarot (2) - The Spell Of Iron MMXI - recorded in 2011. Same tracks and track order, but remade completely from scratch.


    I totally agree, se my first comment, I said about Manowar's Battle Hymns and Jarre's Oxygene in addition to Artrosis.

    They should be considered studio albums, new releases and should have new masters, the same with Vader's XXV i Burzum's From the Depths, they are albums, not compilations.

  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    SF01
    So in your opinion, as they are uniwue releases to the original, they should have new master release?

    There are very rare cases of artists re-recording entire albums. How are we supposed to identify those under the same MR? I have a good example of a female artist that recorded her first original English album in Spanish, but the translation was so bad that she re-recorded it a year later, with revised lyrics and music. So how Can we identify these releases? call it Spanish album (original version) and Spanish album (re-recorded version)? The first release was withdrawn and all re-issues, remixed packages, etc are related to the re-recorded version. If we have 2 MR's, one for each album, then we know we are grouping the related releases properly.
  • wrongdoze over 5 years ago

    SF01
    Burzum's From the Depths, they are albums, not compilations.

    Keep in mind that the artist considers it a compilation, not an album:
    http://www.burzum.org/eng/discography/
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    wrongdoze
    Keep in mind that the artist considers it a compilation, not an album:
    http://www.burzum.org/eng/discography/


    Many artists consider their releases as something else than they in fact are.
    Common mistakes are singles and EPs, if this database is wanted to be accurate we must follow definitions.

    cdremixcollector
    There are very rare cases of artists re-recording entire albums. How are we supposed to identify those under the same MR? I have a good example of a female artist that recorded her first original English album in Spanish, but the translation was so bad that she re-recorded it a year later, with revised lyrics and music. So how Can we identify these releases? call it Spanish album (original version) and Spanish album (re-recorded version)? The first release was withdrawn and all re-issues, remixed packages, etc are related to the re-recorded version. If we have 2 MR's, one for each album, then we know we are grouping the related releases properly.


    First of all, what is the exact album?

    Secondly, if the instrumental mix for initial spanish and english release was the same it should be in the same master, if she rerecorded spanish vocals, while original spanish vocals were already released, then the album is rerecording and should have new master.

    Rerecordings = new albums = new master.

    As for different language version, this fall under the category of translation which is written in the rules to be in the same master, not new, such as a great battalion I had to have Gravelsnd's Prawo Stali and Creed of Iron in one master. But if an artist rerecords any significant part of the album for rerelease this should have new master, for example Dragon force remixed their first two albums in 2010 and they added literally aesthetic changes with rerecording few bits, but mostly they used original masters for whole instrument tracks, new recording should have at least one master-track rerecorded.
  • Mr.Mystery over 5 years ago

    SF01
    Many artists consider their releases as something else than they in fact are.
    Common mistakes are singles and EPs, if this database is wanted to be accurate we must follow definitions.


    What definitions would those be? Who would better know what a record is if not the artist himself?
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    First of all, what is the exact album?

    Unfortunately the album I am referring to is not on the database.
    But this is the original English release in case you wonder
    http://www.discogs.com/Crystal-Lewis-Remember/release/840822
    I used to run a discography site for this artist and it was semi-official because her official fan site used my discography on her page... So I am well informed on this particular artist's releases (or used to, I do not follow her anymore).
    I was not aware that different language versions go under the same MR. I guess it makes sense, but from a collecting point of view it does not.
  • Mr.Mystery over 5 years ago

    I didn't say that.
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    What definitions would those be? Who would better know what a record is if not the artist himself?

    I was just having a discussion on the terminology and how some tags are improperly used. I think tags sometimes apply to the media but not the format.
    Ie. compilation can be 2 albums bundled up, but as a "format" (release type) they are not a compilation... they are just a box set.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    I was not aware that different language versions go under the same MR. I guess it makes sense, but from a collecting point of view it does not.


    Well, there isn't an exact specification in guidelines if they shoyld be in the same, or new master, and thic causes much confusion, because users are divided. In my opinion they should be in the same master, because criteria about master release are ALL fullfilled.
  • timetogo over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    Ie. compilation can be 2 albums bundled up, but as a format they are not a cpmpilation... they are just a box set.

    That simply isn't true on Discogs. The Guidelines define that case specifically as a Compilation.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    Ie. compilation can be 2 albums bundled up, but as a "format" (release type) they are not a compilation... they are just a box set.

    But sometimes they are released as 2xLP, but in one gatefold, not separate packaging, however there are CDs in separate jewelcases which are inside a cardboard sleeve "two albums in price of one", etc.
    But from oen of the definions of compilation:
    "Other single-artist compilations, such as rarities or B-side collections, albums compiled from radio sessions, songs performed by an artist exclusively for a film soundtrack or collections that combine multiple releases, such as LPs and EPs together on one or more compact discs.".
  • Mr.Mystery over 5 years ago

    Could we please stay on the original topic? There's a different thread for the compilation issue.
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    SF01
    But sometimes they are released as 2xLP, but in one gatefold, not separate packaging, however there are CDs in separate jewelcases which are inside a cardboard sleeve "two albums in price of one", etc.

    I agree with those cases, like the 2X1 series re-issued in one single disc/record or re-packaged in a newly made artwork. Series such EMI / Virgin's 2 CD Originals, are a rip-off, those are overstocks of albums on CD bundled up in a piece of cardboard.
    http://www.discogs.com/label/2CD+Originals
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    Could we please stay on the original topic? There's a different thread for the compilation issue.

    yes sorry, some of us got carried away. I was discussing about compilations here:
    http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/523fda0cea62116964439197
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    So as we are back in the topic, could you please express your opinions about the issue?
    Should rerecordings have their own masters (because they are new and different recordings)?
    Or should the be kept with originals?
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector edited over 5 years ago
    Most agree that they should have their own MR. I agree too. A re-recording is a new recording, the terminology is just confusing. Because one covers something previously recorded by someone else or oneself it does not make it less of a unique recording. Copyright / Credit-wise might be still the same thing, but not in discography terms.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    Yes indeed.
  • habitant over 5 years ago

    Ok, so where do we draw the line? What about this album with vocals recorded 2 years after original release? Does this qualify for their own Master Release, or just merely a version? And please don't mention these percentages, you really cannot say "37% of song rerecorded".
  • mjb over 5 years ago

    When MR was introduced, I made separate MRs for "West End Girls", based on re-recording.

    Soon thereafter, somewhere in one of these threads, nik weighed in and was pretty adamant that re-recordings belong in the same MR as the original.

    I kept that in mind going forward, but I never got around to merging the West End Girls MRs, and no one has yet complained... so I think people must find it helpful. *shrug*
  • gboe over 5 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    If the recordings are different, it's a different release.


    +1

    We have to distinguish between artistic variations and industrial variations.

    As I understand MR's these are for the industrial variations of a single artistic audio work, e.g. national manufactural variations, reprints, artwork variations etc.

    If artistically they are different outputs IMO they should be separated. If a group goes into the studio to recreate the prior work it's a new artistic output. There will be new locations, new engineers I suppose, perhaps new performers.

    As an example - if it was just about the title and songs being the samethen just as well should studio and live versions of the same albums be in the same MR, like Van Morrison - Astral Weeks and Van Morrison - Astral Weeks Live At The Hollywood Bowl.
    Mr.Mystery
    Who would better know what a record is if not the artist himself?

    The observers. The doctor can know the right diagnose better than the patient. An artist may call his totally compiled greatest hits collection an album. That doesn't mean that Discogs should.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    habitant
    Ok, so where do we draw the line? What about this album with vocals recorded 2 years after original release? Does this qualify for their own Master Release, or just merely a version? And please don't mention these percentages, you really cannot say "37% of song rerecorded".


    I had this conversation comewhere else, and I was about to atart a thread about alternate language versions after I finish this one.

    But let me justify my opinion of keeping them in one master:

    16.2.1. Releases that match two or more of the following will probably be eligible to belong to the same Master Release:

    Has the same artwork (including derivatives)
    Has the same tracklisting
    Has the same release title (including translations)
    Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, or other such variation

    Let me give example, Graveland's Prawo Stali and Creed of Iron, has the same artwork (except of thr title), has the same tracklist, but translated, which leads us to the next point, titles are translated, which is the only differance in the artwork, secondly is a rerelease, can be considered a special edition especially in non-polish speaking countries, a remix, well in my opinion this is a remix, because it uses the same master mixed in different way and if this is not enough there is "or other such variation", VARIATION, a language variation.
    There are further statements in guidelines:

    16.2.2. Master Release is intended to contain as many releases as reasonable. For example, the tracklisting can vary (sometimes radically), but there should be an obvious connection between the releases.

    Tracklist can vary, variation is the translation, but there is an obvious connection between Creed of Iron and Prawo Stali, isn't it.

    This is how I see the language versions.

    Other example from Graveland, in 2011 Memory and Destiny was rerecorded, so, new recording = new master, but it was rerecorded as Pamięć i Przeznaczenie with polish vocals and with english vocals, but everything was rerecorded new instruments new vocals, so new master, but vocals were rerecorded, re, because there already was edition of english vocals in Memory and Destony, the term rerecorded means that something which already was recorded was recorded from nothing, vocals in alternate language cannot be marked as rerecorded, if there was no vocals in there particular language, even if there was in other language, because this is not the same, this is why Prawo Stali isn't rerecording of Creed of Iron, but somekind of Remix/Variation, and the same is about releasing differen language version of an album even after few years, but only if it features original mix, or remix of instrumental background, but NOT rerecording, because then it's a new recording.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    I agree with gboe.
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector edited over 5 years ago
    gboe
    If artistically they are different outputs IMO they should be separated. If a group goes into the studio to recreate the prior work it's a new artistic output.

    Your statement is quite correct. But from a Discogs perspective is not. Discogs does not see a release from an artistic / historical perspective but from an industrial / manufacturing one.

    I have realized by now that you don't come to Discogs to research on a artist's discography but to research on manufactured releases. According to Discogs It does not matter what the new re-recorded release is made of, if it has the same title, the same tracklist, then it is the same release. Just add "New Version" to the notes... ;)
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    Thus we need a clarification in the guidelines.
    But as for now they are separated.
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    When no one can agree on something, bring it up to the people who run ths site. If they are in your favor there is not much other users can say about it.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    I contacted them via PM.
    With link to this, maybe something will happen.

    For me rerecordings are technically new releases, not rereleases.
  • Mr.Mystery over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    According to Discogs It does not matter what the new re-recorded release is made of, if it has the same title, the same tracklist, then it is the same release. Just add "New Version" to the notes... ;)


    What on earth are you talking about?
  • Eviltoastman over 5 years ago

    Eviltoastman edited over 5 years ago
    It's like MN and that 90210 fella had a baby and dropped it on its head.

    SF01
    16.2.1. Releases that match two or more of the following will [b
    probably
    [/ beb] eligible to belong to the same Master Release:

    Has the same artwork (including derivatives)
    Has the same tracklisting
    Has the same release title (including translations)
    Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, or other such variation


    Probably ≠ must the last time I checked. The guideline only needs changes to accommodate individuals who can't tell the difference between probably and must and lack sense of what's appropriate in the given situation by ignoring a common sense and fail to read the above guideline in conjunction with RSG §16.2.2 ["...releases shouldn't be forced into a Master Release - if the addition of a release to a MR is contentious, confusing, or difficult, then it should probably not be part of the Master Release in question."]

    If it;s definitely a new recording and not simply a remix, then it does not belong in the same master release. If its a remix of a track, then it belongs in the same master release.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    loukash edited over 5 years ago
    gboe
    If artistically they are different outputs IMO they should be separated. If a group goes into the studio to recreate the prior work it's a new artistic output.

    This.

    cdremixcollector
    Discogs does not see a release from an artistic / historical perspective but from an industrial / manufacturing one.

    Probably you have misunderstood something. "Discogs" sees both aspects. It's just some contributors who are interpreting it the wrong way… :P
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    Probably ≠ must the last time I checked. The guideline only needs changes to accommodate individuals who can't tell the difference between probably and must and lack sense of what's appropriate in the given situation by ignoring a common sense and fail to read the above guideline in conjunction with RSG §16.2.2 ["...releases shouldn't be forced into a Master Release - if the addition of a release to a MR is contentious, confusing, or difficult, then it should probably not be part of the Master Release in question."]

    If it;s definitely a new recording and not simply a remix, then it does not belong in the same master release. If its a remix of a track, then it belongs in the same master release.


    I know this, thus my opinion is to keep rerecordings apart from originals on two masters, that post was reffering to different language versions, to keep them in one master.
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    Mr.Mystery
    What on earth are you talking about?

    That's what the guidelines about re-releases come down to, it does not matter if an album, single, etc was re-recorded, it is still the "same" release regardless of slight variations including being re-recorded. That's the impression I am getting from the comments and the guidelines.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    This thread is making me dizzy as it keeps going round in circles. :S
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector edited over 5 years ago
    Someone pointed out that Guidelines say not to create different MR for releases that carry the same title and content. Maybe bring it up to the people who handle the guidelines and they can decide for you.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    The best solution would be to take the bull by the horns and amend RSG §16.2.1. to avoid any alleged ambiguousness:

    • Has the same artwork (including derivatives)
    • Has the same tracklisting (excluding re-recorded versions)
    • Has the same release title (including translations)
    • Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, or other such variation


    "Discogs", i.e. "we" (yes, we all are Discogs in this sense) who were on Discogs for quite some time and still remember Discogs without MR, "we" may understand "has the same tracklisting" unambiguously because "we" have helped to define that guideline. "Has the same tracklisting" apparently means for us: "Are the same recordings"
    Obviously, some users don't understand it as "we" do.
    That happens, and there's an easy fix.

    In other words:
    @management:
    To prevent the symptoms, please fix the cause!
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    loukash made a good point in the discussion, the question is who can change the guidelines and what is the opinion of the mods.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    SF01
    the question is who can change the guidelines

    nik

    SF01
    what is the opinion of the mods

    This (albeit regarding a slightly different issue originally):
    nik
    The guidelines are a guide, […] they are not rigid rules. They may even need improvement.
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    I wrote to him with the link to this thread, I also left a note at the page of the guidelines.

    We'll see if there will be a response.

  • gboe over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    Someone pointed out that Guidelines say not to create different MR for releases that carry the same title and content.

    But re-recorded is only the same title/titles - not the same audio content
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    gboe
    But re-recorded is only the same title/titles - not the same audio content


    Sometimes the titles are even altered.
    Another thing to keep them separated.
  • Mr.Mystery over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    That's what the guidelines about re-releases come down to, it does not matter if an album, single, etc was re-recorded, it is still the "same" release regardless of slight variations including being re-recorded. That's the impression I am getting from the comments and the guidelines.

    Your logic baffles me. You leave me speechless. Very few people in this world can do that.
  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector edited over 5 years ago
    Not sure if that last comment was sarcassam or what.
  • loukash over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    Not sure if that last comment was sarcassam or what.

    I'm afraid so.
    No offense, cdremixcollector, but your logic repeatedly baffles me as well.
  • Mr.Mystery over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector
    Not sure if that last comment was sarcassam or what.


    I wish it was.
  • Staff 3.1k

    nik over 5 years ago

    SF01
    My conslusion is:
    Alternate language version over the instrumental mix the same as in other versions = more than 51% the same => one master
    Rerecording = new release => new master


    I do feel that at this point, a total; re-recording should be in a separate Master Release.

    I'm not sure about the percentage method. A classic borderline case is Ozzy Osbourne - Blizzard Of Ozz where the drums and bass were re-recorded. Is that 49%, or 51%?

    mjb
    When MR was introduced, I made separate MRs for "West End Girls", based on re-recording.

    Soon thereafter, somewhere in one of these threads, nik weighed in and was pretty adamant that re-recordings belong in the same MR as the original.

    I kept that in mind going forward, but I never got around to merging the West End Girls MRs, and no one has yet complained... so I think people must find it helpful. *shrug*


    Yeh, at the end of the day with this kind of thing, it is just my opinion... in that, if common usage is against me in a case like that, then I don't want to fight against it unless I feel really strongly about it.
  • Opdiner over 5 years ago

    nik
    I do feel that at this point, a total; re-recording should be in a separate Master Release.


    Jumping into this late, but I fully agree with this.

  • cdremixcollector over 5 years ago

    cdremixcollector edited over 5 years ago
    nik
    I do feel that at this point, a total; re-recording should be in a separate Master Release.

    Since current guidelines do not make exceptions to partial or TOTAL re-recorded versions of a release to have a separate MR, can we make that statement official so we can justify when the change is done?
  • Eviltoastman over 5 years ago

    Opdiner
    Jumping into this late, but I fully agree with this.


    Same here. A different drum or bass track isn't enough imo. The new copies of In Utero by Nirvana for example use a different solo in Serve The Servants but in my view should not necessitate a fresh master release.
  • Opdiner over 5 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    The new copies of In Utero by Nirvana for example use a different solo in Serve The Servants but in my view should not necessitate a fresh master release.


    Agree, that's only really the rock equivalent of a dance mix - a dance remix of a record may replace quite a bit on the original but it's still the same MR.

  • marcelrecords over 5 years ago

    Eviltoastman
    The new copies of In Utero by Nirvana for example use a different solo in Serve The Servants but in my view should not necessitate a fresh master release.


    Agree. But where do we draw the line? Different language vocals?
    The Rolling Stones - As Tears Go By vs. The Rolling Stones - Con Le Mie Lacrime = As Tears Go By / Heart Of Stone ?
  • SF01 over 5 years ago

    marcelrecords
    Agree. But where do we draw the line? Different language vocals?
    Rolling Stones, The - As Tears Go By / Gotta Get Away vs. Rolling Stones, The - Con Le Mie Lacrime / Heart Of Stone ?


    I wanted to discuss this later, but as Eviltoastman said:

    Eviltoastman
    Same here. A different drum or bass track isn't enough imo.


    Then the different language versions should also be in one master, untill the whole albums is rerecorded.

    Let me give examples, I had a battle over Graveland's Creed of Iron / Prawo Stali, I got some support from other user, but we deceided to leave it for now, untill I speak about this with mods, the other thing is, that this can be considered a remix, translation, or other such variation, as is written in the guidelines, so it could be in one master release, other examples of multilungual albums with the same instrumental mix but only differance in language of vocal are Turbo's Last Warrior / Ostatni Wojownik, Graveland's rerecording of Memory and Destiny / Pamięć i przeznaczenie (they have separate master), Artrosis' Fetish, Ukryty Wymiar / Hidden Dimension, In Nomine Noctis / W Imię Nocy.

    So in my opinion, they also should be in one master.

Log In You must be logged in to post.