• pianoman74 over 3 years ago

    pianoman74 edited over 3 years ago
    (Mind those quotes!!)

    http://www.discogs.com/history?master=765543

    What a neverending kinda topic... hafler3o EI-voted me because he claims these 2005 releases must be included in the "old" MR where the 1983 version resides as well.
    To give "evidence" to that, he supplied some detailed information about this being only "partially remixed" and whatnot (see also history to MR #765543).

    However, knowing about the actual percentage of "partially remixed" determined in a "squeaky-clean" way would actually mean to be lucky to attend the reproduction back in 2005 in the Viennese studios.

    Whilst tsivihcra was totally on my side that these must be moved out of the MR where the 1983 initial release versions are included in (see also http://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/404207 ), both hafler3o and brunorepublic seem to think otherwise, that's why this is about to become an ideological issue ;)

    So what can we do to finally get the lid closed on this (on the verge of getting) stressful topic once and for all?
    I would not want to revert all the work I've put into it just because of 2 lone opinions.
  • mjb over 3 years ago

    Our guideline (established in forums, never formalized) is that re-recordings, including live albums, don't belong in the same Master Release as the original recording.

    The 2005 release of Pinnacles is "remixed and partially re-recorded" according to http://www.voices-in-the-net.de/pinnacles.htm ... as such, it falls into the middle, partially belonging in the MR with the 1983 recording, and partially not.

    RSG §16.2.3 would be applicable here: A release can only belong to one Master Release. If a release partially belongs to two or more Master Releases, it should not be added to them.
  • Fauni-Gena over 3 years ago

    I would side with hafler3o and brunorepublic on this one. The new recordings are heavily based on the original. It's a gray area. I wouldn't split them.
  • hafler3o over 3 years ago

    hafler3o edited over 3 years ago
    My take on the problem is this, the Eastgate releases are a series of 'reworkings' and need to be handled in a similar way, to aviod confusion (after all why should all Eastgate versions be in the relevant MR except one!)

    16.2.1 states:
    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) [some are very derivative (see Stuntman and Epsilon, some are less so, see Pinnacles]
    Has the same tracklisting (the same recordings or versions, not totally different recordings) [all are the same tracklisting and are the same with some overdubs, effects, etc.]
    Has the same release title (including translations) [YES]
    Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, multilingual release version (for example, Kraftwerk's Computer World), or other such variation [YES, they are remixed, if only because it's impossible not to have to mix it again when tinkering with the base material]

    So for the 4 bullet points of the first guideline the 1st are some a yes and some a no. 2nd bullet point NO. Third and Fourth YES. Two or more are 'probably' required according to the guideline. So 16.2.1 is not broken.
    The talk of re-recordings only applies to a single bullet point (one of four) within the 1st guideline. It is not, of itself, a barrier.

    16.2.1 also goes on to talk about the formats, but they match fine as the Eastgate re-releases are albums like the original versions.

    16.2.2 states:

    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. 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.

    Obvious connection between releases? [YES]
    Tracklisting varying? [NO, identical!]
    Contentious, confusing or difficult [NO, only if you take the second bullet point of the previous guideline out of context, it applies to that bullet point, if it were a blanket prohibition it would appear as its own guideline!]

    Here is a non confusing and well documented MR detailing the versions contained within it. It continues to not confuse to this day.
    Edgar Froese - Epsilon In Malaysian Pale note the clear and distinct prose. This is exactly the kind of clear thinking this site needs. Not more confusion over a simple discography by creating orphan mr's.

    We can't just have one MR for one release but not the others, that IS confusing! The constantly misquoted guideline about re-recording unfortunately muddies the waters further.
  • hafler3o over 3 years ago

    As for "all the work" Pianoman there are plenty of hands available, and you are not the only person 'at work' ;) If this is an idealogical issue then it is only for you, this one is about 'best fit' and how to represent his work to those interested, note other websites can talk about and list and have the Eastgate releases on the same 'page' as the original, with no qualms. We do things according to the guidelines and I see no prohibitive argument based on the guidelines. I see a misquote, repeated.
  • ultimathulerecords over 3 years ago

    I would say, on one hand they shouldn't really be in the same master as they're different albums, yet they are partly same so should be in the same master.

    The problem is that if we do split things with the same title and common tracks, inevitably someone will come along later and undo the work. So, the less correct solution turns out to be the best one, which is no problem as we can add the info to the master as I did at Edgar Froese - Epsilon In Malaysian Pale.
  • ultimathulerecords over 3 years ago

    I would love to have such albums split into their own masters, i.e. I love the original Epsilon In Malasian Pale, and didn't mind the redone one - although it sounded like an entirely different album to me. It would make sense to have them separate.
    All these "Tangentized" releases are contentious, especially so Aqua (of which I love the original and didn't like the Eastgate re-recorded version at all) but as you can see, adding a description Edgar Froese - Aqua the Master can cope with what are 3 different versions.

    [A different artist example]
    But even in the cases of completely different recordings, like Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso - B.M.S. or Banco Del Mutuo Soccorso - Darwin keeping such releases in their correct places can be a problem, and wrong Master additions have had to be reverted with both.

    In the case in question here, really pianoman74 should have asked before changing, either prior submitters or in a forum like this. Also hafler3o EI was a bit abrupt. Really we should all consult more before doing such things. I know it can seem a bit a time wasting exercise waiting for response to a forum thread, but it's the best solution.
  • pianoman74 over 3 years ago

    pianoman74 edited over 3 years ago
    ultimathulerecords
    In the case in question here, really pianoman74 should have asked before changing

    Well, in fact I did ask. Please consult the older thread to learn more.
    (And in case you are skeptical again: when I talked about an "epic fail" in the OP of the older thread, everything still WAS in one and the same MR. Not until tsivihcra replied, I started pondering about separating them at all - for the first time that is.)

    Fauni-Gena
    It's a gray area.

    Yeah, it's definitely what it is. Neither fish nor flesh, and thus hard to make some hard decisions upon.

    hafler3o
    We do things according to the guidelines and I see no prohibitive argument based on the guidelines.

    You just gave a more complex expression for "current guidelines still do not elaborate clearly enough on this special matter".
  • hafler3o over 3 years ago

    pianoman74

    You just gave a more complex expression for "current guidelines still do not elaborate clearly enough on this special matter".


    No, I'm saying the guidelines don't prohibit it being in the same MR. The MR system is implemented ".. intended to contain as many releases as is reasonable .." Based on the others being fine inside their respective MRs, no 'going against guidelines', and 'in unlessit clearly won't fit' I see this as an 'IN'. The other releases are 'IN', their status is known. The guidelines must apply to all releases equally.
  • mjb over 3 years ago

    I stand by my claim that RSG §16.2.3 applies here. hafler3o is not wrong, but neither are we... there is no consensus on where the re-recordings belong, and there are good arguments for why they do and don't belong with the originals. Therefore, 16.2.3 ... they must be separate. This kind of situation is exactly why 16.2.3 exists.
  • pianoman74 over 3 years ago

    Yes, it's one of our most loved borderline cases...

Log In You must be logged in to post.