Release label, catalogue ID, and format

  1.  
    1. crism
      Apr 12, 2008
      crism says:

      Right now, a release is linked with its label (or labels). However, the catalogue number and format is not given.

      If we add this information, it will mean a new compound value type, since the catalogue number has to be associated with the label and format. See MusicBrainz’s record for Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band for an example of how this would be modeled.

      Is this too complex? Should a so-called “release” with multiple formats be forced to split into multiple releases? If so, what happens to the MusicBrainz-correlating IDs, since MusicBrainz is not so careful?

      2. jeff
        Apr 14, 2008
        jeff says:

        The current model doesn't currently support the MusicBrainz's model, either, since we don't correllate release date to label. I had assumed that each label/date/format combination constituted a different "musical release" already. Obviously, a CVT would simplify this somewhat, if we wanted to assert that a "musical release" only implied that the tracks were the same, regardless of when/where/how/by whom it was released.

        The one possible issus I see with this would be the "credited as" property, which would most likely differ on foreign releases.  But I don't have any good ideas about dealing with the MB IDs.

      3. crism
        Apr 15, 2008
        crism says:

        I have modeled a release event on sandbox. I’m not keen on the name—I picked it for the release rather than the label/catalog association—but please let me know if you like the model and/or if you have a better suggestion for the name.

      4. crism
        Apr 15, 2008
        crism says:

        And should the release format (78, 45, LP, EP, 8-track, cassette, cassingle, CD, CD-single) be on this release event CVT? That mimics the MusicBrainz model, but if that’s not what we want to do, we could put the format on the release itself and force multi-format releases to split.

      5. jeff
        Apr 15, 2008
        jeff says:

        To get this straight:

        If we put the format on "release event", a "musical album" would only have multiple "musical releases" if the releases had different tracks (either because they were remastered or because releases have different track listings).

        If we put the release format on "musical release" instead, then the US, UK, and Japanese CD releases of an album would all be one "musical release", and the simultaneous US, UK, and Japanese LP releases (from the same respective labels) would be different "musical releases".

        Is that right?  If so, I think the first one is probably better -- the second one seems confusing to me.

      6. crism
        Apr 15, 2008
        crism says:

        I believe your analysis is right, Jeff, and I agree that it is easier to keep the format, the physical medium, on the release event. It also harmonizes better with the MusicBrainz data. Now I just need to see if it makes anyone else cranky. (-:


    Discussion is posted in:

    Think this discussion also relates to something else? Cross-post it by adding a new discussion area:

Search Discussions

Related Discussions