Re: [mb-users] Are different digital downloads different releases?

Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
> It is a kind of remaster, or at least a different master, so it should.
> But
> if we don't write this down, some editors might misunderstand this point.
> 
> 2013/1/9 Andrew Conkling <

> andrew@

> >
> 
>> Agreed. At least for now though, this is a notable exception. :) Sounds
>> like a remaster though, so that should pretty undisputedly fall as a
>> separate release.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria <

> davitofrg@

> >wrote:
>>
>>>  2013/1/8 Andrew Conkling <

> andrew@

> >
>>>
>>>> I think the idea is that the files can come in a variety of ways, but
>>>> always from the same source material (a CD). That's probably analogous
>>>> to
>>>> digital downloads, but since people are getting them directly from a
>>>> "mass"
>>>> source, it's less clear what to do with any variety.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not always: from some like http://www.qobuz.com/ , you can download
>>> music with a higher resolution than CDs, according to Qobuz, they are
>>> able
>>> to do this by encoding from the studio rapes themselves. This kind of
>>> download at least should be kept separated IMO.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Frederic Da Vitoria
>>> (davitof)
>>>
>>> Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
>>> http://www.april.org
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
>>> 

> [email protected]

>>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MusicBrainz-users mailing list
>> 

> [email protected]

>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users
>>
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Frederic Da Vitoria
> (davitof)
> 
> Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
> http://www.april.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list

> [email protected]

> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

Remastering involves processing of the audio material, not merely the data.
I would not consider any digital release a remaster unless that has been
done, e.g. The Beatles on iTunes are the 2009 remasters.


Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
>> b) The release is available in two or more of the following formats:
>> Lossy
>> (any codec), standard lossless (16 bit 44.1 khz), hi-res lossless (>16
>> bit
>> 44.1 khz). In such cases, retailers clearly sell two or more different
>> things: Lossy, lossless, hi-res lossless, CD, and vinyl are almost always
>> listed as separate items, at different prices. In such cases, a single MB
>> release would have to link to more than one item, with different prices,
>> for
>> sale by one retailer. This would fly in the face of the notion of unique
>> releases
> 
> 
> This would be a pretty big pain in the ass for Bandcamp releases, which
> are
> always offered in both lossless and lossy formats, from the same page, at
> the same price. Duplicating them because of that seems a bit silly.
> 
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list

> [email protected]

> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

I agree that if you are not too bothered about the lossy/lossless divide
this may be the case. Perhaps limiting separate releases to those with
different price brackets would be a good compromise, e.g.
https://bleep.com/release/40685-rush-hour-presents-rush-hour-recordings-best-of-2012.
On the other hand, I do see a valid distinction when looking on many sites
other than bandcamp. The Coltrane example I gave shows that higher-res
releases are often only available from specialist sites, so it is very
useful to mark such distinctions and make users aware what is available in
such formats.


jesus2099 wrote
> Like RocknRollArchivist, I don't really like having digital releases
> around here.
> If they are in MB be them minimal enough to not bother more than they
> should.
> When a physical release exist with same track list I don't think we should
> even have a digital release. We should only have a download link from the
> physical release, the only worthy stuff.
> :D

MB can be approached as a completist or a minimalist.

As a minimalist, one would need only one release per track list and physical
format (perhaps artwork), and could ignore duplicating releases for
different countries, labels, dates etc.

As a completist these distinctions are crucial, but in maintaining so you
must accept that digital releases are something in their own right. Some
releases are digital only, so must be added. Therefore digital must be a
release format in its own right. You cannot then say that other digital
releases that correspond to physical releases are not releases in their own
right. Do would be distinguishing on the pragmatic basis that the release is
already in the database, which is the logic of the minimalist.

Also, bear in mind that many (most?) artist's digital catalogues have been
specifically selected, excluding some releases such as singles, some vinyl.
It is not a case of digitally releasing every physical release.


Kuno Woudt wrote
> On 2013 Jan 9, at 15:31, lixobix wrote:
>> b) The release is available in two or more of the following formats:
>> Lossy
>> (any codec), standard lossless (16 bit 44.1 khz), hi-res lossless (>16
>> bit
>> 44.1 khz). In such cases, retailers clearly sell two or more different
>> things: Lossy, lossless, hi-res lossless, CD, and vinyl are almost always
>> listed as separate items, at different prices. In such cases, a single MB
>> release would have to link to more than one item, with different prices,
>> for
>> sale by one retailer. This would fly in the face of the notion of unique
>> releases.
>> 
>> https://bleep.com/release/40685-rush-hour-presents-rush-hour-recordings-best-of-2012
>> would have a lossy and lossless release
>> 
>> https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/a-love-supreme/id485525345 and
>> https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=catalogdetail&valbum_code=HD00602498010921
>> would be separate releases, as the former is lossy, and the latter is
>> hi-res
>> lossless. Note the significant difference in price.
>> 
>> All lossy codecs are treated as equal by retailers who offer a choice, so
>> they do not amount to separate releases. The same goes for the choice of
>> wav, flac etc. for lossless.
>> 
> 
> I'm still not happy with treating all lossy versions as equal.  Perhaps an
> .mp3 download from bleep.com can be considered equal to an .mp3 download
> from amazon.  But iTunes sells .m4a files, which are ... well.. different
> :)
> 
> Let's say I have a nice old fashioned boombox at home, it plays CDs and
> Cassette tapes.  I need to make sure I get a CD or tape release and not a
> vinyl release, because my device cannot play vinyl.
> 
> Similarly, if I have a nice old fashioned mp3 player, which plays mp3 but
> not m4a.  I need to make sure I get an mp3 version of the release, and not
> .m4a.
> 
> I still have a very hard time considering digital releases from different
> retailers to be the same release, when so many aspects of these versions
> are different from eachother depending on where you purchase it.
> 
> -- kuno / warp.
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-users mailing list

> [email protected]

> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users

I may be wrong, but iTunes is the only retailer I can think of that offers
m4a but not mp3. Yes, it is an issue, but not as great as the lossy/lossless
one. I don't know how many users would eschew mp3 for m4a or vice versa, but
I would imagine it is significantly less that those who opt for lossless or
hi-res over lossy. Also, I've yet to see a retailer who offers mp3 and m4a
at different prices, another indicator that they are the same 'level' or
release.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Are-different-digital-downloads-different-releases-tp4646206p4646562.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-users