2-in-1 release groups and other boxsets (STYLE-330, STYLE-331, STYLE-335)

@bflaminio: Nice clarification. I agree that the existing ‘compilation’ type could be used to embrace the three instances (after an update of the guideline). The two first instances can already be distinguished from the release/RG artist (The first is from Various Artists, the second is more specific.) and thus do not require to be distinguished by a MB specific term. I was gradually focused on the ‘anthology’ term and partly neglected the initial subject which is the third instance that overlaps the two others. This last type of instance can be split further as follows:

3.a. A collection of previously released albums, using the same packaging down to the barcode and other details, bundled in an over-packaging (then an entity-release relationship is useful as it adds data which could not be retrieved from the database otherwise)

3.b. A collection of previously released albums in a custom packaging (then an entity-release group relationship is useful, but an entity-release one would not as it does not add data which could not be programmatically retrieved from existing disc ID, tracklist, or shared recordings)

As for the source entity of the above (to-be-invented) relationships, it primarily is a release group, but it can additionally be a release when variations exist (and only then).

@psychoadept: I don’t deny that the term is widespread in catalogues, I don’t take the Amazon US definition or the WP one for official/only valuable definitions, and I agree that it introduces confusion. This is why I don’t think it is a good idea to use this term into the MBz classification system as an RG type (since it is confusing from the context of RG types) but potentially as an (over)packaging type (if it is clear from the list of packaging types).

@tommycrock: The more I dig the database, the more I find contradictory examples, like “Glam Rock Anthology” which is from different artists and “Compilation” which is from a single artist. My distinction between the two terms is clearly not shared by everyone, not to say artificial.

1 Like

Yep. Also, it’s a term borrowed from collections of poems by different poets.

The thing about it being a packaging type is that ‘album’ was originally a packaging type (like a photo album but of records) but came to mean something else. Similarly single and extended play refer to the physical form. To me it should be a primary RG type because it’s not about the packaging or the content being a compilation of releases but about the overall scale of it being substantially bigger than an album. The term is clearly interpreted differently by others, but would it with the right guidance?

Anthology is not only for poem, it is also for novels and any works like music. It is a word with a meaning that fits more correctly than box set.
I however agree to use compilation, the same term, for everything.
I certainly disagree with using box set, which seems to only have meaning in USA per abuse of language.

1 Like

I think that’s the important thing. The boxset change, if it was made, can be independent of the other two changes which seem widely supported. So I would make those changes and we can discuss boxset independently.


A bit of confusion that remains for me is why a package with 2 albums can’t be a box set. It would be weird for me to see collections of three albums separated from those because of an arbitrary guideline.

Definitely go ahead with the other two changes though :slight_smile:

Because box set is a type of package, not a type of compilation.
The type of compilation or anthology or album set that we are talking about is not necessarily always presented as a box set.
Sometimes two albums are in a simple regular thickness 2CD jewel case.

We are missing the packaging type box and the ability to list several packaging type, maybe.
But we are not missing a packaging type as album type. :slight_smile:

[quote=“jesus2099, post:37, topic:24549”]
Because box set is a type of package, not a type of compilation.
[/quote]Not in our the definition (the one relevant to this discussion) that’s being proposed, which includes digital releases? It clearly says that the name originates from the packaging type, but the definition has changed into its own useage.

Regardless, if we’re going to make a seperate category that has ‘releases with multiple albums from the same artist’ (essentially what’s been defined, unless I’m mistaken?), I would find it confusing to split a 2 CD release from a 3 CD release when they’re doing pretty much the same thing,

ps oh I think I see, you’re not answering my question, but making a point about that name not being clear? Fair enough, I don’t mind what it’s called, anthology is just as confusing to most people haha so same thing either way…

I don’t understand this sentence.

Anyway it really seems that we should not try to find a term for something that is regarded as a compilation (of albums instead of of tracks) everywhere.
Some think box set is a widespread term while other have never heard of it and the same for other term.
The fact that it is a packaging name, makes it hard to accept to people never heard of it as a release type (maybe because it is English word).

In France we have some releases presented as coffret which means a box. But I would never consider coffret as anything else than the type of packaging, I still call the stuff a compilation.

IMO besides there is no agreement on a term for STYLE-335 (add release group type), I see no benefit from it once STYLE-330 (allow compilation type on all compilations) is allowed.

Maybe it is Compilation, be it live or not, that should become type instead of sub type.
In opposition to album which stands for original album, be it live or not.

1 Like

That’s probably because you hijacked my original question so that you could go on about what to call the new release type. Which I don’t care about.

If somebody else wants to chip in on the original question (is it useful to separate compilations that collect 3+ mediums from compilations that collect 2 mediums) that would be great. I’m referring to the attempt at a definition in the original post, which would treat these very differently. Or is this a mistake?

Sorry if I did something bad, it was unintentional, as I still don’t understand.

I did not know there was a difference between a twin album compilation and a triple album compilation.
It sounds arbitrary and I fail to see a reason for this.
If it is also part of STYLE-335, I think it should really stay longer open, it is too strange in this state.

1 Like

I was about to write a charade about how “box set” is absolutely not a packaging type, but in the end, I think I convinced myself that “box set” as packaging type with Release Group type = Compilation is the way forward…

1 Like

In my mind, a [release group]«is included in»[release group] relationship says this:

This album/EP was also released as part of this other, larger set.

Or in reverse,

This set includes re-releases of the following albums/EPs.

Some editors (at the time) argued that [release group]«is included in»[release] would be better, because:

  • it’d be more versatile, because it would cover e.g. “this EP is also available as bonus tracks on this other release”
  • any duplication of data would be minimal (since 2-in-1s and box-set release groups commonly have only one version)
  • several similar relationships would be bad, because editors are confused enough already :confused:

So I’d like to hear from others on that. Does it seem like a problem to have several similar relationships? (release-release, RG-RG etc)

If the whole idea sounds dumb, I’ll happily drop the issue.

1 Like

I’m all for a single “this RG is included in that RG” relationship, encompassing the existing singles<–>album relation type.

Can the description text change dependent on the RG type? So a Single/Album relation could be special-cased in the wording.

1 Like

As I see it, the main motivation seems to be to be able to easily find box sets that include a release and vice versa.

I would propose:

  1. making a medium a bit easier to reuse (e.g. by giving the release editor providing an add-medium-from-existing-release button)
  2. allowing “box set” releases to be members of multiple RGs

The first one should be easy enough.
With the second one, I will immediately admit I’m not sure how that would fit with the schema. Or if an RG-RG member-of-boxset rel is added, perhaps the site could just show all releases of the boxset rg in all linked non-boxset rgs (while still being members only of the boxset rg).

i’d say that boxset should then be a modifier of packaging type (boxset+jewel case, boxset+cardboard sleeve, etc.)

Hmm. Not sure what you’re asking for here, but the Add Disc popup already has an option to use an existing medium.

D’oh, you’re right. I should’ve checked first instead of working from memory.

I’m not stuck on that as a defining feature - I was trying to be clear but probably went too specific. The point I was trying to make is it’s substantially bigger than an album or even a double album.

My intention was not to just cover multiple albums more than two from the same artist, but also very large compilations both for the same artist and various artists. e.g. The Jazz Masters with hundreds of recordings spanning a career and Trojan box sets with ~50 recordings from various artists (and they don’t come in boxes though the packaging is cardboard). Bowie’s Five Years: 1969-1973 compiles albums and new compilations of B-sides together.

So, I finally stopped slacking on this. After reviewing the discussion, the decisions I took were:

  • Add a RG-RG rel, since it’s the simplest option and still works in a large majority of cases. If more is needed, it can be requested later
  • Remove the “A release containing two albums and/or EPs.” entry from the RG guideline
  • Let Box Set as a type off the table for now, since there’s nothing anywhere near consensus about it and “Compilation” is not wrong even if it could be more specific.