Replying to myself, I mentioned a database restructure for my thoughts. This is what I mean…
I organize my music by artist, release, track listing, format. So for example, I might have:
Kumi Koda - AND. Under the AND release group, I have standard and deluxe. Then under those I have the mediums like CD, digital MP3, digital M4A, etc.
So to place that in MB, using this prior conversation, that would leave the artist the same. The release group would be the release name with the track list variations as the releases. Then under each of those releases in the group, there would be variations of the different mediums/formats.
This offers an advantage that is currently not there. I could go in and say I want a release. Ok, I found it, I see it is regular/standard and deluxe, well I want deluxe. Ok, so I can get it in vinyl, CD or digital MP3 or digital M4A. To me, that is the actual structure of a release, since whether it is on vinyl or CD, it is the same release for that artist, just released in different formats/mediums.
So in that case, digital could be a single release with multiple variations. So a digital release could have variations of MP3, M4A, FLAC, MP3 320, Opus, etc. Whatever is appropriate to describe the specific source being added. They are all under the same “master” release because the group of recordings is the same for them all. This would also mean that a change to correct an error could be made once and be applied to all of the appropriate entities.
That is what I would do, if I were to make a new MB. It is really just the same as the source does, meaning the artist/label/record company/etc. YOu have an artist who makes a release, and that release is sold on various formats/mediums. The standard and deluxe are sort of sub releases, each getting their own list of available formats.