This is all a little bit complicated for my simple mind. I know that MB’s objective is to be an authoritative database, but it depends on volunteers to maintain it, so it also needs to be sufficiently ‘easy to edit’ to encourage the addition and improvement of data.
If anything, there should be an emphasis on reducing the number of releases in the case where releases share the same recording details (which I think is at least part of the thinking behind the previous post). Is there any mileage in having ‘variants’ of a release for certain characteristics? The tracklist/recordings would be ‘shared’ (i.e. only need to be entered/updated once) and the ‘variant’ data would only specify differences from the ‘primary’ release - e.g. cover art, media, packaging, etc. Possibly, even ‘bonus tracks’ on certain media (e.g. I have some downloaded albums which have bonus tracks not on the original CD) could be dealt with as variations rather than by creating a new release record.
I appreciate that this suggestion is a database structure issue rather than a ‘style’ matter, but as things stand, the risk is of ever-expanding ‘similar’ releases as the media possibilities widen. I also appreciate that the ramifications of this suggestion would need careful examination; in particular, how it fits with the present concept of ‘release groups’. An example: I have 2 CDS that, shortly after release, were re-released as a double CD with different cover art. The recordings and track details are identical, but MB has 2 release groups and 3 releases each of which can be independently edited. (I appreciate that this is not a ‘digital’ example, but it could easily be).