I would like to merge the recordings on these releases. The problem is that some sections of the music have been split up differently. For example, tracks 2, 3 and 4 on the first release correspond to track 2 on the second.
Do we have a way to express this? A ‘part-of’ relationship for recordings (with ordering) would seem the ideal solution.
There is the “compilation of/compiled in” relationship. It’s my understanding said relationship is meant for cases like what you’re describing (or at least, I’ve used it for such in the past).
All that’s missing from the ‘compiled in’ relationship is a ‘partial’ attribute, to say that one recording is partially (but not completely) contained in another. There are unfortunately some cases where non-alignment of boundaries means that ‘compiled in’ can’t completely capture the situation. For example, tracks 11-15 of release 1 versus tracks 7-9 of release 2.
I haven’t done much with opera so I don’t know how common this situation is. I could, I suppose, create a standalone recording covering both sequences and relate both to that…
This issue is quite common for opera recordings, I had the same question at this thread.
I don’t like “compilation of”, as the intention behind seems to be something different and the implementation as recording-recording relationship feels conceptually flawed to me (see the linked thread).I’m using “edit of” for those situations, but really I would prefer a dedicated “part of” relationship.
For that more complicated situation that two recordings overlap, but none is part of the other, a new “overlaps” recording-recording relationship would be great.
Thanks, I didn’t realize this had been discussed before. I agree that ‘part of’ makes more sense as a name than ‘compiled in’ (which suggests that someone took a bunch of disparate recordings and glued them together) – assuming they are logically synonymous.
On reflection, a better solution is to do the opposite: create standalone recordings for the ‘atomic’ sections, from which all tracks on both releases can be constructed exactly. For example:
Release 1: |-a-|--------b-----------|------c------|
Release 2: |------d-------|-----------e-----------|
New recs: -----|----x-----|----y----|
Then add ‘compilation’ relations for b = x+y, d=a+x and e=y+c.
The advantage of this approach is that every ‘compilation’ ends up being unique and complete.
I don’t think it’s worth the bother, really. For opera recordings, I think it would be better to create one recording for the whole opera, then use ‘part of’ relationships to link this recording to all the various track divisions.
Well, I just went ahead and did it for those two releases. A script for this, something like ‘mass merge recordings’ on steroids, would be very useful – I don’t think I’ll be doing it again manually in a hurry.