I feel like a box set (or other releases which contain multiple other whole releases) should probably be treated differently than say, greatest hits compilations and selector comps (as RYM calls them, basically an unmixed compilation of material by various artists). the main reason being box sets are more useful for the completionist collector, whereas other compilations might more cater to the more casual fan just wanting the hits
I don’t really have a preference whether this is a new secondary release group type or a release group attribute (once we have those), but I think there needs to be some way to display them differently.
a few such examples, some are true box sets, some aren’t in boxes, but are similar, and some “2-in-1” releases
I suppose it is possible to infer this from the “included” relationships, but there might be issues with that I’m not aware of, and it’d probably be good to have the data actually in the database and not inferred.
It was proposed as Anthology type in the past but was not retained.
I was for it but it’s true that today I’m already happy with Compilation and the ability to link to original release groups, as Includes.
I’d be fine with a different name for this in order to include box-less box sets like some of my examples (and I’m also pretty happy having the Includes relationship), but if I’m looking through an artist’s discography, especially one with many compilations, I feel splitting these out or marking them would make it easier to find what I’m looking for, either selected tracks (greatest hits or so) or a complete set.
agreed! i think of an artist like Buffering the Vampire Slayer. almost everything they release is a compilation. but they also have a box set of all the compilations they’ve released (not added yet, i bought it & i’m waiting for it to arrive first), and i’d personally find the artist page more navigable if these were displayed separately.
In this topic, we see that those anthologies/boxsets were considered as original albums in MB, and it made the artist page really no good to see these grouped re-releases in the middle of original albums.
What this discussion changed, was these 2 things:
These are now compilations
You link them to original albums with the new RG-RG includes relationship
I think I’m already happy with these past changes.
I don’t really see the need to have subtypes for compilations, it seems that it will make things harder to define/edit, unneeded headaches. For me.
I don’t even know what you’re proposing. Boxes are a type of packaging and there are box set (which can just mean a release in a box with a bonus disc) releases in album release groups. The word box set does not mean “release containing complete albums sequenced in original order”.
This is a box set. It’s a collection of tracks taken from various releases sequenced in an arbitrary order.
I mean, in the original post you don’t even know what definition you want this to be. Consider this quote:
It sounds like you want a release type for “compilation I might want to own if I already own a greatest hits album” or something arbitrary. Not a good idea.
yeah, “box set” might be the wrong term for this, I admit… maybe “collection” or something along those lines? what I’m proposing would just be for releases that completely include multiple other releases (and not necessarily sequenced in chronological order either, but many examples likely will be)
I have a box that contains Springsteen’s first three vinyl albums. Inside are simply the original lps in their covers. No compilations or anything. This was just a marketing move to sell stuff.
is this a box set??
How does this relate to all the cover art discussions that we had a while ago and the idea of representing the packaging hierarchy?
I think a separate type for these release groups could be useful, as long as it comes with reasonably clear guidelines where it should be used instead of the conventional Compilation type. IMO it should only be used for box sets that entirely consist of nearly unmodified previous releases (e.g. the same exact discs as originally used for the “normal” album release).
I agree, but I think we should be careful not to exclude cases where it is the previous releases on a different format. in this example (from above), this is the only way these two albums got a physical release
Compilation is incorrect per the style guidelines.
The 3 albums are the original releases unchanged in their original covers. They have simply been packaged in a box for marketing reasons. It was cheaper than buying the albums separately.
If the sub-type of compilation is removed, then it becomes a ‘release’ which is not really correct either. There needs to be a type that can be used to distinguish these sales and marketing promotions. There is nothing extra in the box such as a booklet or an extra disc etc. In other industries particularly telecommunications these are called ‘bundles’. For example, you can get your internet, tv and home phone line in a bundle. I think boxset implies physical things such as the box. Bundle does not, I think this is a better name for the type.
They are collected or “compiled” into the box and currently closest language that MusicBrainz has is compilation. Especially as it now has a new barcode on the outside of the package.
I like the “Anthology” word suggested by @aerozol as boxset would bring in too many things that are in a box (like 25th Anniv releases).
I don’t think this this should include where one CD reissues with two old albums on it. Or an album has an EP added to it as part of a reissue. Keep a focus on a box that includes one disc per album. Mimicking the original artwork.
Would be nice to get these kinds of “resell it in a box” releases a clear category as it would make it easier to tell Picard to treat them different. Currently I have to do a fair bit of manual tweaking of the folders to get the art and album names allocated cleanly.
For me.