Hello!
I'd like to draw your attention to
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7814386 and the concerned
releases:
http://musicbrainz.org/release/e5f8f5dd-73cb-417e-aa88-a14f15619763.html
is the original version of Stormblåst, while
Sounds good. This is becoming more common as I've seen it in a few
places.
By the way, MMV = 2005 in roman numerals.
Cheers!
-Aaron
On 14-Nov-07, at 6:06 AM, Bogdan Butnaru wrote:
Hello!
I'd like to draw your attention to
http://musicbrainz.org/show/edit/?editid=7814386 and the
On Nov 14, 2007 12:46 PM, Aaron Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds good. This is becoming more common as I've seen it in a few
places.
By the way, MMV = 2005 in roman numerals.
slaps-forehead/ duh...
-- Bogdan Butnaru — [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on
Johnny Cash did that several times in his career, too. Once it a
while a Greatest Hits record would come out and while it would
indeed have all his hits, it'd be new versions of all of them, not the
Sun records versions or what have you. It's partly done as a way for
artists/labels to get
a 'version' (at least how it is currently used) is the same as a
re-recording, or live performance.
Yes, but currently the is a version of AR does not exist for
releases, only for tracks. I think Bogdan's approach of defining the
existing ARs as subtypes of is a version of is the right thing to
On 14/11/2007, Chad Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Kuno Woudt wrote:
I'm not entirely certain about the order of (feat.) and (disc #), but
can't think of any examples right now to which the style would apply.
(so i wouldn't veto an RFV to make this ReleaseTitle as it currently
exists
On 14/11/2007, Philipp Wolfer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a 'version' (at least how it is currently used) is the same as a
re-recording, or live performance.
Yes, but currently the is a version of AR does not exist for
releases, only for tracks. I think Bogdan's approach of defining the
