for what it's worth, remastering is the same thing as mastering, just done at a later date, and thus with better technology. at discogs i've argued that 'remastering' isn't really a role, so we have it as a qualifier - Mastered By [Remastered].
hence, something can't have both a 'mastered by' and a 'remastered credit' on the same release. you master from the the original tapes, not the mastered product - that's like making a .flac of an .mp3 :) although i think i have seen (very rarely) things that have been mastered from vinyl versions, when no original tapes have been available, so perhaps it does occur, but i'd say it's pretty rare. of course, at MBz, 1 album entry can represent seperate copies (eg the original, and the remaster), so such situations could exist, but maybe it would be a problem should we ever try split these up to the different product releases? chris / gecks On 05/03/06, Lukáš Lalinský <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don Redman wrote: > > Or (recalling my meta-thoughts) are these the wrong questions? Should I > > just try it out on test on monday, ask you to play around with it, > > request a veto and then move it over to the main server? > > This testing of new AR types, IMHO, doesn't work. There is not too much people > subscribed to mb-style, and only a *very few* of them is interested in "was > remastered by", "was orchestrated by", etc. AR types. Which means people > simply > won't test it. I personally have no idea what remastering is (or how is it > different from mastering), and probably don't want to change it. :) > > _______________________________________________ > Musicbrainz-style mailing list > Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > _______________________________________________ Musicbrainz-style mailing list Musicbrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
