On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 2010/11/20 Nikki <aei...@gmail.com> > > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote: >> >> > Either we decide to keep those ARs at Track level and have them >> > automatically replicated to works (clumsy IMO) or we get rid of those >> ARs at >> > Track level and decide that they should be used only at Work or >> Recording >> > level. In the first case, the section still applies because setting the >> ARs >> > to the Tracks will be the only way to be able to correctly mirror them >> to >> > the Works or Recordings, in the second case, those ARs simply won't be >> > relevant to the section any more. >> >> What we currently know as tracks will become recordings and what NGS >> calls a track doesn't have relationships. >> >> Most of the relationships only exist on recordings or works, not both. >> The upgrade script moves them to the right level (and any tracks with >> relationships which become work relationships will automatically have a >> work created and linked to the recording) >> >> For example, if you currently have a track called "Some Track" with a >> composed by relationship for "Artist A" and a performed by relationship >> for "Artist B", in NGS there will be a recording called "Some Track" >> which has a performed by relationship for "Artist B", and that recording >> will be linked to a work called "Some Track" which has a composed by >> relationship for "Artist A". >> >> I think the section is still relevant. It's there because people often >> think adding a relationship to the release is a shortcut for saying "all >> tracks" which will still happen in NGS. All that really changes is which >> entities are involved, at the moment it's tracks, in NGS it will be >> recordings and works. >> > > No ARs would go to Tracks anymore! I can understand why. Then Recording is > indeed a bad term. Users will be tempted to merge re-masters because they > will be the same recording (in the common sense.) But this is a separate > discussion. > > Then Alex Mauer's suggestion seems good. > > > > One question remains: which ARs will still be at Track level? It >> depends >> > partially on where we split recordings: would a remaster be a different >> > recording? My first reaction is to answer no, or the name Recording >> would be >> > a bad name. Then some engineering ARs would still apply to Tracks and >> thus >> > would fit in this section. >> >> I would expect a remaster to be a different recording if you can show >> that it's different (i.e. it has a different ISRC or different >> relationships), but I wouldn't be surprised if people merge recordings >> when it's not clear if they're actually different. >> >> As for whether it's a bad name, the R is ISRC stands for recording too... >> > > Someone else making the same mistake before us is not really an excuse :-) > I'd even say it makes things worse: we knew it was wrong but we still did > it. > > > I've been saying this all along. It's a problem at the mix and master levels; both were initiall conceived as separate levels between the "recording" and "track" level, but in the interest of a simpler schema for the user to understand, all those layers got compressed into what is essentially one "superlayer" of detail. Brian
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
