practik wrote > > > Frederic Da Vitoria wrote >> >> What you describe seems to be Recording then Mix then Master, while >> jacobbrett sets the master first. In other words, what jacobbrett calls >> master is not what is called generally a master in the music industry. >> > > I suspect jacobbrett is just ignoring the mix stage for simplicity. I > can't imagine a recording + mix + master system working well, because I > don't believe mixes are well-documented in a publicly accessible way. But > a recording + master system seems more workable, even if the master used > on a given release is often unknown. > Correct. I'm not pretending this is a perfect or completely thought-out solution, though I think it's a good starting point.
practik wrote > > > >> Don't forget that most of the times we have no way to answer these >> questions. If there was an organization somewhere which centralized >> masters >> and gave unique numbers to them, then we could try >> > > Well, the IFPI is trying to be that organization. Their ISRC handbook > (http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/isrc_handbook.pdf) says, for example, > that "the ISRC should be allocated in each recording when a Master is > completed and the decision to release a recording has been made," and "A > new ISRC should be assigned whenever a recording has been re-issued in a > revised or fully re-mastered form." > It's been pointed out that ISRCs can often be incorrect--multiple ISRCs for the same master, the same ISRC applied to two different mixes/masters, etc. ISRCs are still a decent guideline for how we should sort the masters, though. practik wrote > > > RocknRollArchivist wrote >> >> Lately we have a lot of different reissues of this master: >> 1) stereo or multichannel >> 2) extended (main sound more long than initial and/or an announce, studio >> chatter, etc. added) >> 3) short-cut >> [...] >> What is a master(s) here? >> > > Because new masters are supposed to get new ISRCs, I'd suggest that we > follow ISRC rules for determining what qualifies as a Master in MB: If it > should get a new ISRC, then it should be a separate Master. Section 4 of > the ISRC Handbook addresses many (maybe all) of RocknRollArchivist's > questions, e.g. "A multi-channel mix of a track should have a different > ISRC from the stereo mix of the same material" and "If the playing time is > changed a new ISRC shall be allocated." > > > >> But we can have a dozens takes (T1, T2, unknown take 1, etc.) from some >> sessions (V1, V2, etc.). Evidently these recordings should have a >> different masters. >> > > Actually, I'd say different takes should be different Recordings, both > under our current system and under jacobbrett's proposed system. > > Up to now, I've been working on the assumption that MB Recordings do > correspond to masters. In other words, if we have a track that was > originally released in 1977 on vinyl, then remastered in 1987 for the > first CD release and remastered again in 2003 for a reissue, then I would > currently enter those in MB as three different Recordings. > > This leads to a lot of data duplication and extra work ... but > jacobbrett's proposal could actually be a solution to that. With one > Recording and three Masters, we could add all performer and work > relationships to the Recording; we'd add mastering engineers, ISRCs and > fingerprints to the Masters. Another plus is that we could add recording > dates -- i.e. the dates on which people actually performed music in a > recording studio -- to Recordings. > > So far, I like this proposal. I hope we keep discussing it. One thing to > think about is AR inheritance, since performers would not necessarily be > the same for all masters (because of overdubs). So maybe all Recording > ARs should be inherited by Masters by default, but editors should be > allowed to uncheck the boxes for specific ARs that don't apply to a given > Master? > > Patrick > I intend for a Recording to represent a particular "live" take or a studio mix (of audio tracks from different session takes [i]). Either way, there might be: 1. the initial release 2. a remaster 3. an overdub mix 4. an overdub mix, remaster 5. a radio edit 6. a clean version 7. a clean version, remaster, etc., etc. (each of these entered as different Masters). [i] If these different session takes were later released, they'd be added as individual recordings. Am I missing anything that probably wouldn't be covered by these guidelines? Criticism welcomed! -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Support-disambiguation-of-recording-masters-tp4619363p4630131.html Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
