On 11/02/2012 12:14 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 11/01/2012 08:06 PM, Sheamus Patt wrote:
Simply digitizing an analogue source doesn't seem to represent any more
significant change than doing an analogue pressing from a digital
source. Sure, some were "remastered", but I think many are simply
digital copies of the original analogue masters with the intention that
it be a faithful rendition. Calling this a distinct audio source is an
artificial distinction, which isn't adding value that I can see.
So what do you do when this "faithful rendition/simple transfer" happens
multiple times and the result is different? Just treat them all the
same, even though they may sound completely different?
I don't really object to new recordings being created to describe a
remastering, particularly if a new engineer was involved and there are
new relationships that need to be attached to describe the new
recording. What I have a problem with is the wording of the revision of
the style guideline which seems to define /any/ analogue-digital
conversion as being such a significant event. I just don't buy the
argument that a digital version "must" sound significantly different
than the analogue. Forcing such a distinction can lead to duplications
of recordings for little benefit and diminish the value of the MB
database because those duplicates will in many cases be left without the
performance relationships etc. that the originals might have had.
_______________________________________________
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
