These are the links you need for the examples. I've merged other duplicates (or masters, etc.) into these.
Don't Push: original http://musicbrainz.org/recording/29d74a35-6058-4b2d-ba4b-0c93a28e6850 album http://musicbrainz.org/recording/0163ad9b-1e55-455b-8b8d-86a842420c4d <http://musicbrainz.org/recording/0163ad9b-1e55-455b-8b8d-86a842420c4d> Punky Reggae Party: Jamaican 12“ A side: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/e1b01ebe-da8f-4d42-a7b8-a83af503190e Short (4:25): http://musicbrainz.org/recording/9b664a0e-3e78-4d74-8ead-27f30d0c7ee5 ‘Long‘ (6:52): http://musicbrainz.org/recording/cfd90954-89a3-4d28-9537-808cd3a7b1c4 dub: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/11b337fa-0d67-4a73-8f44-69aa55acd81c On 12 April 2013 20:28, Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 12 April 2013 19:07, lixobix <arjtap...@aol.com> wrote: > >> Tom Crocker wrote >> > FWIW I believe some edits do involve mixing, such as a so-called "radio >> > edit" where they change >> > swear words to similar sounding words. >> >> This is a good point I hadn't considered. It's quite likely that they >> make a >> clean mix and mis-label it as an edit. However, it may be possible that >> 'clean-edits' are achieved by editing a mix, by using phase cancelling to >> remove parts of the vocal track that are in the centre of the stereo >> spectrum, such as with karaoke versions. Even if this is not the case, it >> could be argued that this is a narrow exception to the general rule, on >> the >> basis that the mix is exactly the same in all other respects. >> >> > My point is that neither the definition of a mix or an edit needs to be > exclusive because we're defining recordings. Your general definition of an > edit was excellent, it just didn't need to be added to by way of excluding > mixes, because all that matters is that an edit or a mix (or something in > the middle that someone could choose to call either an edit or a mix) = new > recording > > >> >> Tom Crocker wrote >> > So should we be changing the style guide alone? >> >> Do you mean as opposed to changing both the style guide and re-labelling >> 'recording' as 'mix' across the database? >> >> > No. I have no desire to see recording be re-labelled mix and I think it > would be wrong. I think a recording is a mix or an edit (I feel like a > broken record(ing)!) or, occasionally, neither. Just a straight up > recording. One microphone plugged into a tape recorder. No mixing (there's > only one track), no editing (beyond having pressed record and stop). > I mean changing the definition here: > Recording<http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording>- which is currently: "A > recording represents a piece of unique audio data > (including eventual mastering and (re-)mixing)." > > >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651449.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 >> > >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
