>From your recording definition: "A mix is the result of editing and/or mixing".
If that's ok, why not "A recording is the result of editing and/or mixing"? Your definition is circular: you define a mix as a mix. It's cumbersome: in order to define a recording, you define a recording as a mix, and and mix as a mix and/or an edit. So why not define a recording as a mix and/or and edit? You subsequently define edit in the guide, and I see no way you could not define it; just move it to the top. I fail to see how the term edit, as defined, is vague. Nor do I see how including edit in the definition of recording could widen the definition. It just makes more sense linguistically. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651466.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
