I also think of that tape, but since you (or at least I used to) mix to tape, you have a recording which is a mix. It is also a unique creative expression, even though it didn't come directly from a mouth or musical instrument.
I haven't been around to see all these arguments, but the impression I get is that the misunderstanding was not driven by the choice of words, but the definition "...distinct audio. This means that two recordings should only be merged if the audio that they contain sounds the same." which relies too much on where individuals draw the line on how sufficiently similar is 'the same'. Is it vinyl vs. CD or MP3, is it this mastering or that, all of those? So I think the solution is to provide a definition that is similar to that provided for copyright etc. but can be easily interpreted by individual editors in a consistent manner. Hence we exclude cases where mastering has produced sufficient uniqueness to represent a new recording, because we can't consistently interpret it. On 15 April 2013 09:15, Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2013/4/15 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> > >> >> On 14 April 2013 21:10, Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 2013/4/14 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are >>>> lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea? >>>> >>>> Assuming people agree with redefining recordings, I've tried to edit >>>> both the definitions and usage to simplify and shorten them. I'm sure they >>>> could still be improved on. In general, I've removed lengthy description of >>>> what is typical or the reason things may be done, to concentrate on the >>>> differences themselves. In the definitions I've borrowed from wikipedia. In >>>> the usage, I've shuffled things about so Remasters is now part of merging >>>> (because unlike other things listed above it is not a reason for >>>> differentiation), added a section on format and an edit example, and >>>> heavily reworded most parts to fit the newly proposed definitions. I've >>>> taken about 250 words out overall. Sorry to have to do this as an email, I >>>> guess I should get a wiki page! I've got a version which compares with the >>>> current proposal but think it's too messy to email. >>>> Hope it helps. Say what you think! >>>> >>>> *Definitions* >>>> >>>> A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio >>>> tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both. >>>> >>>> An audio track is recorded sound, captured from a studio performance, >>>> live performance or other audio source. >>>> >>> >>> I agree it is not always raw audio, but I believe mentioning the word >>> raw around here helps users to understand what we are meaning. Maybe >>> something like "(sometimes raw audio)" >>> >> >> I think raw audio is jargon and wrong. Recorded audio or, recorded sound >> is accurate. I'm currently looking at other ways we can define it, but raw >> audio aint it. >> >> >>> >>> Mixing is defined as the process by which multiple audio tracks are >>>> combined into one or more channels, for instance 2-channel stereo. >>>> >>> >>> Why remove the part about relative track volumes? The risk here is that >>> users may consider that only the number of channels matters. >>> >> >> Because mixing is about combining sounds from multiple tracks - you can >> do a ton of things such as change volume (or not), twiddle with the pots, >> add reverb, pan left and right but none of them *define* mixing. >> >> >> Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This >> involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio >> track. >> >>> >>> Why remove the example? An example is often a good way to make sure >>> people understand. >>> >>> >> This is a definitions page as I understood it. So I thought I'd put >> examples on the usage page and keep the definitions clean and short. >> >>> >>> Mastering is a process that is applied to the recording after >>>> completion, to prepare it for release. In MusicBrainz, recordings do >>>> not indicate a particular mastering. >>>> >>> >>> You mean "MusicBrainz Recordings", right? Then IMO you should say so. >>> >>> I'm not sure how that could be misinterpreted. This is a page defining >> recordings. I don't think we need to capitalise the word every time we use >> it, just use it consistently. >> >> >>> >>> >>>> Usage: >>>> A MusicBrainz Recording <https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording> is the >>>> product of edited or mixed audio. In many cases, a track on a releasewill >>>> be the original recording >>>> of a performance. However, there are some important cases to consider >>>> where this is not true - these are discussed in the following section. >>>> >>> >>> I don't think so: it will be the original mix. A recording (in the exact >>> technical meaning) is seldom released. >>> >> >> I take your point that it should say a track on a release *will be a >> copy of *the original recording. >> I disagree about mix. Mix is too specific as it is only true when mixing >> has occurred. >> >>> >>> >>> *Different Performances* >>>> >>>> Different performances of the same work should always be given separate >>>> recordings, no matter how similar they may sound. This applies to both >>>> studio performances and live performances. >>>> >>>> *Different Recordings of the Same Performance* >>>> >>>> This section mostly applies to live bootleg recordings. Different audio >>>> recordings of the same performance will always result in different audio. A >>>> new MusicBrainz Recording should be created for each mix of a performance >>>> using different audio recordings. >>>> >>>> *Mixes, remixes, etc.* >>>> >>>> Different recordings can be produced by mixing (combining) the same >>>> audio tracks differently. For example, the volume or tone of individual >>>> tracks may be altered, or effects may be applied to them. The resulting >>>> recording is often labelled mix, remix, dub, etc. Regardless of their name, >>>> differences in mixing always produce new recordings. >>>> >>> >>> Sorry again, but no: when I hear or see "recording", my first >>> understanding of this word is the technical meaning of raw audio. In that >>> technical meaning, as soon as you start fiddling with the sound, this is >>> not a recording any more for the simple reason that the sound isn't "raw" >>> any more. >>> >> >> I'm sorry that's your first reaction but it's not mine and I don't >> consider it the correct technical meaning. A sound recording is a record of >> sound waves. The name describes it well. I don't know what you think raw >> audio is, I can guess, but it doesn't make sense to me because it has >> always been processed - if we're talking a microphone then a diaphragm has >> vibrated and an electrical signal has been amplified, if it's a radio-mic >> it's then been converted into radio waves, probably with a change in >> encoding, changed back, etc. etc. Where does computer generated sound fit >> in raw audio? >> > > The first thing I visualize when I hear "recording" are reel tapes turning > in a recording studio. For me, a recording is the first materialized trace > of a sound. The *first* because when I hear the word "recording", I also > hear "record", with it's legal meaning, something "pure", something which > hasn't been tampered with. In this sense, subsequent steps in the processes > which will ultimately lead (or not) to a release don't really fit that word > because they have been tampered with, just as a xerox copy does not have > any legal value because it could have been tempered with. But once again, > this is my way of hearing it, I'm French and I may have got the word > "recording" completely wrong. > > > *Edits and partial recordings* >>>> >>>> Different recordings can be produced by editing the same audio >>>> differently. For example, a radio edit or single edit may involve removing >>>> an intro or outro, verses, bridges or interludes, or censoring some of >>>> the content. Other examples include only using a portion of audio, or >>>> extended >>>> edits that may repeat parts of the audio. Where a fade is used during >>>> the first or last section, this is not editing, as the section is not >>>> removed. >>>> >>> >>> See above. >>> >>> I'll stop answering from there because most of my other remarks come >>> from this fundamental difference. I thought the great idea which was >>> decided on IRC was to replace "recording" with "mix". Although I regretted >>> some decisions which were taken during that meeting (especially not >>> separating different masters), I believe this goes in the right direction >>> because it addresses the issue of the MB Recording which is not something >>> users seem to be able to understand. You are going backwards IMO because >>> you are re-introducing the recording but with another meaning. I know, you >>> are actually re-introducing the word, not the meaning, but I fail to see >>> how a technically false meaning can be better than anything else. If we are >>> to change the meaning of MB Recording, then we definitely also change the >>> word. Else instead of improving things, we will make them worse. Is it >>> because I'm French? I believe that using the correct terms is one of the >>> most important things, one of the first things to consider. If "recording" >>> can be understood with very different meanings by different users, and >>> worse if they don't realize that this risk exists, then ban the word >>> "recording" from the documentation, else you can't expect a consistent >>> behaviour from your editors. >>> >> >> I disagree with it being technically false. My big problem with mix was >> that it was, alone, false. Not all of the audio on all releases is mixed. >> It's true for the vast majority of modern releases but still not always >> true and definitely not true for many older recordings. Louie >> Louie<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louie_Louie>was all recorded under one >> mic, and that was in 1963. >> I am only doing all this because I want it to be clear. I'm a very new >> user/editor of MusicBrainz and while I see its potential I think it really >> lacks in clear rules that can be easily understood and consistently >> applied. I haven't been sending tons of emails about terminology because I >> don't care about getting the terminology right. >> So, we want a word we all understand. The thing with recording is it is >> the correct word and I don't know of another. It is in ISRC (The >> *International >> Standard Recording Code* (*ISRC*) is an international standard code for >> uniquely identifying *sound recordings*), it is the word used by the US >> copyright office: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf >> The reason recording is the right word to use is because it is a general >> word. If we use a very technical term then there will be things that fall >> outside of what it means. We use a general term and then provide very clear >> guidance on how exactly to interpret it in the MusicBrainz world. All >> MBRecordings will be recordings. >> We could make up our own word but I don't think that will help >> understanding. I understand why people would wonder whether differences in >> mastering were important, but I don't understand why someone would >> completely misunderstand the word. If there are words that mean what we all >> mean, lets hear them. >> > > I understand your point of view. But the word recording has been in MB > since the beginning of NGS, and unless I misunderstood, it has been the > source of many misunderstandings. If it hadn't been a problem, we wouldn't > be having this discussion now. But maybe "mix" wouldn't be any better in > this regard, maybe "mix" would even be worse. > > -- > Frederic Da Vitoria > (davitof) > > Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - > http://www.april.org > > _______________________________________________ > 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
