No, I think it does not matter per se, but I guess we'd want to avoid confusing source recordings in this context from source recordings used when sampling. In the last context, both source and resulting recordings are edited and mixed (at least most of the times) and I guess everyone knows it. We must be careful that we are coining a term for using it in the MB documentation, "'source recordings" may reappear somewhere else, so I believe it would be better if we could make sure we won't need this to designate something else somewhere else. Hmm, difficult to say clearly what I mean. I'll try again: We may need to refer to "source/original recordings" somewhere else, in the documentation but also in the discussions. So I think it would be better if we chose words which someone could not misinterpret, words which could be needed to designate something different. I believe "source" could mean different things depending on the context. So I'd prefer "original" (or "primary", or "base", or another word). Now that I think of it, "original" could mean first released. Not good :-(
2013/4/15 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> > Yep, I considered original and I'm not sure. It needs thinking about > because we should only be saying what is important. Does it matter if a > recording has been altered already? Anyway, something to ponder. I don't > have an answer yet. > > > On 15 April 2013 09:33, Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 2013/4/15 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> >> >>> Just wanted to say that I came across this >>> http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf US Government circular about >>> copyright for sound recordings. Obviously, there is stuff in here that is >>> different from how we want to define things in MB, but it does have some >>> very precise definitions. What's interesting is we've managed to wander >>> quite close to some of them. However, mainly where they talk about >>> 'derivative recordings': "The preexisting recorded sounds must have >>> been rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or character, or >>> there must be some additional new sounds." Now this is for copyright, so >>> slightly different rules but if you take out the 'or character or >>> additional new sounds', it's essentially what we've got. But that's only >>> for derivative recordings. This comes back the unmixed unedited question. >>> They define a recording as the product of the “fixation of a series of >>> musical, spoken, or other sounds” (similar to our audio track definition). >>> So I think there might be an answer somewhere in here. I think the mixing >>> and editing is it's what defines unique derivative recordings perhaps >>> versus 'source recordings' (just made that up, don't know what anyone >>> thinks but to me it's better than raw). >>> >> >> Yes, "source recording", maybe "original recording" would be even better, >> because "source" could be relative (it could itself be already altered) >> while "original" seems to be less ambiguous. >> >> -- >> 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 > -- 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
