On 16 April 2013 10:19, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/4/16 Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com> > >> 2013/4/16 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> >> >>> >>> On 15 April 2013 22:26, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 2013/4/15 LordSputnik <ben.s...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> I've done a small update, mainly fixing the things symphonick mentioned >>>>> (downmixing wording, added silence). I also replaced the words "raw >>>>> audio", >>>>> with a new sentence using "direct audio", to make it match the >>>>> definitions >>>>> page. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and I de-capitalized "Recording" in some places. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not too happy about "direct recording". >>>> >>> >>> I'm also not a fan of 'direct recording' or 'direct audio'. >>> I don't think we need to differentiate what came only from one >>> microphone, pick-up, synthesiser, etc. and whether someone applied some EQ >>> or gain to it on the way to the recorder. Borrowing heavily from what we've >>> got, that copyright document and the existing definition of recording, I >>> think we should do something like the following. >>> >>> A recording is a captured series of sounds including musical, spoken, >>> and other sounds >>> >>> Recordings entered in MusicBrainz should be unique. An original sound >>> recording is unique. If a recording incorporates existing recordings, it >>> must be the product of mixing and/or editing to be considered unique. >>> The wording needs working on, but I think the approach will help because >>> it requires less of a mental leap for someone reading it the first time. >>> It's less likely we've forgotten to include some possible configuration. It >>> focuses on what matters, the things that define uniqueness, rather than how >>> processed or raw it is. >>> I know I said original was ambiguous, but I don't think it matters here, >>> because either interpretation gives the same outcome. But any suggestions >>> welcome >>> >> >> Would "primary recording" do? >> >> > Sounds odd to me. And I'm afraid I don't understand Tom's suggestion at > all, even if I like the general idea. What do you think about "released"? > "In MusicBrainz, a *Recording* is either the result of *mixing* and/or * > editing* one or more *audio tracks*, or a released unedited recording." > Or maybe ""In MusicBrainz, a *Recording* is a released *audio track*, > either mixed/edited or unprocessed. See below for specific cases." > > Of these two, I prefer the first. IMO The second sounds a bit too much like anything (I know that's not what you mean) - but I do like making released a general part of the clause. What I was trying to do, but it was too wordy, was explain the type of differences necessary to be called a different recording. But maybe it's unnecessarily complex. Out of interest, would "In MusicBrainz, a *Recording* is either the result of *mixing* and/or * editing* one or more *audio tracks*, or a *'previously unreleased audio track'* be better?
________________________________ > 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
