On Apr 16, 2013 1:35 PM, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <davito...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Isn't this a tautology? Wouldn't "released" be enough?
Sorry didn't spot that this was aimed at me. I don't think so, it rules out re-releases which seems like the main point of the change > > > 2013/4/16 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> >> >> As I say, I liked the all recordings being released part. Previously unreleased as in previous to its release. Because an audio track can be an existing release. >> >> On Apr 16, 2013 12:03 PM, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <davito...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Funny, I liked the second best, because I believe the first does not allow for recordings resulting from mixing/editing another recording, which could be understood by some users as meaning that if a recording is released then edited and this edit is it self released, the edited recording would be considered as the same as the first in MB, which is of course not what we want. I know, the explanations which follow in the definition page would show that this is not what we mean. Also, I like the second wording because it clearly states that a Recording is always released, which I believe is what we want. >>> >>> In your question, I don't see the point in "previously unreleased". Previously to what? >>> >>> 2013/4/16 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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? > > > > -- > 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
