I like that you changed around the order of the main definition. I still think it's clunky but it does the job, and no-one else seemed to like original audio track. Lixobix: unless I'm misunderstanding, your version doesn't rule out different masters and the part about editing and mixing is superfluous because it's included in the first part? Can you explain how you think it limits what qualifies as a MusicBrainz Recording? I think the current definition, while it can be interpreted in different ways at least says enough to let people know they might not understand the meaning intended and read on.
I would change the audio track definition to: An audio track is a captured series of musical, vocal or other sounds, including existing recordings. I think it's more comprehensive in meaning and does nothing to damage your existing use of it. Lixobix: I would continue to use audio track, I also see it as synonymous with a (lower case) recording, but therefore I would use audio track to avoid confusion with a MB Recording Minor, but I would change editing to: *Editing* involves adding, removing, lengthening, shortening or rearranging sections of audio track. (note: not plural tracks, plural sections) Mixing: I'd delete the second sentence. It's superfluous to the definition and potentially confusing. If you want to help people understand, talk about it in the usage guidance. Mastering: I agree with symphonick but understand why you changed it - and agree with davitofrg that 'indicate' might be the problem. Some options: MusicBrainz Recordings do not* *designate* *any particular mastering. MusicBrainz Recordings **are not associated with* *any particular mastering. Overall, I think the definitions are okay but could be better :o) On 18 April 2013 12:36, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2013/4/18 Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com> > >> Ah, right. I only missed the first sentence :-P >> >> >> 2013/4/18 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> >> >>> That was why I took it out of the definition . But remasters don't >>> involve combining tracks, which is required in the definition of mix >>> On Apr 18, 2013 11:10 AM, "Frederic Da Vitoria" <davito...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hmm, I'm wondering: since we include equalization, volume adjustment >>>> and compression into mixing, this means that "digital remasters" where the >>>> most noticeable difference is loudness/compression would qualify as >>>> distinct MB Recordings. I got the impression that this was not what was >>>> intended (although it would suit me perfectly). Did we change this >>>> criterion or should the definition once again be amended? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2013/4/18 LordSputnik <ben.s...@gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> RFC Expected Expiration: 2013-04-25, 12:00 noon (UTC) >>>>> Wiki Page: >>>>> https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording >>>>> JIRA Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-208 >>>>> >>>>> Here's the fifth revision of the proposal: >>>>> >>>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording >>>>> >>>>> with: >>>>> >>>>> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording >>>>> >>>>> This update is mainly incremental changes over the past few days. >>>>> >>>>> Since the last revision, the definition of recording has been reworded >>>>> to >>>>> remove references to "direct recordings", a sentence has been added to >>>>> the >>>>> Overview/Definitions section to explain the relationship between >>>>> recordings >>>>> and other entities, the "masters" section of the definition has been >>>>> changed >>>>> to get rid of the "...indicate a particular master" bit, and finally, >>>>> the >>>>> section on multiple channels in the style guideline has been updated. >>>>> >>>>> I've also shortened the last example and (hopefully) made it clearer, >>>>> and >>>>> removed a sentence from the "Edits" section which was accidentally >>>>> left over >>>>> from before the major changes I made in Rev. 4. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651699.html >>>>> Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> >>>>> > IMO the remasters section should be expanded to include masters or > "different masters". > > In definitions: "Since mastering is a process which can only happen after > a recording is completed, it does not factor into the definition of > recording". > IMO the previous version was much better ("MusicBrainz Recordings do not > indicate any particular mastering."). > Don't try to "explain" why a mastering is not a recording in MB. Most > mixing also happens after recording (unless you capture something using > multiple mics pre-mixed to stereo). > > /symphonick > > _______________________________________________ > 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
