2013/4/18 symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com>
> 2013/4/18 Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com>
>
>> 2013/4/18 symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com>
>>
>>>
>>> IMO the remasters section should be expanded to include masters or
>>> "different masters".
>>>
>>
>> I don't understand what you mean, could you explain?
>>
>
> The definition page talks about mastering, the style page only mentions
> remasters.
>
Ah, yes. What renaming Remasters as 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.").
>>>
>>
>> Not to my French ears. I believe a good part of the problem is "indicate".
>>
>>
>> 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).
>>>
>>
>> I think the idea is not to explain, but to make sure users will not
>> accidentally miss this important point.
>>
>
> It sounds like an explanation to my Swedish ears ;-) The problem with this
> one is that it doesn't hold together (also that's not the reason why
> recordings aren't defined as masters).
>
I agree, this is not the real reason.
--
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
