Or maybe it would be good to spell out exactly what all this has been about: "A *recording* is a captured series of musical, vocal or other sounds but is not associated with any particular mastering" and leave it at that.
On 18 April 2013 14:45, Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> I agree with Lixobix about recordings = sounds = audio tracks. If you >>> start by defining recordings as all captured sounds, other definitions on >>> top of that seem superfluous to me. >>> >> > Me too. The reason for extra definitions goes back to the original attempt > to define a recording as a mix (which we rightly didn't do) - currently MB > Recordings are often used for any and all captured sounds, rather than > those sufficiently different (which we seemed to agree were those modified > by editing or mixing, but not by mastering). > So, either we say something like the current version, or we try to go > the opposite way and start ruling out the types of things that don't make a > (sufficient) difference. e.g. > "A *recording* is a captured series of musical, vocal or other sounds but > is not associated with the volume, tone, pitch, compression or medium with > which it may be released." > I'm not sure that gets us much further and I've almost certainly left a > lot of things (like depopping or noise reduction) out. > > I'd call the section in the usage guide "Masters and remasters" to be > sure. And I'd move it so it sits with the things it should be associated > with - reasons to merge not reasons to differentiate. Currently it says: > "However, there are some important cases to consider where this is not > true ..." and there is a heading "Remasters" which is bound to confuse > someone. You might hope they'll read it all but some people won't. >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
