symphonick wrote > IMO the guidelines should cover common usage, I believe "stranger artistic > projects" can be regarded as an exception here. ;-) > Does explaining mastering help? Maybe, maybe not; I added the last > suggestion because the other terms (audio track, mixing etc) are explained > with roughly the same level of detail. You can probably remove the > definitions of mixing & editing too.
It would be possible to remaster one of the songs on a release and not remaster the others, so I'm not sure "set/group of recordings" is a good thing to change it to. This could happen on some deluxe editions of remastered releases (where the original mastered tracks are included alongside the remastered ones). I can see what you're saying, but I think it'll make too many problems. Especially since the current recording definition implies that a recording is mastered, not a set. symphonick wrote > I'd remove "particular format" because it might imply that there's a > different master produced for every format. There is a different master for each format (except digital formats), isn't there? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651837.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
