jacobbrett wrote > For instances where a compilation contains at least one mastered Track > found only on Releases which have Tracks mastered in multiple periods (or > by different masterers): You would put the information of those unique > masters into the annotation of their respective Recording? If you insist > on doing so, can we at least agree on a syntax so it can be machine-read? > (I imagine Standalone Recordings would be treated similarly).
The information is stored on the release level, not the recording level, because generally tracks on a release are mastered together. The system is far from perfect, especially for compilations, but it's acceptable until we have a master entity. I don't think it needs to be machine readable - what program would use this mastering information in a way that would need it? jacobbrett wrote > That's not true: "A recording represents a piece of unique audio data > (including eventual mastering and (re-)mixing)." [1] -- This is part of > why I disagree with the direction that's being taken in this RFC; I and > many other editors have put in a lot of effort disambiguating mixes and > masters and in the latter case, I'm afraid this information will be lost > or have to be manually restored in the future. While it may have been in the definition, splitting recordings by masters wasn't specified in the Recording Guidelines until last November. Up until then, it was only for remasters. Also, I'm told, prior to NGS, releases were merged when they shared a tracklist, so there was no mastering information stored then either. Nevertheless, I also have put in a lot of effort in disambiguating masters (see The Beatles and ABBA remasters). However, that doesn't mean it's right. Even though I spent a few months doing them, I'll be glad when I can merge all of my work into the original recordings, because it's a better system and more objectively defined. I think the arguments made in IRC Meeting #2 for and against merging separate masters are fairly detailed, and we came to a valid decision on this (we spent the whole hour talking about this topic). Although I was arguing for master entities for most of the meeting, I accepted the final decision, because there was strong support for introducing some form of master entity in the future (after NES has been implemented). jacobbrett wrote > Unfortunately, I'm unable to load the recording pages, and the executable > doesn't seem to do anything after scanning FLACs/MP3s (Ubuntu). > > Quite a while ago; I'm glad you ran with the idea, I'm curious to see it! Yeah, there's a slight problem I introduced when I made the database connection persistent on the server, in that it times out after a certain amount of time, blocking people from viewing pages which rely on the database and from submitting audio scans. I'll hopefully fix it today. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652050.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
