LordSputnik wrote > > lixobix wrote >> The question is, how will migration occur? Currently, we have: >> >> A Song >> A Song [disambiguation: 2009 remaster] >> >> In order to not destroy the data, the disambiguation comment would have >> to be moved to a release level relationship, then eventually used to >> create new 'master' entities for each track on the track list. How easy >> would that be? > Well, you'd do one of two things: > > a) If all the songs on the release were remastered in 2009, disambiguate > the release with (2009 remaster) and use the release level remaster > relationship to link it to the original release. Then merge all the > remaster recordings into the original recordings. > > b) If the release has a mixture of masters, add each known mastering > process to the annotation. Eg. "Tracks 1-4 use 1993 masters, Tracks 4-8 > use 2009 masters". Then merge the remastered recordings into the > originals. > > Then when master entities are introduced, we use the annotation/release > level relationships to store that information properly.
So this would have to be done manually? That's a lot of work... Is there no way this could be automated? I don't know the pragmatics, but you could easily identify remastered recordings and merge them, as the associated releases would match, and the duration would be similar. LordSputnik wrote > > lixobix wrote >> This is why I wanted to drop the reference to audio tracks... >> >> "A recording is a captured series of sounds, or the product of mixing >> and/or editing of one or more >> other recordings. Mastering does not create a new recording." > It's just been explained in a few sentences. I think the definition is > perfectly clear. Recordings and releases are stored in MusicBrainz, as > everybody knows. Release tracks are clearly tracks on releases. Audio > tracks are explained in the sentence below, and can be googled if that's > not enough. Your definition, while not as technical, doesn't make enough > of a distinction between plain recordings in the general sense of the > word, and MB Recordings. Well, I don't think there is a distinction :-) I'm still unclear as to what 'plain recordings' are and why they would be added. Are you talking about users adding each individual multi-track audio recordings? LordSputnik wrote > > lixobix wrote >> [Side note 1: Just realised that "but have not been mastered" in the >> current definition means that anything that has been mastered must not be >> a recording.] > That's exactly what we want it to mean. Anything that has been mastered is > a track, and recordings come before tracks. Tracks use recordings, but > that doesn't mean that a track, which has been mastered, can't use a > recording, which hasn't been mastered. So an edit/mix made from a mastered track is not a recording? That would mean artists like Girl Talk have no recordings: "I'll just hear something on the radio or at a party and go ahead and sample it off a CD or record or download it." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Ripper -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652062.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
