On 30 April 2013 10:27, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 2013/4/30 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> > >> I'm not sure whether this helps: >> >> Editing involves adding, removing, lengthening, shortening or >> re-arranging audio track. Other processes commonly referred to as audio >> editing are not included for the purposes of this definition, as they are >> not relevant to defining distinct recordings. >> >> Here I'm thinking you're talking about changes to pitch, getting rid of >> glitches, little fades in and out, etc. >> > > And altering the level of the track, say raising the levels of the vocals > for a "radio edit". Possibly anything you can do to an audio track in > software could be defined as "editing"? >
Yes, it all comes under the broad heading of editing - particularly now it's in software - but I don't think it matters that we use it more specifically here. > Or, are you meaning that some new mixes are called edits? >> > > Yes. I'll see if I can dig up some examples. > So, *Editing *involves adding, removing, lengthening, shortening or re-arranging audio track. Other processes commonly referred to as audio editing are not included for the purposes of this definition, as they either involve mixing or are not relevant to defining distinct recordings. It's a bit wordy, but is something along these lines what you're aiming for? > >> >> >> On 29 April 2013 21:35, symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2013/4/29 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> >>> >>>> Can you tell us what you don't like about the current versions of edit? >>>> >>> Firstly, I'd like it to mention that "an edit" can mean something else >>> outside of MB. I believe the other definitions are reasonably close to >>> their real-world counterparts, but maybe not regarding what can be >>> considered "editing" audio. And we can do that, but since it's quite common >>> with tracks labelled "edit", IMO we should explain that it can be more than >>> only cutting sections. >>> >>> I also get a bit confused by "modifying sections of audio tracks within >>> a recording". >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 29, 2013 6:02 PM, "symphonick" <symphon...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1 for separate or distinct >>>>> >>>>> I've been trying to edit the "edit" section, but I'm not 100% happy >>>>> with the results so far. Ideas? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2013/4/29 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 29 April 2013 11:13, Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not necessarily that we shouldn't do it at all, but certainly not in >>>>>>> such a way that it could be misinterpreted. Maybe something like: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In MusicBrainz, a *recording* is a set of one or more *audio tracks*, >>>>>>>> which may have been *mixed* or *edited*. Please note that >>>>>>>> mastering alone does not define a new recording in MusicBrainz. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (maybe replace "new" with " separate" or "distinct"). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That would do it. Distinct works best to my ears, but I think any of >>>>>> these would do. It makes the most substantial change to the definition up >>>>>> front and explicit. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> /symphonick >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list >>> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org >>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> MusicBrainz-style mailing list >> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org >> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >> > > > > -- > > /symphonick > > _______________________________________________ > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
