2013/4/30 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
Not quite, more like "an edit can mean a lot of things, use what's
printed".
Of course, there could possibly be different descriptions of the same
recording on re-issues... Or there is no description ("mix" or "edit").
BTW here's how "radio edit" it's defined on wikipedia: "In music, a *radio
edit* modification to make a song more suitable for airplay, whether it be
adjusted for length, profanity, subject matter, instrumentation, or form."
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
