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