2013/4/30 lixobix <arjtap...@aol.com> > You all seem to be OK with an audio track being a stored representation of > sound. To me that makes no sense. It means any stored representation of > sound is a recording. It that's the case, then everything else is in vain. > > "a recording is a set of one or more [stored representations of sound]" > > "a master is a stored representation of sound" > > Therefore: > > "a recording is a set of one or more [masters]" >
Where did you find "a master is a stored representation of sound"? This definition would not be correct IMO, there are many more elements to take into account to define a master. A master is materialized as a stored representation of sound, true, but there are lots of stored representation of sound which are not masters. This would lead to the conclusion:"a recording is a set of one or more [stored representations of sound], some of which could be [masters]", which is precisely what we want to say. -- Frederic Da Vitoria (davitof) Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
