Frederic Da Vitoria wrote > 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.
It's quite clearly a stored representation of sound, just like anything else in the realm of recorded audio. Ask any mastering engineer. Agreed, a master is a particular TYPE of stored representation of sound. Yet any TYPE of stored representation of sound (master, release track, mix, etc) is a recording under that definition. "a recording is a set of one or more [stored representations of sound], some of which could be [masters]" "ONE or more" so ONE master would be a recording. This, we all agreed, is not intended. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652356.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
