Much better. I think you've really nailed the principles I'd like to see in there. It's slimline - there isn't 'mixing may involve...' etc. which might add context but don't define and IMO made it all too long. The main recording definition deals with the issues rather than just introducing terms!
What I'd change: get rid of audible - or make it an audible stored representation of sound (but that's probably too many adjectives) editing: get rid of 'sound within' - 'sections of a recording' seems fine and it's only a representation of sound. mixing: nothing! slim and precise mastering: not entirely sure about this but it's fine really. > "set of tracks" is problematic agreed - that's why I went for the awkward 'union' but check out Ben's new version - loads better On 3 May 2013 09:45, LordSputnik <ben.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've just rewritten everything from scratch. I came to realize that audio > tracks were getting in the way, as lixobix said before, so they're not in > my > new definitions. And neither are release tracks. I think it's a lot clearer > now. > > http://piratepad.net/xBQlcnuyM4 > > Also, it's the job of relationship guidelines to say when they should be > used - people who don't know when to use "compilation" or "edit" will look > up the relationships pages, not the "recordings" page. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652440.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 >
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
