LordSputnik 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.
As Tom Crocker said, "audible" doesn't clarify sound much. What is audible, as opposed to non-audible, sound? Glad you've come around on audio tracks. My main contention now is the lack of specific sources. If a recording is a stored representation of (audible) sound, then it could be a master. That's why I'm trying to define the sources of primary recordings (i.e. recordings not made from other recordings). I think we could achieve this with a little more discussion of captured sound/signal. Also, your definition indicates that masters and release tracks are the same; is that your opinion? I've added a new version, which identifies the two separate ways to create a recording. http://piratepad.net/xBQlcnuyM4 (P.S. Is there a way to change the colours on the PiratePad? Mine is starting to look messy.) -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652448.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
