2013/5/3 lixobix <arjtap...@aol.com> > 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.) >
I agree "audible" could be dangerous. Audible by who, at what time? Recordings could be made of inaudible sounds, then shifted to make it audible (I heard something like this for bird songs). -- 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
