Okay, the first sentence is a bit of a mouthful, but I think it does the formal job. Hopefully someone can come up with a more elegant way of saying the latter bit. The second sentence is hopefully a more readable (but less specific) explanation. The third sentence does a deliberately minimalist job of defining mastering,
"In MusicBrainz a recording is the audio from which multiple release tracks were copied or mastered, but is not itself the direct product of copying or mastering. In other words, a recording represents a step in the audio production process, before mastering or copying, but after other processes such as editing or mixing. Mastering is the (optional) process by which recordings are prepared for release." The tongue-twister at the end of the first sentence is trying to get around the: recording could have had masters produced from it, recording could have been produced from mastered audio, recording is not itself the direct product of mastering conundrum. Personally, I don't think we need to put masters in there in the way lixobix suggests, partly because they are optional, there are potentially several in a sequence, but also, the point of abstraction is you don't have to describe the detail of everything. On 12 May 2013 14:38, lixobix <arjtap...@aol.com> wrote: > LordSputnik wrote > > It can group mastered tracks and still represent the audio in those > tracks > > before mastering. I don't see anything mutually exclusive about that? > > > > _______________________________________________ > > MusicBrainz-style mailing list > > > MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz > > > http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style > > "A MusicBrainz recording is an abstract group of similar release tracks, > and > represents the audio in those tracks before it was mastered." > > My issue is that this definition ignores masters in the hierarchy. I think > recordings are the audio used to make masters, so a recording in MB > effectively represents a group of masters. By skipping out the mastering > stage, and saying a recording is a group of release tracks, you cannot say > they represent shared audio, because the audio used to make different > release tracks is different (different masters). If you define them > according to masters, it works because masters are all made from the same > audio (recordings). It seems much clearer to use masters then "the audio in > those tracks before it was mastered", as the latter is far too abstract: > The > audio at which point before mastering? Moreover, you don't abstractly > extract the audio from several masters, you group them according to the > common audio source of the several masters. Also, the fact that this > definition refers to mastering suggests we should define it concisely, > rather than vaguely alluding to it: > > "A recording is a group of masters made from the same audio." > > "A master is a group of release tracks made from the same audio." > > Working this way (form release tracks up) may be better than the other way. > This is how I see the hierarchy. Each level groups similar things from the > level below, by a further layer of abstraction > > Work = group of: > Recordings = group of: > Masters = group of: > Release Tracks > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652713.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
