On 18 May 2013 19:04, Ben Ockmore <ben.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > But if a track is copied and then released, the definition with "copied" > implies the original track is itself a recording. Mastering helps to avoid > that, plus, there's a link to the Wikipedia page for anyone who's unsure of > what that covers. >
But if it's the audio before it was copied or mastered, why would copying a copy make a new recording? I think the wikipedia page is a bit problematic because it is contradictory. The definition at the top is fine, but it also describes mastering as cutting a master direct from acoustic energy rather than recorded audio. By that second definition, our 'recording' (audio before it was mastered) is not actually recorded. The problem with "audio before it was mastered<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering>to create at least one released track" is that mastering doesn't create released tracks. > _______________________________________________ > 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
