Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[Tom Crocker]

On 11 April 2013 17:56, symphonick  wrote:

> "An existing mix can be taken and used as the basis for a new mix, which
> will be a remix of the existing mix."
>
> No. It's possible, but not how I would define (traditional)
> mixing/remixing.
> Wikipedia: "audio mixing or mixdown is the process by which multiple
> recorded sounds are combined into one or more channels, for instance
> 2-channel stereo"
> So in this instance the "mix" is now in 2-track format, which means you
> can't base a new mix on the old one.
> Remix traditionally means doing a new mix using the original (multitrack)
> audio.
> A mix is a specific "mixing performance", so to speak. Every new mix is a
> new performance.
>
> Now with computers & total recall, a mixing engineer will likely be able
> to redo or "update" a mix - say increase the relative level of the vocals -
> that was done some years ago. In those cases, we could maybe discuss "based
> on" (but still a straight "mix A is based on mix B" wouldn't be technically
> correct).
>
> Remixes done using pre-mixed tracks, e.g. ccmixter, are a difficult area
> definition-wise. But I'd say it's better to use "using audio from"
> relationship and only credit the remixer instead of trying to establish if
> it's relevant to include mixing credits from the source audio.
>
> /symphonick
>
>
Would this be a clearer way of writing the first two paragraphs of 'remixes
and remasters':

Different mixes can be produced using the same audio sources. These are
sometimes called mix, remix, version, dub, etc. Regardless of their name,
different mixes should always be entered as different recordings.
?



> ___
> 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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Rights society relationship (STYLE-209)

[daniel.]

+1

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[Tom Crocker]

On 11 April 2013 21:00, LordSputnik  wrote:

>
> The mix is passed to the mastering engineer who will produce the master.
> Editing and mixing take place before the mix is completed and sent for
> mastering.
>
>
But editing can happen after mixdown (i.e. once a mix is completed) such as
chopping off the end of a song or cutting it up into several parts.
Alternatively, there may be no mixing. There's plenty of bootlegs where
some audio is taken and cut but not mixed. There must be loads of
recordings from before multitracks where they released a previously
released recording but with the last chorus chopped off or just one song
out of a medley. The rule has to fit all audio, not just most multi-track
recordings.


>
> Editing isn't mixing. Editing and mixing make a mix. Editing makes an edit.
> But a track on a release called an "edit" may be equivalent to a "remix",
> because I've seen identical recordings labelled as both. However, sometimes
> edits are less than a remix, which is usually the case for radio edits.
>
>
Well, exactly. But why does it matter - and if they are all examples of
recordings why not say so. The point is, we don't have to split hairs about
where exactly the dividing line between a remix and an edit are, because
they are both unique recordings. If artist A calls it an edit and artist B
calls an identical process a remix why not let them.  Artist intent and all
that


>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651384.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: Rights society relationship (STYLE-209)

[Robert Kaye]

On Apr 10, 2013, at 11:43 AM, Nikki wrote:

> This proposal is for a new label type "Rights Society" and a 
> relationship between labels and releases, which will give the existing 
> entries a real meaning and also give us a more structured way to enter 
> rights society information.
> 
> Wiki page for the relationship: 
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Nikki/Rights_society_relationship
> Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-209


+1 to this from me -- this will be increasingly important for us going forward.

--

--ruaok

Robert Kaye -- r...@musicbrainz.org --http://musicbrainz.org



___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[LordSputnik]

lixobix wrote
> As a rather important side note, could someone show me where they got the
> idea that The Beatles 2009 Remasters are actually remixed? I can't find
> any source saying that after a quick google. In fact, I'm finding that
> they ARE remasters:
> http://www.beatleswiki.com/wiki/index.php/Review:_Beatles_Mono_and_Stereo_Remasters_Box_Sets

I got that idea from listening to them and from reading the first half of:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct09/articles/beatlesremasters.htm.

On reading the second half, it's quite clear that they're remasters, and
although they mentioned the multi-track tapes in the first section, they
didn't actually use them.

So they are actually just well done remasters. On the other hand, the 1987
stereo remixes are definitely remixes, and they're the only Beatles stuff
mentioned in the guideline. Yellow Submarine Songtrack also has Beatles
remixes on it.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651386.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[Tom Crocker]

On 11 April 2013 19:08, lixobix  wrote:

> As a rather important side note, could someone show me where they got the
> idea that The Beatles 2009 Remasters are actually remixed? I can't find any
> source saying that after a quick google. In fact, I'm finding that they ARE
> remasters:
>
> http://www.beatleswiki.com/wiki/index.php/Review:_Beatles_Mono_and_Stereo_Remasters_Box_Sets
>
>
Umm, I don't know who got the idea the 2009 remasters were remixes, I
thought it was you who mentioned it.
In the example in the guidance I talked about the 1987 version of Rubber
Soul and Help!
In Sound On Sound they described the 2009 stereo releases of the earliest
albums as blurring the boundary between mixing and mastering because the
main mix was mono and the stereo mix was more of a two track mix. But no,
they weren't remixes.


> --
> View this message in context:
> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651381.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[LordSputnik]

A master recording is way out of the scope of this guideline. It's the result
of the mastering process, which we aren't considering here.

The mix is passed to the mastering engineer who will produce the master.
Editing and mixing take place before the mix is completed and sent for
mastering.

My definition of editing comes from the last IRC meeting a few weeks ago,
where we all agreed on it:

http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz/2013/2013-03/2013-03-20.html#T20-36-18-749888

From: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording

"Editing of audio tracks generally takes place before mixing, and is more to
do with changing the positioning and duration of each audio track. Moving a
drum solo from the end of one chorus to the end of the next is an example of
editing. Shifting background vocals along a few seconds so that they start
at a different point in the song is another example."

Editing isn't mixing. Editing and mixing make a mix. Editing makes an edit.
But a track on a release called an "edit" may be equivalent to a "remix",
because I've seen identical recordings labelled as both. However, sometimes
edits are less than a remix, which is usually the case for radio edits.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651384.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[jonitis]

Finally! YES!!



From: Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
Sent: ‎Thursday‎, ‎April‎ ‎11‎, ‎2013 ‎3‎:‎48‎ ‎PM
To: MusicBrainz Style Discussion


So. The recent code changes on MBS-6039 mean it's now possible to add 
instruments/vocals to member relationships in a fairly nice way (example from 
my sandbox).




As such, I propose we allow this (yes, I'm kinda excited about it :) )




See 
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type 
for the proposed changes to the relationship.




While I was at it, I've also made a small addition to the guideline about 
conductors to actually mention that we now have a way to link conductors to 
groups.




Ticket is at http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-168

Expected RFV date is April 18.




-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Rachel Dwight]

+1. I've needed this for a long time.

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 11, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria  wrote:

> That's what I thought. I am a bit ashamed to say it took me a long time to 
> notice one could select more than one line there.
> 
> 
> 
> 2013/4/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria  
>> wrote:
>>> Sorry, I was not clear enough as usual. Here is what I meant:
>>> 
>>> If the *editing* UI will be designed in such a way that the user will know 
>>> that he can use more than one instrument/vocal at the same time (for 
>>> example check boxes in front of each option), then everything is fine. But 
>>> if it will be something like a list where you can select more than one line 
>>> (if you have the idea of pressing the Ctrl key), then we are in a 
>>> configuration where the possibility is hidden from most users. In this 
>>> case, I believe it will be better if the example shows that such a 
>>> possibility is available.
>> 
>> It's *literally* just using the vocal and instrumental attributes. Those are 
>> independent of the specific relationship and have always the same UI, so 
>> yes, it's exactly as everywhere else: 
>> 
>> http://i.imgur.com/NkzqJZW.png
>> 
>> -- 
>> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>> 
>> ___
>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[lixobix]

As a rather important side note, could someone show me where they got the
idea that The Beatles 2009 Remasters are actually remixed? I can't find any
source saying that after a quick google. In fact, I'm finding that they ARE
remasters:
http://www.beatleswiki.com/wiki/index.php/Review:_Beatles_Mono_and_Stereo_Remasters_Box_Sets



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651381.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[lixobix]

LordSputnik wrote
> Yes, and edit will result in a new recording. But that's because editing
> has been done to create the edit, therefore it's a new mix, because the
> definition of mix is the result of editing and mixing audio tracks. If the
> audio tracks are edited differently, they result in a new mix.
> 
> Edit is often used interchangeably with the word "remix", on releases like
> these:
> 
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/4ceb52c5-a8d5-4761-b100-8fc1adb44696
> 
> If this isn't the kind of edit you mean, please explain.

While we agree on the outcome, I disagree on terminology. You use define
editing as an element of mixing, which it is not. Editing is involves
rearranging a master recording. It does not involve mixing at all. The two
are not used interchangeably, they mean different things. On the release you
mentioned, there are three tracks which are some kind of edit: one edit (as
I have defined above); one re-edit (which is more drastic editing: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Re-edit); one remix edit (which is an edit OF a
remix).

Trying to define editing as an element of mixing stretches the meaning of
the term mixing, and it does not make the definition of recording any
simpler than if both were defined separately.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651380.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[Tom Crocker]

As I said before, I think we're agreeing on meaning, just very slightly
disagreeing on wording. I think you're saying that sometimes the words edit
and mix can be used interchangeably, I agree. A mix is the result of
editing and mixing, I agree. But that's almost the point, both terms are
used in the definition. Mixing emphasises combining different sounds,
editing emphasises selecting or removing material. Obviously in a mix you
do both, but the words mix and edit don't always have the same feel to
them. A radio edit emphasises the removing material part and in some cases
no new mixing would be done. You can define that as a mix, but I think it
makes it easier for people to understand if you say mix or edit.
A new user: "Hmmm, is this edit a remix? well, no new mixing was done..."
As you point out, the words can sometimes be used interchangeably, so why
not use both?


On 11 April 2013 17:25, LordSputnik  wrote:

> lixobix wrote
> > I agree that edits clearly make new recordings. However, to try to define
> > an edit as a new mix stretches the meaning of the word. Therefore, I
> > propose we define recordings as either mixes OR edits:
>
> Yes, and edit will result in a new recording. But that's because editing
> has
> been done to create the edit, therefore it's a new mix, because the
> definition of mix is the result of editing and mixing audio tracks. If the
> audio tracks are edited differently, they result in a new mix.
>
> Edit is often used interchangeably with the word "remix", on releases like
> these:
>
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/4ceb52c5-a8d5-4761-b100-8fc1adb44696
>
> If this isn't the kind of edit you mean, please explain.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651377.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[symphonick]

"An existing mix can be taken and used as the basis for a new mix, which
will be a remix of the existing mix."

No. It's possible, but not how I would define (traditional)
mixing/remixing.
Wikipedia: "audio mixing or mixdown is the process by which multiple
recorded sounds are combined into one or more channels, for instance
2-channel stereo"
So in this instance the "mix" is now in 2-track format, which means you
can't base a new mix on the old one.
Remix traditionally means doing a new mix using the original (multitrack)
audio.
A mix is a specific "mixing performance", so to speak. Every new mix is a
new performance.

Now with computers & total recall, a mixing engineer will likely be able to
redo or "update" a mix - say increase the relative level of the vocals -
that was done some years ago. In those cases, we could maybe discuss "based
on" (but still a straight "mix A is based on mix B" wouldn't be technically
correct).

Remixes done using pre-mixed tracks, e.g. ccmixter, are a difficult area
definition-wise. But I'd say it's better to use "using audio from"
relationship and only credit the remixer instead of trying to establish if
it's relevant to include mixing credits from the source audio.

/symphonick
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[LordSputnik]

lixobix wrote
> I agree that edits clearly make new recordings. However, to try to define
> an edit as a new mix stretches the meaning of the word. Therefore, I
> propose we define recordings as either mixes OR edits:

Yes, and edit will result in a new recording. But that's because editing has
been done to create the edit, therefore it's a new mix, because the
definition of mix is the result of editing and mixing audio tracks. If the
audio tracks are edited differently, they result in a new mix.

Edit is often used interchangeably with the word "remix", on releases like
these:

http://musicbrainz.org/release/4ceb52c5-a8d5-4761-b100-8fc1adb44696

If this isn't the kind of edit you mean, please explain.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651377.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[Tom Crocker]

lixobix, I agree entirely. And I think that you've managed to write it with
great clarity (which is more than I managed to do above!)


On 11 April 2013 16:52, lixobix  wrote:

> Tom Crocker wrote
> > Edits / mixes
> > I'm not saying edits are never mixes, just that simply cutting a master
> > track does not involve mixing but can create a new recording. Personally,
> > having defined a recording as a unique mix, I'd refer to them as
> > recordings
> > because that's their name in the database. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we're
> > disagreeing over a slight difference in choice of words rather than
> > meaning.
>
> I agree that edits clearly make new recordings. However, to try to define
> an
> edit as a new mix stretches the meaning of the word. Therefore, I propose
> we
> define recordings as either mixes OR edits:
>
> "A recording is a unique mix or a unique edit.
>
> [mix definitions]
>
> An edit is a mix that is restructured. This involves removing or adding
> sections to or from the mix, for example removing the intro, outro or a
> verse. Another example is when a portion of a mix is used, perhaps just one
> section. Where a fade is used during the first or last section, this is not
> an edit, as the section is not removed.
>
> [examples: single/radio edit; extended edit; partial recording/extract]"
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651372.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[lixobix]

Sorry, more accurate would be:

"This involves adding or removing sections to or from the mix, or
lengthening or shortening sections."



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651373.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[lixobix]

Tom Crocker wrote
> Edits / mixes
> I'm not saying edits are never mixes, just that simply cutting a master
> track does not involve mixing but can create a new recording. Personally,
> having defined a recording as a unique mix, I'd refer to them as
> recordings
> because that's their name in the database. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we're
> disagreeing over a slight difference in choice of words rather than
> meaning.

I agree that edits clearly make new recordings. However, to try to define an
edit as a new mix stretches the meaning of the word. Therefore, I propose we
define recordings as either mixes OR edits:

"A recording is a unique mix or a unique edit.

[mix definitions]

An edit is a mix that is restructured. This involves removing or adding
sections to or from the mix, for example removing the intro, outro or a
verse. Another example is when a portion of a mix is used, perhaps just one
section. Where a fade is used during the first or last section, this is not
an edit, as the section is not removed.

[examples: single/radio edit; extended edit; partial recording/extract]"



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651372.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

That's what I thought. I am a bit ashamed to say it took me a long time to
notice one could select more than one line there.



2013/4/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 

> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria 
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I was not clear enough as usual. Here is what I meant:
>>
>> If the *editing* UI will be designed in such a way that the user will
>> know that he can use more than one instrument/vocal at the same time (for
>> example check boxes in front of each option), then everything is fine. But
>> if it will be something like a list where you can select more than one line
>> (if you have the idea of pressing the Ctrl key), then we are in a
>> configuration where the possibility is hidden from most users. In this
>> case, I believe it will be better if the example shows that such a
>> possibility is available.
>>
>
> It's *literally* just using the vocal and instrumental attributes. Those
> are independent of the specific relationship and have always the same UI,
> so yes, it's exactly as everywhere else:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/NkzqJZW.png
>
> --
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>



-- 
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

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 5:57 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:

> Sorry, I was not clear enough as usual. Here is what I meant:
>
> If the *editing* UI will be designed in such a way that the user will know
> that he can use more than one instrument/vocal at the same time (for
> example check boxes in front of each option), then everything is fine. But
> if it will be something like a list where you can select more than one line
> (if you have the idea of pressing the Ctrl key), then we are in a
> configuration where the possibility is hidden from most users. In this
> case, I believe it will be better if the example shows that such a
> possibility is available.
>

It's *literally* just using the vocal and instrumental attributes. Those
are independent of the specific relationship and have always the same UI,
so yes, it's exactly as everywhere else:

http://i.imgur.com/NkzqJZW.png

-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

Sorry, I was not clear enough as usual. Here is what I meant:

If the *editing* UI will be designed in such a way that the user will know
that he can use more than one instrument/vocal at the same time (for
example check boxes in front of each option), then everything is fine. But
if it will be something like a list where you can select more than one line
(if you have the idea of pressing the Ctrl key), then we are in a
configuration where the possibility is hidden from most users. In this
case, I believe it will be better if the example shows that such a
possibility is available.


2013/4/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 

> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria 
> wrote:
>
>> If the UI shows this, then I agree with your RFC as is. If not, I suggest
>> you edit your example: "if an artist usually performs vocals and guitar for
>> a band, but also plays trombone in two recordings, only vocals and guitar
>> should be selected"
>>
>
> If the UI shows what exactly? :) That is a direct screenshot from the
> sandbox UI, not edited or anything. Or you mean when editing the
> relationship? If so, there there is just the standard vocals dropdown (like
> in performed vocals) and below it the standard instruments dropdown (like
> in performed instrument).
>
> One problem right now is that we don't have a simple "vocals" or
> "instruments" option that can be selected, so a type must be chosen - but a
> type is almost always applicable so that should be reasonably OK.
>

-- 
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

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:

> If the UI shows this, then I agree with your RFC as is. If not, I suggest
> you edit your example: "if an artist usually performs vocals and guitar for
> a band, but also plays trombone in two recordings, only vocals and guitar
> should be selected"
>

If the UI shows what exactly? :) That is a direct screenshot from the
sandbox UI, not edited or anything. Or you mean when editing the
relationship? If so, there there is just the standard vocals dropdown (like
in performed vocals) and below it the standard instruments dropdown (like
in performed instrument).

One problem right now is that we don't have a simple "vocals" or
"instruments" option that can be selected, so a type must be chosen - but a
type is almost always applicable so that should be reasonably OK.

--
Nicolas Tamargo de Eguren
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Tom Crocker]

Sounds awesome.


On 11 April 2013 14:15, Frederic Da Vitoria  wrote:

> If the UI shows this, then I agree with your RFC as is. If not, I suggest
> you edit your example: "if an artist usually performs vocals and guitar for
> a band, but also plays trombone in two recordings, only vocals and guitar
> should be selected"
>
>
> 2013/4/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 
>
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria > > wrote:
>>
>>> IIUC, this new feature allows for only one instrument. Shouldn't
>>> "primary role(s) associated" really be "primary role associated"
>>>
>>
>> You, sir, are wrong! :) While usually, this *will* be one instrument, we
>> can use as many as we want. For example:
>>
>> http://i.imgur.com/h3ijnhw.png
>>
>> --
>> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>>
>> ___
>> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
>> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
>> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 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
>
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[Tom Crocker]

The changes you've made: all good.

Edits / mixes
I'm not saying edits are never mixes, just that simply cutting a master
track does not involve mixing but can create a new recording. Personally,
having defined a recording as a unique mix, I'd refer to them as recordings
because that's their name in the database. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we're
disagreeing over a slight difference in choice of words rather than meaning.

On 11 April 2013 13:17, LordSputnik  wrote:

> Tom Crocker wrote
> > I've put together some examples that could go at the end. Hopefully these
> > would help people apply the guidelines consistently. Some of the
> > associated
> > recordings need tidying up but that can be done. If someone has better
> > examples or if I've misinterpreted the Beatles example, shout up!
>
> I've added the Beatles example, and the Sublime example, but not the Bob
> Marley example because there isn't anything really written about edits yet.
>

But cutting two minutes or four minutes off a track must make it a new
recording, and it sounds like they just faded out the master. So, shouldn't
there be something? You've written about a change of structure already.


>
> Might change the Beatles example to another artist, because I may need to
> use them for the audio channels example.
>
>
Actually, I was thinking you could incorporate the audio channel example
into it. I was figuring it would be good to stick with The Beatles because
they are so widely known that people are more likely to be familiar with
the eras/albums/songs. Anyway, see how it goes. Good luck!
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

If the UI shows this, then I agree with your RFC as is. If not, I suggest
you edit your example: "if an artist usually performs vocals and guitar for
a band, but also plays trombone in two recordings, only vocals and guitar
should be selected"


2013/4/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 

> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria 
> wrote:
>
>> IIUC, this new feature allows for only one instrument. Shouldn't "primary
>> role(s) associated" really be "primary role associated"
>>
>
> You, sir, are wrong! :) While usually, this *will* be one instrument, we
> can use as many as we want. For example:
>
> http://i.imgur.com/h3ijnhw.png
>
> --
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>



-- 
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

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:

> IIUC, this new feature allows for only one instrument. Shouldn't "primary
> role(s) associated" really be "primary role associated"
>

You, sir, are wrong! :) While usually, this *will* be one instrument, we
can use as many as we want. For example:

http://i.imgur.com/h3ijnhw.png

-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

IIUC, this new feature allows for only one instrument. Shouldn't "primary
role(s) associated" really be "primary role associated"



2013/4/11 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren 

> So. The recent code changes on 
> MBS-6039 mean
> it's now possible to add instruments/vocals to member relationships in a
> fairly nice way (example from my 
> sandbox)
> .
>
> As such, I propose we allow this (yes, I'm kinda excited about it :) )
>
> See
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type 
> for
> the proposed changes to the relationship.
>
> While I was at it, I've also made a small addition to the guideline about
> conductors to actually mention that we now have a way to link conductors to
> groups.
>
> Ticket is at http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-168
> Expected RFV date is April 18.
>
> --
> Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>



-- 
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

[mb-style] RFC STYLE-168: Allow instruments/vocals in member of rels

[Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren]

So. The recent code changes on
MBS-6039 mean
it's now possible to add instruments/vocals to member relationships in a
fairly nice way (example from my
sandbox)
.

As such, I propose we allow this (yes, I'm kinda excited about it :) )

See
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Member_of_Band_Relationship_Type
for
the proposed changes to the relationship.

While I was at it, I've also made a small addition to the guideline about
conductors to actually mention that we now have a way to link conductors to
groups.

Ticket is at http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-168
Expected RFV date is April 18.

-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[LordSputnik]

Tom Crocker wrote
> I've put together some examples that could go at the end. Hopefully these
> would help people apply the guidelines consistently. Some of the
> associated
> recordings need tidying up but that can be done. If someone has better
> examples or if I've misinterpreted the Beatles example, shout up!

I've added the Beatles example, and the Sublime example, but not the Bob
Marley example because there isn't anything really written about edits yet.

Might change the Beatles example to another artist, because I may need to
use them for the audio channels example.

If anyone knows a good example of two bootleg recordings of the same live
performance, let me know.




--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651325.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[LordSputnik]

Sheamus Patt wrote
> I can't agree with the intent of Audio Channels. While of course
> recordings with different numbers of channels with "sound different", I
> still don't feel it's a productive use of our time replicating
> relationships across two or more instances of a recording because they
> have different channels. This will be the case of many older recordings
> where they still came out in Mono and Stereo, and is going to impact many
> newer ones as well, as the trend for DVD-Audio means we'll be seeing many
> more surround sound recordings. It also completely loses the relationship
> between those recordings, i.e. that they were of the same performance or
> studio session. I doubt the exception for "down-mixing" will have much
> impact, as there does not seem to be a good way to differentiate a
> down-mix from a re-mix given the information available to editors (i.e.
> what's on a media package, usually).

You can actually sometimes find that sort of information through a google
search. It may also be on wikipedia. However, I should probably say
something in the guideline like "where the number of channels is unknown,
assume it will be the same as the most widely used mix".

Where this information is known, however, it should be used to separate
recordings, since recording = mix, and if the mix is different, there should
be a different recording. If that's currently too much work, then we need to
improve the interface. I'll discuss with the devs in the next developer
meeting about making relationships easier to copy between entities. It might
also be good to be able to create arbitrary groups of relationships and
share parts of these groups between several entities.




--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651321.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[LordSputnik]

Tom Crocker wrote
> I would reorganise the sections so that you lead the reader from the
> simple
> case to the complex: Different performances; Different recordings of the
> same performance; Remixes and remasters / Audio channels (not sure of the
> order of these two, but probably audio channels is a more unusual cause of
> differentiation so put it later).

Good idea, done this now.


Tom Crocker wrote
> I’d change ‘most cases’ to ‘many cases’ (I guess we can’t substantiate
> most)
> 
> I think the Different recordings of the same performance section mostly
> applies to *live* bootlegs
> 
> In remixes and remasters, I wouldn’t say ‘an entirely new mix’, just ‘a
> new
> mix’.

Fixed.


Tom Crocker wrote
> Personally I find ‘new mix can be an edit’ confusing. I would say a remix
> or an edit is a different recording than the original mix (definitely
> don’t
> say song here because it confuses with work). I’d also link to the edit
> relationship here, because this explains what is/isn’t an edit.

I've changed "song" for "mix" and changed the wording a bit. I'll add
something on edits later today, but I was having trouble adding them
yesterday so I left it then.


Tom Crocker wrote
> You haven’t said that remasters are not to be entered as different
> recordings. I’d put:
> 
> *"Remastered tracks should not be entered as different recordings. *
> *Remastering
> can be recorded as a **relationship between
> releases;
> .* *Remasters *generally feature the original mix of a performance, only
> with different mastering applied.The exception to this is where a track
> labelled as a remaster is in fact a remix - in this case, follow the remix
> guidelines above."

Reworded this section a little, let me know what you think.


Tom Crocker wrote
> Could you rename the title of audio channels to “Number of audio channels”
> or “Audio channels (mono, stereo, etc.)”. I think it would make it easier
> for someone skim reading to understand.

Done.


Tom Crocker wrote
> I’d change your definition of edits to be closer to the edit relationship
> (and again, personally I wouldn’t call them new mixes because it doesn’t
> make sense to me). I’d say:
> 
> "Recordings of different durations can be merged, unless there *is
> evidence
> to suggest that one recording is an edit of another. An "edit", for this
> relationship, can be a radio edit (which involves streamlining a longer
> track to around the 3 minute mark in order to make it suitable for radio
> play), or a censored, or substantially shortened version of the original
> recording.* Volume fades at the beginning or end of a song are considered
> mastering and not mixing, unless they cause the structure of the song to
> change.

I disagree here - if the duration has been changed, the radio edit is almost
certainly a new mix. If some profanity has been removed, it's just an edit.
But in many cases "edit" can be used interchangeably with "remix", and has
been on some current MB recordings that I've seen.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651319.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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

[Frederic Da Vitoria]

Yes, that's also what I thought. I suggest the guide should mention that
the first cover may not be a good indication of whether it is a mix or a
remaster. Just to tell users not to follow blindly what is printed in big
characters.


2013/4/11 symphonick 

> 2013/4/10 Frederic Da Vitoria 
>
>>
>> 2013/4/8 symphonick 
>>
>>> corner case - something has been called a remaster but it's actually a
>>> remix? I think we can assume that most of the time a mix is a mix and a
>>> remaster is a remaster.
>>>
>>
>>  People in charge of commercial matters are bound to make this kind of
>> improper semantic shift. Remixes are perceived as new artistic creations
>> while remasters are perceived as 'better' audio version of the same source.
>> So each time someone wants to sell you some sound and say that there is
>> some new artistic material in it, he'll label it "remix", while when
>> someone tries to sell you an old recording and pretends that it's the same
>> just better sounding he'll label it "remaster", even if technically this is
>> actually a new mix. I never saw a release boasting "new mix" for only
>> "better" sound quality , and I don't expect to. The commercial meanings of
>> those words as usual will become unrelated to their technical meanings.
>>
>> I'm not sure this is a corner case: what is the sure way to distinguish
>> remasters from remixes if you forget what is printed? How do we know how
>> frequently remaster has been used for remix?
>>
>
> I think we are looking at this from two different angles. I was talking
> about who was hired to do what work: if you ask Foo to mix your song,
> you're not getting a master. And if Bar is sent a group of songs for
> mastering, you will get a mastered album, not new mixes.
>
> Now, if you ask Foo to do a remix and Bar to master this and then release
> this as the 2013 remaster we get the usual dilemma: should we store what's
> printed or what actually happened? This is a common issue in many areas in
> MusicBrainz, and editors use different strategies for what to do, which
> means the same relationship can mean different things depending on who
> added it.
>
> And I'm not sure there's a definitive solution - or maybe not the same
> solution every time. That is, if Eric Clapton is credited for playing
> guitar, I wouldn't change it to "electric guitar". When we're discussing
> mixes however, mixing credits should usually be only for whoever made a
> specific mix.
> Source (multitrack) audio -> Mix A by Foo
> Source (multitrack) audio -> Mix B by Faa
> If the label "forgets" to credit someone for a remix, of course there will
> be problems.
>
> Usually you can't base a mix on a master, because you need the source
> (multitrack) audio to mix. The master will be in a specific format, ex.
> 2-track stereo, so you can no longer change individual levels of
> instruments (& vocals). You can only do the sort of processing that's
> available when mastering. So basing something on a master saying it's a
> remix would essentially be the opposite of the above (calling a remix a
> remaster).
> Anything based on a previous master (say a reissue made from digitized
> vinyl) would have to have both the original mix and mastering relationships
> (which again disturbs my "ideal" placement of mastering @ release level)
>
> And now for the exceptions. :-) You need the source multitrack to remix,
> but not if you can use the released song. A capella songs like "Tom's
> Diner" (Suzanne Vega) comes to mind.
>
> /symphonick
>
> ___
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>



-- 
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

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

[symphonick]

2013/4/10 Frederic Da Vitoria 

>
> 2013/4/8 symphonick 
>
>> corner case - something has been called a remaster but it's actually a
>> remix? I think we can assume that most of the time a mix is a mix and a
>> remaster is a remaster.
>>
>
> People in charge of commercial matters are bound to make this kind of
> improper semantic shift. Remixes are perceived as new artistic creations
> while remasters are perceived as 'better' audio version of the same source.
> So each time someone wants to sell you some sound and say that there is
> some new artistic material in it, he'll label it "remix", while when
> someone tries to sell you an old recording and pretends that it's the same
> just better sounding he'll label it "remaster", even if technically this is
> actually a new mix. I never saw a release boasting "new mix" for only
> "better" sound quality , and I don't expect to. The commercial meanings of
> those words as usual will become unrelated to their technical meanings.
>
> I'm not sure this is a corner case: what is the sure way to distinguish
> remasters from remixes if you forget what is printed? How do we know how
> frequently remaster has been used for remix?
>

I think we are looking at this from two different angles. I was talking
about who was hired to do what work: if you ask Foo to mix your song,
you're not getting a master. And if Bar is sent a group of songs for
mastering, you will get a mastered album, not new mixes.

Now, if you ask Foo to do a remix and Bar to master this and then release
this as the 2013 remaster we get the usual dilemma: should we store what's
printed or what actually happened? This is a common issue in many areas in
MusicBrainz, and editors use different strategies for what to do, which
means the same relationship can mean different things depending on who
added it.

And I'm not sure there's a definitive solution - or maybe not the same
solution every time. That is, if Eric Clapton is credited for playing
guitar, I wouldn't change it to "electric guitar". When we're discussing
mixes however, mixing credits should usually be only for whoever made a
specific mix.
Source (multitrack) audio -> Mix A by Foo
Source (multitrack) audio -> Mix B by Faa
If the label "forgets" to credit someone for a remix, of course there will
be problems.

Usually you can't base a mix on a master, because you need the source
(multitrack) audio to mix. The master will be in a specific format, ex.
2-track stereo, so you can no longer change individual levels of
instruments (& vocals). You can only do the sort of processing that's
available when mastering. So basing something on a master saying it's a
remix would essentially be the opposite of the above (calling a remix a
remaster).
Anything based on a previous master (say a reissue made from digitized
vinyl) would have to have both the original mix and mastering relationships
(which again disturbs my "ideal" placement of mastering @ release level)

And now for the exceptions. :-) You need the source multitrack to remix,
but not if you can use the released song. A capella songs like "Tom's
Diner" (Suzanne Vega) comes to mind.

/symphonick
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 2

[Tom Crocker]

I've put together some examples that could go at the end. Hopefully these
would help people apply the guidelines consistently. Some of the associated
recordings need tidying up but that can be done. If someone has better
examples or if I've misinterpreted the Beatles example, shout up!

Examples

When The 
Beatlesalbums
were released to CD, they were remastered from the original mixes
with the exception of
Help!
and Rubber 
Soul,
both of which were remixed (but labelled remastered). Therefore, in
MusicBrainz A Day in the
Lifefrom
Sgt.
Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club
Band
is
the same recording on the 1967 vinyl
releaseand
the 1987
CD release
while 
Yesterday(original
studio stereo mix) from the album
Help! is
a different recording from
Yesterday
(1987
remix).

The song Punky Reggae
Partyby
Bob Marley and Lee Scratch Perry has four studio recordings and one
live
recording. Punky Reggae Party (A side of Jamaican 12"), Punky Reggae Party
(dub), Punky Reggae
Party(long
version) and Punky Reggae Party (Jamming 7" B-side) all feature audio
from the same recording sessions but are four different recordings. Punky
Reggae Party (long version) and Punky Reggae Party (Jamming 7" B-side) are
edits of Punky Reggae Party (A side of Jamaican 12"), reducing the length
of the original from 9:18 to 6:52 and 4:25 respectively. Punky Reggae Party
(dub) is a different mix, with many of the vocals removed and other changes
applied during the mix.

There are four studio recordings of the song Don't
Pushby
Sublime .
These are four different mixes featuring different raw audio tracks. The
recording Don't Push (original) appears on tracks which vary in length from
3:45 to 3:55 because they have been mastered at different speeds.
Therefore, the pitch of the audio is different on these tracks, but because
there is no difference in mixing they are considered the same recording.
The recording Don't Push (album) appears on many releases at different
levels of loudness, with differences in dynamic range and with different
tonal qualities. However, again there is no evidence that this was the
result of mixing and therefore these different tracks are one recording.

We could do with some other examples: same performance different recording;
? audio channels;




On 11 April 2013 07:01, Tom Crocker  wrote:

> On 11 April 2013 03:31, Music Brainz Music Information <
> musicbrainz.r...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> I can't agree with the intent of Audio Channels. While of course
>> recordings with different numbers of channels with "sound different", I
>> still don't feel it's a productive use of our time replicating
>> relationships across two or more instances of a recording because they have
>> different channels. This will be the case of many older recordings where
>> they still came out in Mono and Stereo, and is going to impact many newer
>> ones as well, as the trend for DVD-Audio means we'll be seeing many more
>> surround sound recordings. It also completely loses the relationship
>> between those recordings, i.e. that they were of the same performance or
>> studio session. I doubt the exception for "down-mixing" will have much
>> impact, as there does not seem to be a good way to differentiate a down-mix
>> from a re-mix given the information available to editors (i.e. what's on a
>> media package, usually).
>>
>
> While I agree it seems a shame to leave these as separate recordings, I
> think it's a consequence of defining recordings as mixes. If you look at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mixing_%28recorded_music%29 it seems
> part of the definition. So to get rid of it we'd need a different way of
> defining recordings.
>
>
>> If we were to adapt some intermediate level e.g. Performances (which I
>> see was rejected during discussion), then the need for replication would go
>> away and we'd have a clear link between recordings of that performance.
>> Some "cloning" tools would help, but aren't a good solution in my opinion
>> because there would still be several sets of relationships th