Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 3
2013/4/15 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com On 14 April 2013 21:10, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/4/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea? Assuming people agree with redefining recordings, I've tried to edit both the definitions and usage to simplify and shorten them. I'm sure they could still be improved on. In general, I've removed lengthy description of what is typical or the reason things may be done, to concentrate on the differences themselves. In the definitions I've borrowed from wikipedia. In the usage, I've shuffled things about so Remasters is now part of merging (because unlike other things listed above it is not a reason for differentiation), added a section on format and an edit example, and heavily reworded most parts to fit the newly proposed definitions. I've taken about 250 words out overall. Sorry to have to do this as an email, I guess I should get a wiki page! I've got a version which compares with the current proposal but think it's too messy to email. Hope it helps. Say what you think! *Definitions* A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both. An audio track is recorded sound, captured from a studio performance, live performance or other audio source. I agree it is not always raw audio, but I believe mentioning the word raw around here helps users to understand what we are meaning. Maybe something like (sometimes raw audio) I think raw audio is jargon and wrong. Recorded audio or, recorded sound is accurate. I'm currently looking at other ways we can define it, but raw audio aint it. Mixing is defined as the process by which multiple audio tracks are combined into one or more channels, for instance 2-channel stereo. Why remove the part about relative track volumes? The risk here is that users may consider that only the number of channels matters. Because mixing is about combining sounds from multiple tracks - you can do a ton of things such as change volume (or not), twiddle with the pots, add reverb, pan left and right but none of them *define* mixing. Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio track. Why remove the example? An example is often a good way to make sure people understand. This is a definitions page as I understood it. So I thought I'd put examples on the usage page and keep the definitions clean and short. Mastering is a process that is applied to the recording after completion, to prepare it for release. In MusicBrainz, recordings do not indicate a particular mastering. You mean MusicBrainz Recordings, right? Then IMO you should say so. I'm not sure how that could be misinterpreted. This is a page defining recordings. I don't think we need to capitalise the word every time we use it, just use it consistently. Usage: A MusicBrainz Recording https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording is the product of edited or mixed audio. In many cases, a track on a releasewill be the original recording of a performance. However, there are some important cases to consider where this is not true - these are discussed in the following section. I don't think so: it will be the original mix. A recording (in the exact technical meaning) is seldom released. I take your point that it should say a track on a release *will be a copy of *the original recording. I disagree about mix. Mix is too specific as it is only true when mixing has occurred. *Different Performances* Different performances of the same work should always be given separate recordings, no matter how similar they may sound. This applies to both studio performances and live performances. *Different Recordings of the Same Performance* This section mostly applies to live bootleg recordings. Different audio recordings of the same performance will always result in different audio. A new MusicBrainz Recording should be created for each mix of a performance using different audio recordings. *Mixes, remixes, etc.* Different recordings can be produced by mixing (combining) the same audio tracks differently. For example, the volume or tone of individual tracks may be altered, or effects may be applied to them. The resulting recording is often labelled mix, remix, dub, etc. Regardless of their name, differences in mixing always produce new recordings. Sorry again, but no: when I hear or see recording, my first understanding of this word is the technical meaning of raw audio. In that technical meaning, as soon as you start fiddling with the sound, this is not a recording any more for the simple reason that the sound isn't raw any more. I'm sorry that's your first reaction but it's not
Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 3
I also think of that tape, but since you (or at least I used to) mix to tape, you have a recording which is a mix. It is also a unique creative expression, even though it didn't come directly from a mouth or musical instrument. I haven't been around to see all these arguments, but the impression I get is that the misunderstanding was not driven by the choice of words, but the definition ...distinct audio. This means that two recordings should only be merged if the audio that they contain sounds the same. which relies too much on where individuals draw the line on how sufficiently similar is 'the same'. Is it vinyl vs. CD or MP3, is it this mastering or that, all of those? So I think the solution is to provide a definition that is similar to that provided for copyright etc. but can be easily interpreted by individual editors in a consistent manner. Hence we exclude cases where mastering has produced sufficient uniqueness to represent a new recording, because we can't consistently interpret it. On 15 April 2013 09:15, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/4/15 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com On 14 April 2013 21:10, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/4/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea? Assuming people agree with redefining recordings, I've tried to edit both the definitions and usage to simplify and shorten them. I'm sure they could still be improved on. In general, I've removed lengthy description of what is typical or the reason things may be done, to concentrate on the differences themselves. In the definitions I've borrowed from wikipedia. In the usage, I've shuffled things about so Remasters is now part of merging (because unlike other things listed above it is not a reason for differentiation), added a section on format and an edit example, and heavily reworded most parts to fit the newly proposed definitions. I've taken about 250 words out overall. Sorry to have to do this as an email, I guess I should get a wiki page! I've got a version which compares with the current proposal but think it's too messy to email. Hope it helps. Say what you think! *Definitions* A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both. An audio track is recorded sound, captured from a studio performance, live performance or other audio source. I agree it is not always raw audio, but I believe mentioning the word raw around here helps users to understand what we are meaning. Maybe something like (sometimes raw audio) I think raw audio is jargon and wrong. Recorded audio or, recorded sound is accurate. I'm currently looking at other ways we can define it, but raw audio aint it. Mixing is defined as the process by which multiple audio tracks are combined into one or more channels, for instance 2-channel stereo. Why remove the part about relative track volumes? The risk here is that users may consider that only the number of channels matters. Because mixing is about combining sounds from multiple tracks - you can do a ton of things such as change volume (or not), twiddle with the pots, add reverb, pan left and right but none of them *define* mixing. Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio track. Why remove the example? An example is often a good way to make sure people understand. This is a definitions page as I understood it. So I thought I'd put examples on the usage page and keep the definitions clean and short. Mastering is a process that is applied to the recording after completion, to prepare it for release. In MusicBrainz, recordings do not indicate a particular mastering. You mean MusicBrainz Recordings, right? Then IMO you should say so. I'm not sure how that could be misinterpreted. This is a page defining recordings. I don't think we need to capitalise the word every time we use it, just use it consistently. Usage: A MusicBrainz Recording https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording is the product of edited or mixed audio. In many cases, a track on a releasewill be the original recording of a performance. However, there are some important cases to consider where this is not true - these are discussed in the following section. I don't think so: it will be the original mix. A recording (in the exact technical meaning) is seldom released. I take your point that it should say a track on a release *will be a copy of *the original recording. I disagree about mix. Mix is too specific as it is only true when mixing has occurred. *Different Performances* Different performances of the same work should always be given separate recordings, no matter how similar they may sound. This applies
Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 3
I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea? Assuming people agree with redefining recordings, I've tried to edit both the definitions and usage to simplify and shorten them. I'm sure they could still be improved on. In general, I've removed lengthy description of what is typical or the reason things may be done, to concentrate on the differences themselves. In the definitions I've borrowed from wikipedia. In the usage, I've shuffled things about so Remasters is now part of merging (because unlike other things listed above it is not a reason for differentiation), added a section on format and an edit example, and heavily reworded most parts to fit the newly proposed definitions. I've taken about 250 words out overall. Sorry to have to do this as an email, I guess I should get a wiki page! I've got a version which compares with the current proposal but think it's too messy to email. Hope it helps. Say what you think! *Definitions* A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both. An audio track is recorded sound, captured from a studio performance, live performance or other audio source. Mixing is defined as the process by which multiple audio tracks are combined into one or more channels, for instance 2-channel stereo. Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio track. Mastering is a process that is applied to the recording after completion, to prepare it for release. In MusicBrainz, recordings do not indicate a particular mastering. Usage: A MusicBrainz Recording https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording is the product of edited or mixed audio. In many cases, a track on a release will be the original recording of a performance. However, there are some important cases to consider where this is not true - these are discussed in the following section. *Different Performances* Different performances of the same work should always be given separate recordings, no matter how similar they may sound. This applies to both studio performances and live performances. *Different Recordings of the Same Performance* This section mostly applies to live bootleg recordings. Different audio recordings of the same performance will always result in different audio. A new MusicBrainz Recording should be created for each mix of a performance using different audio recordings. *Mixes, remixes, etc.* Different recordings can be produced by mixing (combining) the same audio tracks differently. For example, the volume or tone of individual tracks may be altered, or effects may be applied to them. The resulting recording is often labelled mix, remix, dub, etc. Regardless of their name, differences in mixing always produce new recordings. *Edits and partial recordings* Different recordings can be produced by editing the same audio differently. For example, a radio edit or single edit may involve removing an intro oroutro, verses, bridges or interludes , or censoring some of the content. Other examples include only using a portion of audio, or extended edits that may repeat parts of the audio. Where a fade is used during the first or last section, this is not editing, as the section is not removed. *Number of Audio Channels* It may be the case that similar mixes of a performance have different numbers of audio channels. The most common audio channel configuration is stereo (two channels: left and right). However, there are many audio channel configurations, including mono (one channel), quadraphonic (four channels) and surround sound mixes (various multi-channel configurations). These mixes should generally be distinguished by using separate recordings. An exception to this case is where a mix has been produced by *downmixing*the audio channels of another mix - for example, where a mono mix has been produced by combining the two channels of a stereo mix. Where a track features a downmix, the recording for the original mix should be used on that track. A similar exception should be made where a mono channel has been electronically split into two stereo channels - for example, in Duophonic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duophonic recordings. *Merging Recordings* In addition to the above guidelines, it is extremely important to take the following into consideration when thinking of merging recordings. *Recordings with Different Durations* Recordings of different durations can be merged, as long as there is no evidence to suggest that differences in mixing or editing have caused a change in lengths. Different volume fades at the beginning or end of tracks are not reasons to maintain separate recordings as they are considered mastering, unless they cause the structure of the song to change. The same is true for changes in pitch. *Remasters* Remastered tracks should not
Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 3
I already mentioned definitions; I'll add that it seems you are defining things twice: first under definitions, then again under usage. 2013/4/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea? Assuming people agree with redefining recordings, I've tried to edit both the definitions and usage to simplify and shorten them. I'm sure they could still be improved on. In general, I've removed lengthy description of what is typical or the reason things may be done, to concentrate on the differences themselves. In the definitions I've borrowed from wikipedia. In the usage, I've shuffled things about so Remasters is now part of merging (because unlike other things listed above it is not a reason for differentiation), added a section on format and an edit example, and heavily reworded most parts to fit the newly proposed definitions. I've taken about 250 words out overall. Sorry to have to do this as an email, I guess I should get a wiki page! I've got a version which compares with the current proposal but think it's too messy to email. Hope it helps. Say what you think! *Definitions* A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both. An audio track is recorded sound, captured from a studio performance, live performance or other audio source. Mixing is defined as the process by which multiple audio tracks are combined into one or more channels, for instance 2-channel stereo. Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio track. Mastering is a process that is applied to the recording after completion, to prepare it for release. In MusicBrainz, recordings do not indicate a particular mastering. Usage: A MusicBrainz Recording https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording is the product of edited or mixed audio. In many cases, a track on a releasewill be the original recording of a performance. However, there are some important cases to consider where this is not true - these are discussed in the following section. *Different Performances* Different performances of the same work should always be given separate recordings, no matter how similar they may sound. This applies to both studio performances and live performances. *Different Recordings of the Same Performance* This section mostly applies to live bootleg recordings. Different audio recordings of the same performance will always result in different audio. A new MusicBrainz Recording should be created for each mix of a performance using different audio recordings. *Mixes, remixes, etc.* Different recordings can be produced by mixing (combining) the same audio tracks differently. For example, the volume or tone of individual tracks may be altered, or effects may be applied to them. The resulting recording is often labelled mix, remix, dub, etc. Regardless of their name, differences in mixing always produce new recordings. *Edits and partial recordings* Different recordings can be produced by editing the same audio differently. For example, a radio edit or single edit may involve removing an intro or outro, verses, bridges or interludes, or censoring some of the content. Other examples include only using a portion of audio, or extended edits that may repeat parts of the audio. Where a fade is used during the first or last section, this is not editing, as the section is not removed. *Number of Audio Channels* It may be the case that similar mixes of a performance have different numbers of audio channels. The most common audio channel configuration is stereo (two channels: left and right). However, there are many audio channel configurations, including mono (one channel), quadraphonic (four channels) and surround sound mixes (various multi-channel configurations). These mixes should generally be distinguished by using separate recordings. An exception to this case is where a mix has been produced by *downmixing* the audio channels of another mix - for example, where a mono mix has been produced by combining the two channels of a stereo mix. Where a track features a downmix, the recording for the original mix should be used on that track. A similar exception should be made where a mono channel has been electronically split into two stereo channels - for example, in Duophonic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duophonicrecordings. *Merging Recordings* In addition to the above guidelines, it is extremely important to take the following into consideration when thinking of merging recordings. *Recordings with Different Durations* Recordings of different durations can be merged, as long as there is no evidence to suggest that differences in mixing or editing have caused a change in lengths. Different
Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 3
*A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both.* Sorry to be pedantic, but mixing multiple audio tracks or both could be read as mixing multiple or two audio tracks. Also, I now realise we have a third source: a non-mixed, non-edited recording, i.e. performance mic amp recording device. I see two options. Either we try to redefine in a manner that includes such recordings (hard), or we explain that these are exceptional cases that are recordings (easier), e.g: Sometimes an audio track has not been mixed or edited. Providing it has been released, it is a MusicBrainz Recording. Examples: [early recordings (Robert Johnson?)] Live bootlegs *Other audio source* should explicitly include 'mix', as it is necessary for your definition of edit below to work. A mix must be an audio track for the purpose of editing. *Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio track.* This defines re-arranging as adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections, thus it excludes re-arranging itself. I'd go for: Editing is the adding, removing, lengthening, shortening, or re-arranging of one or more sections of one or more audio tracks. Otherwise, great! -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651518.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. 3
symphonick wrote It seems you are defining things twice: first under definitions, then again under usage. In a way, but the usage explanations go into more detail and examples, which would be cumbersome to put in the general definitions. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651519.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. 3
Perhaps: A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of mixing and/or editing one or more audio tracks, or a direct recording That would include non-mixed, non-edited audio, such as early and live bootleg recordings. Would that be confusing? A direct recording is a recording that has not been mixed or edited. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651520.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. 3
On 14 April 2013 12:32, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote: *A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both.* Sorry to be pedantic, but mixing multiple audio tracks or both could be read as mixing multiple or two audio tracks. Would an extra comma help? ... editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks, or both. Also, I now realise we have a third source: a non-mixed, non-edited recording, i.e. performance mic amp recording device. I see two options. Either we try to redefine in a manner that includes such recordings (hard), or we explain that these are exceptional cases that are recordings (easier), e.g: Sometimes an audio track has not been mixed or edited. Providing it has been released, it is a MusicBrainz Recording. Examples: [early recordings (Robert Johnson?)] Live bootlegs Yep, I'd figured we could consider that edited (ha! after all my complaints about mix), but it makes me uncomfortable. Ideally, I'd include it, even make it the first thing to mention, but I don't know how it could be worded. It needs to be written such that it excludes e.g. mastering. *Other audio source* should explicitly include 'mix', as it is necessary for your definition of edit below to work. A mix must be an audio track for the purpose of editing. or just ...other audio source, including existing recordings.? *Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio track.* This defines re-arranging as adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections, thus it excludes re-arranging itself. I'd go for: Editing is the adding, removing, lengthening, shortening, or re-arranging of one or more sections of one or more audio tracks. Great point! Can't believe I missed that! Otherwise, great! Thanks -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651518.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. 3
On 14 April 2013 11:34, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote: I already mentioned definitions; Do you mean you think it would be better if we didn't define mixing, editing, audio track? I'll add that it seems you are defining things twice: first under definitions, then again under usage. Yes. The aim was not to define it again, but to restate it in context (it's on a style page rather than the definition page). But it may be better if that was removed and it was all cut down much more, to make it closer to the existing style guidelines. i.e. 'Specific examples of different recordings. 1: Different mixes. 2: ... 2013/4/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea? Assuming people agree with redefining recordings, I've tried to edit both the definitions and usage to simplify and shorten them. I'm sure they could still be improved on. In general, I've removed lengthy description of what is typical or the reason things may be done, to concentrate on the differences themselves. In the definitions I've borrowed from wikipedia. In the usage, I've shuffled things about so Remasters is now part of merging (because unlike other things listed above it is not a reason for differentiation), added a section on format and an edit example, and heavily reworded most parts to fit the newly proposed definitions. I've taken about 250 words out overall. Sorry to have to do this as an email, I guess I should get a wiki page! I've got a version which compares with the current proposal but think it's too messy to email. Hope it helps. Say what you think! *Definitions* A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both. An audio track is recorded sound, captured from a studio performance, live performance or other audio source. Mixing is defined as the process by which multiple audio tracks are combined into one or more channels, for instance 2-channel stereo. Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio track. Mastering is a process that is applied to the recording after completion, to prepare it for release. In MusicBrainz, recordings do not indicate a particular mastering. Usage: A MusicBrainz Recording https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording is the product of edited or mixed audio. In many cases, a track on a releasewill be the original recording of a performance. However, there are some important cases to consider where this is not true - these are discussed in the following section. *Different Performances* Different performances of the same work should always be given separate recordings, no matter how similar they may sound. This applies to both studio performances and live performances. *Different Recordings of the Same Performance* This section mostly applies to live bootleg recordings. Different audio recordings of the same performance will always result in different audio. A new MusicBrainz Recording should be created for each mix of a performance using different audio recordings. *Mixes, remixes, etc.* Different recordings can be produced by mixing (combining) the same audio tracks differently. For example, the volume or tone of individual tracks may be altered, or effects may be applied to them. The resulting recording is often labelled mix, remix, dub, etc. Regardless of their name, differences in mixing always produce new recordings. *Edits and partial recordings* Different recordings can be produced by editing the same audio differently. For example, a radio edit or single edit may involve removing an intro or outro, verses, bridges or interludes, or censoring some of the content. Other examples include only using a portion of audio, or extended edits that may repeat parts of the audio. Where a fade is used during the first or last section, this is not editing, as the section is not removed. *Number of Audio Channels* It may be the case that similar mixes of a performance have different numbers of audio channels. The most common audio channel configuration is stereo (two channels: left and right). However, there are many audio channel configurations, including mono (one channel), quadraphonic (four channels) and surround sound mixes (various multi-channel configurations). These mixes should generally be distinguished by using separate recordings. An exception to this case is where a mix has been produced by *downmixing* the audio channels of another mix - for example, where a mono mix has been produced by combining the two channels of a stereo mix. Where a track features a downmix, the recording for the original mix should be used on that track. A similar exception should be made where a mono channel has been electronically
Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 3
Will update the proposal based on Tom's edits and other people's suggestions in a few minutes, then I'll post up Revision 4 for comments and maybe even some +1s :) -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651523.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. 3
2013/4/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea? Assuming people agree with redefining recordings, I've tried to edit both the definitions and usage to simplify and shorten them. I'm sure they could still be improved on. In general, I've removed lengthy description of what is typical or the reason things may be done, to concentrate on the differences themselves. In the definitions I've borrowed from wikipedia. In the usage, I've shuffled things about so Remasters is now part of merging (because unlike other things listed above it is not a reason for differentiation), added a section on format and an edit example, and heavily reworded most parts to fit the newly proposed definitions. I've taken about 250 words out overall. Sorry to have to do this as an email, I guess I should get a wiki page! I've got a version which compares with the current proposal but think it's too messy to email. Hope it helps. Say what you think! *Definitions* A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both. An audio track is recorded sound, captured from a studio performance, live performance or other audio source. I agree it is not always raw audio, but I believe mentioning the word raw around here helps users to understand what we are meaning. Maybe something like (sometimes raw audio) Mixing is defined as the process by which multiple audio tracks are combined into one or more channels, for instance 2-channel stereo. Why remove the part about relative track volumes? The risk here is that users may consider that only the number of channels matters. Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio track. Why remove the example? An example is often a good way to make sure people understand. Mastering is a process that is applied to the recording after completion, to prepare it for release. In MusicBrainz, recordings do not indicate a particular mastering. You mean MusicBrainz Recordings, right? Then IMO you should say so. Usage: A MusicBrainz Recording https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording is the product of edited or mixed audio. In many cases, a track on a releasewill be the original recording of a performance. However, there are some important cases to consider where this is not true - these are discussed in the following section. I don't think so: it will be the original mix. A recording (in the exact technical meaning) is seldom released. *Different Performances* Different performances of the same work should always be given separate recordings, no matter how similar they may sound. This applies to both studio performances and live performances. *Different Recordings of the Same Performance* This section mostly applies to live bootleg recordings. Different audio recordings of the same performance will always result in different audio. A new MusicBrainz Recording should be created for each mix of a performance using different audio recordings. *Mixes, remixes, etc.* Different recordings can be produced by mixing (combining) the same audio tracks differently. For example, the volume or tone of individual tracks may be altered, or effects may be applied to them. The resulting recording is often labelled mix, remix, dub, etc. Regardless of their name, differences in mixing always produce new recordings. Sorry again, but no: when I hear or see recording, my first understanding of this word is the technical meaning of raw audio. In that technical meaning, as soon as you start fiddling with the sound, this is not a recording any more for the simple reason that the sound isn't raw any more. *Edits and partial recordings* Different recordings can be produced by editing the same audio differently. For example, a radio edit or single edit may involve removing an intro or outro, verses, bridges or interludes, or censoring some of the content. Other examples include only using a portion of audio, or extended edits that may repeat parts of the audio. Where a fade is used during the first or last section, this is not editing, as the section is not removed. See above. I'll stop answering from there because most of my other remarks come from this fundamental difference. I thought the great idea which was decided on IRC was to replace recording with mix. Although I regretted some decisions which were taken during that meeting (especially not separating different masters), I believe this goes in the right direction because it addresses the issue of the MB Recording which is not something users seem to be able to understand. You are going backwards IMO because you are re-introducing the recording but with another meaning. I know, you are actually re-introducing the
Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 3
On 14 April 2013 21:10, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/4/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea? Assuming people agree with redefining recordings, I've tried to edit both the definitions and usage to simplify and shorten them. I'm sure they could still be improved on. In general, I've removed lengthy description of what is typical or the reason things may be done, to concentrate on the differences themselves. In the definitions I've borrowed from wikipedia. In the usage, I've shuffled things about so Remasters is now part of merging (because unlike other things listed above it is not a reason for differentiation), added a section on format and an edit example, and heavily reworded most parts to fit the newly proposed definitions. I've taken about 250 words out overall. Sorry to have to do this as an email, I guess I should get a wiki page! I've got a version which compares with the current proposal but think it's too messy to email. Hope it helps. Say what you think! *Definitions* A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio tracks, mixing multiple audio tracks or both. An audio track is recorded sound, captured from a studio performance, live performance or other audio source. I agree it is not always raw audio, but I believe mentioning the word raw around here helps users to understand what we are meaning. Maybe something like (sometimes raw audio) I think raw audio is jargon and wrong. Recorded audio or, recorded sound is accurate. I'm currently looking at other ways we can define it, but raw audio aint it. Mixing is defined as the process by which multiple audio tracks are combined into one or more channels, for instance 2-channel stereo. Why remove the part about relative track volumes? The risk here is that users may consider that only the number of channels matters. Because mixing is about combining sounds from multiple tracks - you can do a ton of things such as change volume (or not), twiddle with the pots, add reverb, pan left and right but none of them *define* mixing. Editing is defined as re-arranging one or more audio tracks. This involves adding, removing, lengthening or shortening sections of audio track. Why remove the example? An example is often a good way to make sure people understand. This is a definitions page as I understood it. So I thought I'd put examples on the usage page and keep the definitions clean and short. Mastering is a process that is applied to the recording after completion, to prepare it for release. In MusicBrainz, recordings do not indicate a particular mastering. You mean MusicBrainz Recordings, right? Then IMO you should say so. I'm not sure how that could be misinterpreted. This is a page defining recordings. I don't think we need to capitalise the word every time we use it, just use it consistently. Usage: A MusicBrainz Recording https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording is the product of edited or mixed audio. In many cases, a track on a releasewill be the original recording of a performance. However, there are some important cases to consider where this is not true - these are discussed in the following section. I don't think so: it will be the original mix. A recording (in the exact technical meaning) is seldom released. I take your point that it should say a track on a release *will be a copy of *the original recording. I disagree about mix. Mix is too specific as it is only true when mixing has occurred. *Different Performances* Different performances of the same work should always be given separate recordings, no matter how similar they may sound. This applies to both studio performances and live performances. *Different Recordings of the Same Performance* This section mostly applies to live bootleg recordings. Different audio recordings of the same performance will always result in different audio. A new MusicBrainz Recording should be created for each mix of a performance using different audio recordings. *Mixes, remixes, etc.* Different recordings can be produced by mixing (combining) the same audio tracks differently. For example, the volume or tone of individual tracks may be altered, or effects may be applied to them. The resulting recording is often labelled mix, remix, dub, etc. Regardless of their name, differences in mixing always produce new recordings. Sorry again, but no: when I hear or see recording, my first understanding of this word is the technical meaning of raw audio. In that technical meaning, as soon as you start fiddling with the sound, this is not a recording any more for the simple reason that the sound isn't raw any more. I'm sorry that's your first reaction but it's not mine and I don't consider it the correct technical meaning. A sound
Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 3
From your recording definition: A mix is the result of editing and/or mixing. If that's ok, why not A recording is the result of editing and/or mixing? Your definition is circular: you define a mix as a mix. It's cumbersome: in order to define a recording, you define a recording as a mix, and and mix as a mix and/or an edit. So why not define a recording as a mix and/or and edit? You subsequently define edit in the guide, and I see no way you could not define it; just move it to the top. I fail to see how the term edit, as defined, is vague. Nor do I see how including edit in the definition of recording could widen the definition. It just makes more sense linguistically. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651466.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. 3
Here's an example from the release you mentioned earlier: A Elektro (The Cube Guys Delano remix) 8:14 http://musicbrainz.org/recording/1a3f8b60-29f1-434b-8d90-a042862d85ba B Elektro (The Cube Guys 'Delano' remix - promo edit) 2:51 http://musicbrainz.org/recording/7f202a46-3612-42b9-bf98-df1f61f9a3bb While both our definitions achieve the same outcome, mine is far more efficient. B is and edit of A, therefore a new recording. You have to say: B is involves editing of mixing of A, therefore it is a new mix (even though that has the confusing effect of saying that the 'The Cube Guys Delano remix' is a different mix to the 'Cube Guys 'Delano' remix'), and is therefore a new recording. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651467.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. 3
Hmm, we aren't going to resolve this between us. Could we have a few more opinions on this? Should the definition change to recording = unique mix or unique edit, or is it adequate to have a section on edits in the style guideline? I'll go with whatever the majority believe is best. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651469.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. 3
I'm sure you know but: A Recording in MusicBrainz is a unique mix or unique edit of audio. Would be my choice. I think it's problematic to define a recording as only a mix (then you should call it a mix) and to define mix to mean something it doesn't. ___ 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. 3
2013/4/13 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com I'm sure you know but: A Recording in MusicBrainz is a unique mix or unique edit of audio. Would be my choice. I think it's problematic to define a recording as only a mix (then you should call it a mix) and to define mix to mean something it doesn't. Or A *MusicBrainz Recording* is defined as the result of *editing* and/or * mixing* one or more *audio tracks*. And that's it, more or less. IMO we should avoid making our own definitions of mix and edits etc. /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. 3
On Apr 13, 2013 2:46 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/4/13 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com I'm sure you know but: A Recording in MusicBrainz is a unique mix or unique edit of audio. Would be my choice. I think it's problematic to define a recording as only a mix (then you should call it a mix) and to define mix to mean something it doesn't. Or A MusicBrainz Recording is defined as the result of editing and/or mixing one or more audio tracks. And that's it, more or less. IMO we should avoid making our own definitions of mix and edits etc. /symphonick Bang on! I vote for that over my version. It also allows for single track recordings simply ___ 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. 3
I've done another update to the guidelines, to try to address the major issues since last time. I've added a section on edits, extended the remix section to cover dubs, versions and mixes, and added an example for the audio channels part of the guideline. I've also changed the definition of mix from https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording slightly so that it's now: a mix is the result of editing and/or mixing one or more audio tracks. instead of: a mix is the result of editing and mixing one or more audio tracks. Updated wiki page: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording Once again, let me know if I've overlooked any earlier problems. Also, Tom, do you have any links to recordings for the Sublime and Bob Marley examples? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651420.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. 3
LordSputnik wrote I've done another update to the guidelines, to try to address the major issues since last time. I've added a section on edits, extended the remix section to cover dubs, versions and mixes, and added an example for the audio channels part of the guideline. I've also changed the definition of mix from https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording slightly so that it's now: a mix is the result of editing and/or mixing one or more audio tracks. instead of: a mix is the result of editing and mixing one or more audio tracks. Updated wiki page: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording Once again, let me know if I've overlooked any earlier problems. Also, Tom, do you have any links to recordings for the Sublime and Bob Marley examples? I'm still not happy with these definitions. Here's why: 1) A MusicBrainz Recording is defined as a unique mix, where a mix is the result of editing and/or mixing This makes no sense semantically. Mixing and editing are separate processes. We are attempting to define recordings. Why define 'mixing' as 'mixing or editing', then 'mixing' as 'recording'? It is easier, and makes sense to define both 'mixing' and 'editing' separately, then define 'recording' as 'mixing' OR 'editing'. This option did not appear to be discussed is IRC, but achieves the objective without stretching the meaning of the terms involved. 2) Mixing is defined as changing the volume of a particular audio track relative to other audio tracks. It also covers things such as volume fading, panning within a sound field, or muting a track completely This is partially correct, but it only explains some of the elements of mixing. You should define mixing generally as: The process of combining multiple audio tracks into a single master track Then go on: The individual audio tracks are processed during mixing. This may involve changing their volume, panning, removal, EQ, compression, and other effects processing, such as reverb or delay The result of mixing is a master track. This may be mono (one track), stereo (2 tracks, left and right), or surround (Dolby 5.1, quadrophonic, etc.). The master track then goes through the process of 'mastering', which involves adding compression, EQ, and noise filtering. 3) Editing of audio tracks generally takes place before mixing This is not correct in this context. Yes, the mixing process can involve moving sections of the individual audio tracks around, but we are talking about editing in the context of master tracks. For example, radio edits (and anything else with 'edit' in parenthesis) is an edit of a master track. Thus, as I posted above, the terms 'edit' and 're-edit' mean specifically editing of a master track, and do not involve mixing at all. 4) It should be noted that mixing and editing usually apply to audio tracks rather than the whole song. These two processes take place before the completion of the song. This section is not necessary, and is confusing. It conflates the two processes, and defines mixing as something that is applied to audio tracks, which uses 'mixing' as a noun rather than a verb; it should be the latter. 5) Mastering is a related process that is applied to the whole song after completion, to prepare it for a particular release. This is problematic, because of how 'releases' are currently defined. Currently, multiple countries means multiple releases. Therefore, your definition would mean that each of these would have unique mastering, which is not correct. This section is not needed if you define mastering as above. Those are my main issues at present. Also, regarding the Beatles 2009 remasters, this was something that was mentioned in IRC, but it seems clear to me that they are 'remasters' in the general sense of the word. They did occasionally use parts from the multi-track tapes, but they were clear this was a technical work-around, and they were not actively remixing the tracks. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651422.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. 3
2013/4/12 lixobix arjtap...@aol.com LordSputnik wrote I've done another update to the guidelines, to try to address the major issues since last time. I've added a section on edits, extended the remix section to cover dubs, versions and mixes, and added an example for the audio channels part of the guideline. I've also changed the definition of mix from https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recordingslightly so that it's now: a mix is the result of editing and/or mixing one or more audio tracks. instead of: a mix is the result of editing and mixing one or more audio tracks. Updated wiki page: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording Once again, let me know if I've overlooked any earlier problems. Also, Tom, do you have any links to recordings for the Sublime and Bob Marley examples? I'm still not happy with these definitions. Here's why: 1) A MusicBrainz Recording is defined as a unique mix, where a mix is the result of editing and/or mixing This makes no sense semantically. Mixing and editing are separate processes. We are attempting to define recordings. Why define 'mixing' as 'mixing or editing', then 'mixing' as 'recording'? It is easier, and makes sense to define both 'mixing' and 'editing' separately, then define 'recording' as 'mixing' OR 'editing'. This option did not appear to be discussed is IRC, but achieves the objective without stretching the meaning of the terms involved. Is there some plan to remove the word Recording entirely from the MB user documentation? 4) It should be noted that mixing and editing usually apply to audio tracks rather than the whole song. These two processes take place before the completion of the song. This section is not necessary, and is confusing. It conflates the two processes, and defines mixing as something that is applied to audio tracks, which uses 'mixing' as a noun rather than a verb; it should be the latter. @lixobix: I don't understand your meaning. 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 - Rev. 3
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote 2013/4/12 lixobix lt; arjtaplin@ gt; 4) It should be noted that mixing and editing usually apply to audio tracks rather than the whole song. These two processes take place before the completion of the song. This section is not necessary, and is confusing. It conflates the two processes, and defines mixing as something that is applied to audio tracks, which uses 'mixing' as a noun rather than a verb; it should be the latter. @lixobix: I don't understand your meaning. Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » - http://www.april.org ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@.musicbrainz http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style I mean it is the master track that is edited, not the individual audio tracks. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651425.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. 3
lixobix wrote This makes no sense semantically. Mixing and editing are separate processes. We are attempting to define recordings. Why define 'mixing' as 'mixing or editing', then 'mixing' as 'recording'? I'm not. I'm defining a mix as the produce of mixing and editing audio tracks. And there is no way that that can be incorrect. lixobix wrote It is easier, and makes sense to define both 'mixing' and 'editing' separately, then define 'recording' as 'mixing' OR 'editing'. This option did not appear to be discussed is IRC, but achieves the objective without stretching the meaning of the terms involved. That depends on your definition of editing. You're talking specifically about editing of a mix. The guideline is talking about editing of any an audio track. Definition #3 at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/edit . lixobix wrote 2) Mixing is defined as changing the volume of a particular audio track relative to other audio tracks. It also covers things such as volume fading, panning within a sound field, or muting a track completely This is partially correct, but it only explains some of the elements of mixing. You should define mixing generally as: The process of combining multiple audio tracks into a single master track Then go on: The individual audio tracks are processed during mixing. This may involve changing their volume, panning, removal, EQ, compression, and other effects processing, such as reverb or delay Sounds good, I'll update that in the next revision. lixobix wrote The result of mixing is a master track. This may be mono (one track), stereo (2 tracks, left and right), or surround (Dolby 5.1, quadrophonic, etc.). The master track then goes through the process of 'mastering', which involves adding compression, EQ, and noise filtering. No, the product of mixing is a mix. The product of mastering is a master release containing a series of mastered mixes, ready for manufacturing/digital distribution. Other than those two terms, I agree. lixobix wrote 3) Editing of audio tracks generally takes place before mixing This is not correct in this context. Different type of editing. lixobix wrote 4) It should be noted that mixing and editing usually apply to audio tracks rather than the whole song. These two processes take place before the completion of the song. This section is not necessary, and is confusing. It conflates the two processes, and defines mixing as something that is applied to audio tracks, which uses 'mixing' as a noun rather than a verb; it should be the latter. I'll reword it slightly eg. the process of mixing I might also try to make the distinction between editing of audio tracks and editing of a master clearer. lixobix wrote 5) Mastering is a related process that is applied to the whole song after completion, to prepare it for a particular release. This is problematic, because of how 'releases' are currently defined. Currently, multiple countries means multiple releases. Therefore, your definition would mean that each of these would have unique mastering, which is not correct. This section is not needed if you define mastering as above. Perhaps a particular release or group of releases? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651426.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. 3
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote Is there some plan to remove the word Recording entirely from the MB user documentation? It's mentioned in almost every single paragraph. It just hasn't been used when the guideline talks about mixes in a more technical way. Eg. The audio tracks from an existing mix can be taken wouldn't really make sense if you replaced mix with recording, and it would make it more ambiguous, since it could mean MB recording or audio recording or some other type of recording. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651427.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. 3
Right. I just wanted to be sure I hadn't misunderstood the plan before going further in my answer to lixobix. Then this explains why you wrote A MusicBrainz Recording is defined as a unique mix, where a mix is the result of editing and/or mixing. If we replace Recording with Mix (which we will do at some point), we get A MusicBrainz Mix is defined as a unique mix, where a mix is the result of editing and/or mixing. This makes defining a Mix as a mix+editing unavoidable. This is not a semantics issue, just that we are using the same word for 2 meanings. A semiotics issue would probably be the correct word for it. But we are bound to have this kind of issue. The only way to avoid those issues would be to create our own words, to which we could attach the exact technical meaning we want without fear of misinterpretation. 2013/4/12 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com Frederic Da Vitoria wrote Is there some plan to remove the word Recording entirely from the MB user documentation? It's mentioned in almost every single paragraph. It just hasn't been used when the guideline talks about mixes in a more technical way. Eg. The audio tracks from an existing mix can be taken wouldn't really make sense if you replaced mix with recording, and it would make it more ambiguous, since it could mean MB recording or audio recording or some other type of recording. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651427.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 -- 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 - Rev. 3
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: If we replace Recording with Mix (which we will do at some point) Er, will we? What makes you think that, exactly? -- 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. 3
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote If we replace Recording with Mix (which we will do at some point), we get A MusicBrainz Mix is defined as a unique mix, where a mix is the result of editing and/or mixing. This makes defining a Mix as a mix+editing unavoidable. True, but what is achieved by getting rid of 'recording'? Are we planning to define this as something separate in future? Why not keep 'recording' and define it in terms of 'mix' or 'edit' (in terms of edit as I define it)? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651431.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. 3
Well, that's what I thought I could gather from LordSputnik's last answer. I also thought that was the great idea that had been decided in some IRC discussion (don't ask me which, I don't do IRC): replace Recording with Mix because the word Recording is too often understood in it's literal meaning by users and use mix instead because this word is much closer to what will actually be stored in the Recordings table. Please don't tell me that we will be storing mixes in Recordings but still call them recordings... 2013/4/12 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.comwrote: If we replace Recording with Mix (which we will do at some point) Er, will we? What makes you think that, exactly? -- 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-208 - New Recordings Guidelines - Rev. 3
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote I don't know what others think, but my reason would be: never use a word to designate something else than what people generally use it for. That's bound to trigger misinterpretations and in our situation induce users to enter bad (because misplaced) data. So: don't use recordings if it is not recordings, or at least reasonably close to it. A mix is not reasonably close to a recording IMO. True, but people generally use 'recording' to mean something far more vague than it's specific meaning. My favourite recording of is generally used to refer to my favourite arrangement/performance/recording/mix of. I'm personally against oversimplifying to accommodate popular use, because popular use creates problems when you get down to specifics. So I think you have to define general terms according to the specific meanings of their particular parts. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651442.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. 3
Thanks for your work on this. In general, MusicBrainz needs more guidance than there currently is. I'll let you know when I've tidied up the example recordings and give you all some links so you can vote my edits through! Overall, I think with work it can be shorter and simpler and still clearly explain what a recording is for the purpose of MusicBrainz. If I get time I'll have a go at revising it. I've said it before but I wouldn't worry about trying to neatly divide edits and mixes: e.g. This is different to a remix, because making an edit doesn't involve using the audio tracks of the old mix. The important point is, edits and mixes are recordings. FWIW I believe some edits do involve mixing, such as a so-called radio edit where they change swear words to similar sounding words. But it doesn't matter, because you're defining recordings, which are both edits and mixes. I'm sure you realise, but wanted to make sure, currently you're link to 'recording' is to the current definition, not your revised definition. The problem is, if this change goes through but the definition doesn't change (and you seem to suggest that's possible) none of it will make sense. So should we be changing the style guide alone? On 12 April 2013 16:59, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote: Frederic Da Vitoria wrote I don't know what others think, but my reason would be: never use a word to designate something else than what people generally use it for. That's bound to trigger misinterpretations and in our situation induce users to enter bad (because misplaced) data. So: don't use recordings if it is not recordings, or at least reasonably close to it. A mix is not reasonably close to a recording IMO. True, but people generally use 'recording' to mean something far more vague than it's specific meaning. My favourite recording of is generally used to refer to my favourite arrangement/performance/recording/mix of. I'm personally against oversimplifying to accommodate popular use, because popular use creates problems when you get down to specifics. So I think you have to define general terms according to the specific meanings of their particular parts. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651442.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. 3
Tom Crocker wrote FWIW I believe some edits do involve mixing, such as a so-called radio edit where they change swear words to similar sounding words. This is a good point I hadn't considered. It's quite likely that they make a clean mix and mis-label it as an edit. However, it may be possible that 'clean-edits' are achieved by editing a mix, by using phase cancelling to remove parts of the vocal track that are in the centre of the stereo spectrum, such as with karaoke versions. Even if this is not the case, it could be argued that this is a narrow exception to the general rule, on the basis that the mix is exactly the same in all other respects. Tom Crocker wrote So should we be changing the style guide alone? Do you mean as opposed to changing both the style guide and re-labelling 'recording' as 'mix' across the database? -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651449.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. 3
On 12 April 2013 19:07, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote: Tom Crocker wrote FWIW I believe some edits do involve mixing, such as a so-called radio edit where they change swear words to similar sounding words. This is a good point I hadn't considered. It's quite likely that they make a clean mix and mis-label it as an edit. However, it may be possible that 'clean-edits' are achieved by editing a mix, by using phase cancelling to remove parts of the vocal track that are in the centre of the stereo spectrum, such as with karaoke versions. Even if this is not the case, it could be argued that this is a narrow exception to the general rule, on the basis that the mix is exactly the same in all other respects. My point is that neither the definition of a mix or an edit needs to be exclusive because we're defining recordings. Your general definition of an edit was excellent, it just didn't need to be added to by way of excluding mixes, because all that matters is that an edit or a mix (or something in the middle that someone could choose to call either an edit or a mix) = new recording Tom Crocker wrote So should we be changing the style guide alone? Do you mean as opposed to changing both the style guide and re-labelling 'recording' as 'mix' across the database? No. I have no desire to see recording be re-labelled mix and I think it would be wrong. I think a recording is a mix or an edit (I feel like a broken record(ing)!) or, occasionally, neither. Just a straight up recording. One microphone plugged into a tape recorder. No mixing (there's only one track), no editing (beyond having pressed record and stop). I mean changing the definition here: Recordinghttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording- which is currently: A recording represents a piece of unique audio data (including eventual mastering and (re-)mixing). -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651449.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. 3
These are the links you need for the examples. I've merged other duplicates (or masters, etc.) into these. Don't Push: original http://musicbrainz.org/recording/29d74a35-6058-4b2d-ba4b-0c93a28e6850 album http://musicbrainz.org/recording/0163ad9b-1e55-455b-8b8d-86a842420c4d http://musicbrainz.org/recording/0163ad9b-1e55-455b-8b8d-86a842420c4d Punky Reggae Party: Jamaican 12“ A side: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/e1b01ebe-da8f-4d42-a7b8-a83af503190e Short (4:25): http://musicbrainz.org/recording/9b664a0e-3e78-4d74-8ead-27f30d0c7ee5 ‘Long‘ (6:52): http://musicbrainz.org/recording/cfd90954-89a3-4d28-9537-808cd3a7b1c4 dub: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/11b337fa-0d67-4a73-8f44-69aa55acd81c On 12 April 2013 20:28, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 April 2013 19:07, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote: Tom Crocker wrote FWIW I believe some edits do involve mixing, such as a so-called radio edit where they change swear words to similar sounding words. This is a good point I hadn't considered. It's quite likely that they make a clean mix and mis-label it as an edit. However, it may be possible that 'clean-edits' are achieved by editing a mix, by using phase cancelling to remove parts of the vocal track that are in the centre of the stereo spectrum, such as with karaoke versions. Even if this is not the case, it could be argued that this is a narrow exception to the general rule, on the basis that the mix is exactly the same in all other respects. My point is that neither the definition of a mix or an edit needs to be exclusive because we're defining recordings. Your general definition of an edit was excellent, it just didn't need to be added to by way of excluding mixes, because all that matters is that an edit or a mix (or something in the middle that someone could choose to call either an edit or a mix) = new recording Tom Crocker wrote So should we be changing the style guide alone? Do you mean as opposed to changing both the style guide and re-labelling 'recording' as 'mix' across the database? No. I have no desire to see recording be re-labelled mix and I think it would be wrong. I think a recording is a mix or an edit (I feel like a broken record(ing)!) or, occasionally, neither. Just a straight up recording. One microphone plugged into a tape recorder. No mixing (there's only one track), no editing (beyond having pressed record and stop). I mean changing the definition here: Recordinghttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Recording- which is currently: A recording represents a piece of unique audio data (including eventual mastering and (re-)mixing). -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651449.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. 3
Tom Crocker wrote My point is that neither the definition of a mix or an edit needs to be exclusive because we're defining recordings. Your general definition of an edit was excellent, it just didn't need to be added to by way of excluding mixes, because all that matters is that an edit or a mix (or something in the middle that someone could choose to call either an edit or a mix) = new recording A recording is a mix or an edit sounds good. I presume the definition on the wiki will be changed as well. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651458.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. 3
On 13 April 2013 00:09, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote: Tom Crocker wrote My point is that neither the definition of a mix or an edit needs to be exclusive because we're defining recordings. Your general definition of an edit was excellent, it just didn't need to be added to by way of excluding mixes, because all that matters is that an edit or a mix (or something in the middle that someone could choose to call either an edit or a mix) = new recording A recording is a mix or an edit sounds good. I presume the definition on the wiki will be changed as well. I hope so. It's just LordSputnik said: -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651458.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. 3
Not sure what happened there :embarrassed:! I meant to quote the first post: This second page isn't part of the proposal, and may eventually be used to update the Recording definition page, but that's completely up to the developers. On 13 April 2013 00:13, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 April 2013 00:09, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote: Tom Crocker wrote My point is that neither the definition of a mix or an edit needs to be exclusive because we're defining recordings. Your general definition of an edit was excellent, it just didn't need to be added to by way of excluding mixes, because all that matters is that an edit or a mix (or something in the middle that someone could choose to call either an edit or a mix) = new recording A recording is a mix or an edit sounds good. I presume the definition on the wiki will be changed as well. I hope so. It's just LordSputnik said: -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651458.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. 3
lixobix wrote A recording is a mix or an edit sounds good. I presume the definition on the wiki will be changed as well. I don't believe that the definition of recording needs to be changed again. Recording = Mix was agreed on quite early on in the meetings and extending that to include edit could be misleading (there is too much ambiguity in that word). The proposed style guideline covers enough to deal with edits as it is now: If a mix is the result of editing and/or mixing one or more audio tracks, then an edit is a new mix. Because one audio track (the master track) has been edited to produce the edit, which meets the criteria for new mix under the current definition. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4651461.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
