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

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 W

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

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

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

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 > >> >> 2

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

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

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

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 >

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

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 exa

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

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 propo

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

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 ins

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

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.

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

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 1

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

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 i

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

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 guita

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

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

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

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 som

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

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

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

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: >

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

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

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

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 MusicBrai

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

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 > > trac

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

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 bee

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

"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

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

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 t

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

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

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

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

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

+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 >>

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

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).

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

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 d

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

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://ww

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

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.

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

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 pa

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

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 of

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

+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

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 w