On 20/04/2013 01:51, pabouk wrote:
> I did not read all the discussion yet but I think that the recordings should
> be credited to the real artists because there are many cases where the same
> recording is released with real credits and also with "Alfred Scholz"
> credits. IMHO such recording shou
jacobbrett wrote
> [2] (a suggested schema)
> http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Jacobbrett/Recordings#The_Schema
By the way, when did you last update you schema image? The track metadata
matches almost exactly the data stored by WavePlot:
http://waveplot.ockmore.net/waveplot/82a8494a4b614f5a9b7d67e
I agree with pabouk.
2013/4/20 pabouk
> I did not read all the discussion yet but I think that the recordings
> should
> be credited to the real artists because there are many cases where the same
> recording is releases with real credits and also with "Alfred Scholz"
> cerdits. IMHO such recor
jacobbrett wrote
> As an aside: Only one days notice was given for the third meeting [1] and
> information on the second didn't seem to reach the style list at all. So,
> I think it's a bit poor to imply overwhelming favour when many editors
> probably weren't aware the meetings were occurring.
I
pabouk wrote
> I think that the definitions showed above could be confusing.
> The base for the definition of recording is a set of audio tracks but in
> many (most?) cases they will be transformed by mixing into a smaller set
> of audio channels and in such cases the recording is not a set of the
@jacobbrett
It seems to me your proposal would lead to massive amounts of duplicated
data - bad in any database, but particularly one as big as this. If a
Master entity should be created, it should be for a collection of
recordings. In that case, if it is possible to know if / which master was
used
