I feel uneasy about "unmastered". I know what you mean, but I fear some
users could understand it otherwise. OTOH, your definition states that a
track may be a source for editing, so that a recording can use a mastered
source, but still... I believe mastering should not be part of the first
sentenc
Wikidata (http://www.wikidata.org/), the linked-data project from
Wikimedia, now links to MBIDs, so there's no reason for us not to map back
to them. Additionally, we want to add Wikidata relationships to areas
(being added May 15) since we're getting datafrom them and thus we have the
mapping anyw
+1
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFV-STYLE-216-Allow-linking-to-Wikidata-tp4652484p4652489.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
Music
What about an edit made from a mastered track? Would that not be interpreted
as 'mastered', therefore excluded? As I mentioned in my last post, I think
stating the sources are important, rather than defining 'recording'
negatively. Also, not mastered could be construed as meaning that anything
that
I agree with davitof that unmastered probably shouldn't be in there. I
think it muddles a very clean opening definition. I don't think you need to
worry that it *could* be mastered because your second sentence says it
can't. Your first sentence doesn't say *any* representation of sound, just
*a* re
About remastered recordings again.
https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording :
"Remastering should be described using the Remaster Relationship Type
between releases, or in the release annotation where tracks are mastered
differently across a release."
A simple and wid
To my French ears, "reproducible" could mean that it can be listened or
that it could be copied. I guess you intend the first meaning. Wouldn't it
be better to add a mention that we only mean representations which can be
"played" or listened to or heard (native English speakers will pick the
correc
That's an very specific case - I wouldn't add mastering information to such a
release, and wouldn't expect others to until there's a better solution. It's
likely that there will be a master entity at some point, or a better way of
using tracks between releases.
However, this guideline has already
Tom Crocker wrote
> I agree with davitof that unmastered probably shouldn't be in there. I
> think it muddles a very clean opening definition. I don't think you need
> to
> worry that it *could* be mastered because your second sentence says it
> can't.
No, the second sentence doesn't rule out crea
Although which level of master should be employed will be an interesting
debate if/when that begins
On 5 May 2013 19:50, LordSputnik wrote:
> That's an very specific case - I wouldn't add mastering information to
> such a
> release, and wouldn't expect others to until there's a better solution.
On 5 May 2013 20:06, LordSputnik wrote:
> Tom Crocker wrote
> > I agree with davitof that unmastered probably shouldn't be in there. I
> > think it muddles a very clean opening definition. I don't think you need
> > to
> > worry that it *could* be mastered because your second sentence says it
> >
Tom Crocker wrote
> It seems that's what davitof thought too - I'm not sure whether anything
> extra is needed there though (i.e., it's fine just without reproducible)
Yeah, we could get away without reproducible, but I think we need
unmastered, because a recording isn't mastered in any way while
2013/5/5 LordSputnik
> Tom Crocker wrote
> > It seems that's what davitof thought too - I'm not sure whether anything
> > extra is needed there though (i.e., it's fine just without reproducible)
>
> Yeah, we could get away without reproducible, but I think we need
> unmastered, because a recordin
It was the 'tracks as release tracks' bit I hadn't got.
I'd be interested to see the kind of thing you're thinking of.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-sty
14 matches
Mail list logo
