Thank you! +1
-
Valeriy Orlov
(RocknRollArchivist)
--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652024.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
But sorry, I don't understand these phrases: ...a recording is a set of one
or more audio tracks. (...) Audio tracks should not be confused with release
tracks.
So what we store actually in MB: a recordings, an audio tracks or a release
tracks? (We have also somewhere a performance for more
We store release tracks (the tracks on a release) and recordings (the
chunks of recorded audio that sound very similar on different releases but
may have been 'tuned' (mastered) differently):
It is *usually *the case that a *recording *is a mix of a performance of a
work
audio tracks aren't stored currently in MB. They are just mentioned here
to explain to users that MB Recordings were not those first step direct
recordings, but that MB Recordings were closer to what is usually called a
mix. Maybe the fact that they are not stored could be mentioned.
release
Maybe we should try to design a page with a diagram of what happens from a
performance (or even from a work) to a release and which of these maps to
the MB database. I am thinking of something with one dimension representing
chronology and the other dimension split in two: real world steps / MB
I'll think about it but there are many ways to make a recording so it may
be more confusing than informative!
On 23 April 2013 09:35, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should try to design a page with a diagram of what happens from a
performance (or even from a work) to
Are you sure it won't make things worse? :-(
Just brainstorming now, but there are different options, ex. bootleg vs.
multitrack audio, a live performance vs. an electronic studio composition
and so on. Worse, we may have to actually define things like performance.
2013/4/23 Frederic Da Vitoria
FIrst of all, it should be a separate page, this would be part of a general
documentation, giving an overview of how the MB database maps to the real
world. If we can't achieve it, or if we later discover that it confuses
users, we can simply drop it. Second, it would not contain all the
I agree that which relationships to use in which cases is an issue to
discuss separately. But if it would help rocknrollarchivist you could add
'overdub' to the list of possible name for different mixes in the usage
guide (since it clearly falls into this category within our definition,
regardless
Then you may have to explain exactly what you mean with overdubbing,
since it's used in almost every [pop] studio recording made since the
advent of multi-track tape recorders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdubbing
2013/4/22 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I agree that which
But, don't all flavours lead to a new recording, making explanation (laying
one track over another) unnecessary?
On 22 April 2013 11:33, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
Then you may have to explain exactly what you mean with overdubbing,
since it's used in almost every [pop] studio
Tom Crocker wrote
But if it would help rocknrollarchivist you could add
'overdub' to the list of possible name for different mixes in the usage
guide (since it clearly falls into this category within our definition,
regardless of what relationships it should have)
I think overdubbing is
It's clearly covered in the definition, perhaps some clarification from
RockNRollArchivist would tell us whether it would be helpful to add the
word to the list:
The result is often labelled on a track list as a remix, mix, dub*,
overdub*or version
On 22 April 2013 12:19, LordSputnik
Since overdub is sometimes printed on the track list, (and since track
lists seldom give definitions), we could add the word overdub in one of the
Recordings pages. I believe the style page will be more often accessed, so
that's where I would add it. Maybe just a simple sentence at the end of the
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Since overdub is sometimes printed on the track list, (and since track
lists seldom give definitions), we could add the word overdub in one of
the
Recordings pages. I believe the style page will be more often accessed, so
that's where I would add it. Maybe just a
On 22 April 2013 12:43, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
Since overdub is sometimes printed on the track list, (and since track
lists seldom give definitions), we could add the word overdub in one of the
Recordings pages. I believe the style page will be more often accessed, so
Yes, maybe. As long as it is somewhere, I guess that's the most important
part :-)
2013/4/22 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Since overdub is sometimes printed on the track list, (and since track
lists seldom give definitions), we could add the word overdub in one
2013/4/22 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 22 April 2013 12:43, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
Since overdub is sometimes printed on the track list, (and since track
lists seldom give definitions), we could add the word overdub in one of the
Recordings pages. I
Well Like I said, I'd put it in mixing because that's how I see it too. But
it doesn't have to be *before* mixing because it can be *during* mixing -
live to a single track. Anyway, I don't think it really matters
On 22 April 2013 16:26, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/22 Tom
Ok I see what you mean, I meant before the result of the mixing process
(which is what we define as a MB-recording).
And I agree it doesn't matter. First I thought that the idea was to somehow
use the word overdub in the actual recording definition. Saying that a
track can be labelled overdub in
Good stuff :)
On 22 April 2013 16:59, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok I see what you mean, I meant before the result of the mixing process
(which is what we define as a MB-recording).
And I agree it doesn't matter. First I thought that the idea was to
somehow use the word overdub
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Yes, maybe. As long as it is somewhere, I guess that's the most important
part :-)
All done, added it to the remix section.
Do I still have +1's from people who previously +1'd?
--
View this message in context:
Sorry! +1
On Apr 22, 2013 10:37 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
Here we go again:
+1
2013/4/22 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Yes, maybe. As long as it is somewhere, I guess that's the most
important
part :-)
All done, added it to the remix
I don't know how many times I sent a +1 to this, but since it keeps getting
better than the last time I sent +1, +1 now from me too.
2013/4/22 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
Sorry! +1
On Apr 22, 2013 10:37 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
Here we go again:
+1
2013/4/22
pabouk wrote
I think that the examples section on the recording definition page should
contain examples of recording made by the same interpreters but as a
different performance (recorded at different time). IMHO this could be one
of the most common mistakes during recording mergers.
I
As before no mention of *overdubbing*. The overdubbed recordings are
widespread.
What relations you propose between an undubbed (original) recording and a
differently overdubbed recordings?
Is it a remaster or a remix? I think this relationship undubbed -
overdubbed is worthy of separate *type*.
Overdubbing as in singing a duet together with a deceased singer? Adding
new material means it's a new recording.
About relationships recordings: since we're missing a performance/source
level above recordings, relationships that in theory links to the source
audio will be more or less
symphonick wrote
About relationships recordings: since we're missing a performance/source
level above recordings, relationships that in theory links to the source
audio will be more or less inaccurate. E.g. technically a remix
(mb-recording) usually isn't related to an old mix
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
Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording
In this revision:
- Changed the definition of recording to the one I proposed yesterday, since
it's clearer and not
While you're adding links, I guess you could replicate the track link in
the overview section on the definitions page.
On 19 April 2013 12:21, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording
Shouldn't of audio track be of an audio track or of audio tracks?
2013/4/19 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording
In
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Shouldn't of audio track be of an audio track or of audio tracks?
Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying the job involves eating pieces of
chocolate bar.
--
View this message in context:
Tom Crocker wrote
While you're adding links, I guess you could replicate the track link in
the overview section on the definitions page.
Added it to the last sentence.
I haven't linked release tracks in the mastering sentence though, because
release tracks is already linked a few lines above
You've confused me with that explanation!
On 19 April 2013 12:42, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Shouldn't of audio track be of an audio track or of audio tracks?
Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying the job involves eating pieces of
chocolate bar.
Good choice
On 19 April 2013 12:44, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
While you're adding links, I guess you could replicate the track link in
the overview section on the definitions page.
Added it to the last sentence.
I haven't linked release tracks in the
+1
2013/4/19 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Shouldn't of audio track be of an audio track or of audio tracks?
Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying the job involves eating pieces of
chocolate bar.
--
View this message in context:
Style page
Is it worth changing this: In many cases, a released track will be the
original recording produced from a performance. in light of davitofrg's
comment (a few days ago) to: In many cases, a released track *should be
linked to *** the original recording produced
Yep, agreed, and actually, I'd change the Different masters bit similarly
to the definitions
but I'd also tweak the bit in definitions:
*Mastering* is a process that is applied to *recordings*, ...
In style guide:
Mastering is a process that is applied to recordings. This means that
tracks
Integrated that lost remastering bit into the current mastering section in
the style guideline.
Also, I've tweaked the mastering definition to remove the iffy on a level
between... bit. I've also removed ... for a release from the recording
definition, because the definition of mastering makes it
You have still got my +1 :-)
2013/4/19 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
Integrated that lost remastering bit into the current mastering section in
the style guideline.
Also, I've tweaked the mastering definition to remove the iffy on a level
between... bit. I've also removed ... for a
On 19/04/2013 12:42, LordSputnik wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Shouldn't of audio track be of an audio track or of audio tracks?
Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying the job involves eating pieces of
chocolate bar.
Brilliant! Is the job available?
2013/4/19 monxton musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org
On 19/04/2013 12:42, LordSputnik wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Shouldn't of audio track be of an audio track or of audio tracks?
Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying the job involves eating pieces
of
chocolate bar.
Brilliant! Is
How about:
Mastering is a process that is usually applied to a set of recordings to
prepare them for release together.
On 19 April 2013 16:48, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/19 monxton musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org
On 19/04/2013 12:42, LordSputnik wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria
Your new definitions would probably often be correct, but you were the one
complaining about getting way too deep into technical details :-) Does
knowing that mastering is mostly applied to group of recordings change
anything in understanding what a MB Recording is or is not? Or knowing that
the
2013/4/19 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
Your new definitions would probably often be correct, but you were the one
complaining about getting way too deep into technical details :-)
1-0! :-)
Does knowing that mastering is mostly applied to group of recordings change
anything in
symphonick wrote
IMO the guidelines should cover common usage, I believe stranger artistic
projects can be regarded as an exception here. ;-)
Does explaining mastering help? Maybe, maybe not; I added the last
suggestion because the other terms (audio track, mixing etc) are explained
with
Ok, I've renamed Recorded Performances to Different Sources as Tom said.
I've also slightly reworded that section to mention different sources in
the text.
I've also improved the formatting of the Edits, Remasters and Durations
paragraphs.
Since people mostly seem to be happy here, I'm going to
+1
On Apr 19, 2013 7:35 PM, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I've renamed Recorded Performances to Different Sources as Tom
said.
I've also slightly reworded that section to mention different sources in
the text.
I've also improved the formatting of the Edits, Remasters and
2013/4/19 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
symphonick wrote
IMO the guidelines should cover common usage, I believe stranger
artistic
projects can be regarded as an exception here. ;-)
Does explaining mastering help? Maybe, maybe not; I added the last
suggestion because the other terms
symphonick wrote
If it only adds confusion it's better to leave it out. But if the current
recording definition implies that a recording/track are mastered
individually, I must take back my support. :-( I didn't read it that way,
can you explain how?
Well, it says that mastering is a process
2013/4/19 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
symphonick wrote
If it only adds confusion it's better to leave it out. But if the current
recording definition implies that a recording/track are mastered
individually, I must take back my support. :-( I didn't read it that way,
can you explain
On 20 April 2013 01:31, pabouk pab...@centrum.cz wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording
In MusicBrainz, a recording is a
53 matches
Mail list logo
