> > I think it depends what we want to represent and store. My understanding >> of a master pretty much fits our existing mediums. I also know you can >> recognise broader remastered albums and notice the same processed version >> of a song has been used on various compilations, though I've never come >> across a credit to back that up beyond reissues of the same album. >> > I've seen this in downloadable tracks from compilations (soemthing like > "#### remaster). Not very good (there could be 2 remasters the same year) > but it gives an indication. >
Useful to know > Maybe we should add a reliability flag, allowing to say: "these sound the > same" or "these are the same according to credits". > (Much) more broadly I'd love it if we could introduce a 'source' similar to wikidata, since nothing is certain and is based on stronger or weaker claims... > You gave an excellent suggestion that master data should stay out of the > way for uninterested users, so that for users who are interested we can > have a fairly complex UI. > > >> Is this the thing we want to represent, is it definable and do we often / >> ever have data about it on compilations? >> Do we want to attach mastering credits on a per-track basis? That seems a >> bit backwards. >> > Why "backwards"? There are certainly lots of situations where masters will > come from different sources. I am of course thinking of compilations, but > also of releases such as this > https://musicbrainz.org/release/86d5fc27-0b65-4750-95e2-fb42d6017c4e, the > second disc could be a different master. > There are lots of potential sources for tracks on compilations (old vinyl, tapes, masters...) but what do we want to be able to represent? What level of complexity and what fit with reality? Do we care about the vinyl master vs. the CD master? It might be the best solution to enter a mastering credit (mastered by ... on ...) on a per track basis but if masters are much more like an ordered set of (our type of) recordings it might be best to represent them as such, and see if there's a way within that we can handle complexities like compilations. If that was at a medium level it would work with your suggested release. > > >> More than anything, if we do add something let's make sure it is simple >> to use and transparent to anyone who doesn't care. >> > Yes, very important! Users who don't understand what a master is (and > furthermore, what MB calls a Master) should not be tempted to enter data. > > But, I also think KRSCuan might be right. We have tons of stuff to fix and millions of releases to add, so I'm not sure adding another potential layer of data that most people won't care about is the best use of our time.
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
