KRSCuan wrote > Thing is, we used to have those separated by them being different > recordings. We then chose to throw that info away by merging different > masters/remasters, even in cases where they have different information > (I remember some Queen remasters having distinct ISRCs) and > fingerprints. Now we try to replicate the info we've just thrown away > before? Seems like a wasted effort. And I'd argue that we have more > important things that need fixing.
ISRCs should remain on the recording level, no matter what. They're simply too badly regulated and subjectively assigned for us to reliably attach them to anything else. AcoustIDs generally can't distinguish between different masters anyway, so the recording is the correct place for those. The other information you refer to should not have been lost. The recording guidelines make provisions for storing mastering information in all cases (release-level for mastering of while releases, release annotation for separately mastered tracks), until we decide on a better system. If it's the case that different mastering per-track is very rare, and people have no real need for an alternative, then I have no problem keeping the current system, where the release is also essentially the master entity. -- View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/Master-and-Performance-entities-tp4668141p4668237.html Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list [email protected] http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
