2014-09-24 7:54 GMT+02:00 Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com>: > 2014-09-23 23:31 GMT+02:00 symphonick <symphon...@gmail.com>: > >> >> 2014-09-19 11:34 GMT+02:00 Frederic Da Vitoria <davito...@gmail.com>: >> >>> >>> 2014-09-19 11:18 GMT+02:00 Tom Crocker <tomcrockerm...@gmail.com>: >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> My preference would be for sound differences. If the CD sounds exactly >>> like the vinyl (this is not plausible but it should be possible), then I'd >>> expect only one Master in MB. But if the sounds differ, then I expect 2 >>> separate Masters, even if both are on the same medium. Of course, data >>> should be also taken into account. If a mastering engineer recreates >>> exactly the same sound as another master, there should be 2 Masters in MB >>> because there would be 2 Mastering Engineer ARs to enter. >>> >>> >> >> Percieved sound differences are in practice unusable as proof, unless we >> are dealing with intended differences; like 1973 version vs. 2010 remaster. >> But in those cases you would have liner notes or similar anyway. >> > > Yes, if we are speaking of albums. But in compilations, liner notes are > often missing, so that we have to rely on our ears to decide. > > > >> 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. >>>> >>> >>> I am not sure either, and I agree there could be more urgent things to >>> develop (like the reliability data you wrote about above). OTOH, the volume >>> of missing releases should not prevent us from improving existing data. >>> Just like the fact that we will certainly never know the names of all the >>> engineers who recorded existing tracks should not induce us to throw away >>> the Recording Engineer AR. >>> >>> >>> >> Regarding specific tracks; maybe a (release - release) AR which would >> show the master engineer @ track level when (if) you know the exact release >> a specific compilation track was sourced from? >> >> Otherwise some sort of headings inside the release group for specific >> masters maybe could work? Like: >> >> Release ... >> Official >> Foo CD >> Foo Vinyl >> *1997 remaster >> Foo CD >> *2010 remaster >> Foo CD >> >> >> & probably leave deafult = unspecified = original. My suggestion would be >> to have no more detail than this. >> > > There must be something I am missing here: Our developers have created a > quite efficient release tracks editor which enables us to enter ARs for all > the tracks at the same time with almost no more work than entering a > release level AR. So why not enable something similar for masters (if / > when then are implemented)? > > -- > Frederic Da Vitoria > (davitof) > > Now you got me worried; it's already quite hard to find the exact recording you want when there are lots of similar recordings to choose from. How would the master-info be shown in the search boxes?
/symphonick
_______________________________________________ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
