Re: [mb-style] RFC-341 CSG Recording parts Relations
Lemire, Sebastien wrote: I propose here an RFC to create a hierarchy in recordings similar as we have in the works tables. It expires in 7 days on Novemer 24th 2011. Because I haven't thought the consequences through for non-classical music, this RFC only applies with CSG. The proposal can be found here: http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Proposal:Recording_Parts_Relationship NOTE: This is the first time I created a wiki page (I shamelessly copied from the similar http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Parts_Relationship_Type). Please feel 100% to make modifications to it or let me know what I need to modify, change or add. Since relationships are available for all types of music and can't just be restricted to CSG, I think the consequences for non-classical music need to also be considered. I'm not convinced that it should be a separate page from the existing parts relationship page and right now I'd prefer to see a single page which explains when to use which version. Some things I'm still not clear on: Do we expect people to create standalone recordings to represent the entire recording? Do we expect people to copy the part relationships already on works to recordings, or is this only for cases where the recordings would all be linked to the same work? I don't understand what the link to Performance_Relationship_Type is supposed to mean either. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFC: recordings: remove remaster from the 'should not be merged' list
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 00:07 -0600, Alex Mauer wrote: On 11/17/2011 06:11 PM, Oliver Charles wrote: For my own merging guidelines, I will merge recordings that came out at roughly the same time (say the vinyl version and the week later CD release, with drum bass albums) because I can be confident that these are mastered the same; save a high pass filter here and there that I don't hear. I think we need to be more clear about what a MB-recording is, then. Is it: 1. A recording event (this was recorded on such-and-such day or days)? 2. a mix event (this was mixed by so-and-so on this day)? 3. a mastering event (CD/phonograph/cassette(?) releases cannot share recordings!)? 4. something else? Until we’re clear on this one, I don’t think this discussion is going to really help anything (people will carry on doing what they do) I've been handling these more as #2 than anything else. I normally think of mastering as a property of the release, rather than the recording. (This gets tricky if there are per-track mastering credits tho - we don't currently have a way to attach ARs to tracks.) I won't merge recordings which have had significant remasters (either a new ISRC or an easily noticable audio difference, or a change like mono to stereo conversion), and I have at times been known to pick over two different files with an audio editor to find minor mix differences. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Idea: remove track durations from analog releases
Hello Alex, +1 I really like this idea, I think through the NGS update almost all track durations for vinyl albums are worthless (because they shared one tracklist with a CD release). But if someone really went through the effort as to identify vinyl track durations, I think they should be allowed to enter this information. How about a compromise: Allow entering durations for vinyl releases, but don't copy the durations per default when adding a new release based on e.g. a CD release? Johannes ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Idea: remove track durations from analog releases
On 11/21/2011 12:30 PM, Johannes Weißl wrote: I really like this idea, I think through the NGS update almost all track durations for vinyl albums are worthless (because they shared one tracklist with a CD release). But if someone really went through the effort as to identify vinyl track durations, I think they should be allowed to enter this information. I like the thought, but I’m not sure how you could say that the track durations were correct even then. Is the true, correct duration: * As printed? (often wrong by at least several seconds, sometimes more; occasional typos) * From first to last audible sound? (how audible is audible?) * Measured as soon as a record needle leaves the visible gap between tracks? (requires some kind of low-magnification microscope for phonographs; what about tape and other analog media?) How about a compromise: Allow entering durations for vinyl releases, but don't copy the durations per default when adding a new release based on e.g. a CD release? That sounds good, but is kind of the opposite of what I was going for. I would prefer that MB have some kind of canonically-correct method for determining track duration. Since we don’t, and the above-listed makes it IMO impossible to have any true, correct duration information on analog releases, I would prefer to use only the information we *can* know to be correct: digital CD durations, and in some cases file lengths (probably via acoustID, but that’s for the future). In the meantime, what I’m hoping to do is make it easier for people to edit and use track durations for analog releases, and both be made aware that the durations are less accurate and are “best guess” while also being able to have *some* idea of what the duration is rather than simply showing ?:??. In general, the recording duration is MB’s “best guess”, so showing that makes sense to me. —Alex Mauer ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Idea: remove track durations from analog releases
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:48:59PM -0600, Alex Mauer wrote: But if someone really went through the effort as to identify vinyl track durations, I think they should be allowed to enter this information. I like the thought, but I’m not sure how you could say that the track durations were correct even then. Is the true, correct duration: * As printed? (often wrong by at least several seconds, sometimes more; occasional typos) * From first to last audible sound? (how audible is audible?) * Measured as soon as a record needle leaves the visible gap between tracks? (requires some kind of low-magnification microscope for phonographs; what about tape and other analog media?) I don't know, but they all seem to have a justification. So I think all of them are better than blindly copying CD track times. If there was some kind of preference (say 3 2 1), it wouldn't be much of a problem. How about a compromise: Allow entering durations for vinyl releases, but don't copy the durations per default when adding a new release based on e.g. a CD release? That sounds good, but is kind of the opposite of what I was going for. I would prefer that MB have some kind of canonically-correct method for determining track duration. Since we don’t, and the above-listed makes it IMO impossible to have any true, correct duration information on analog releases, I would prefer to use only the information we *can* know to be correct: digital CD durations, and in some cases file lengths (probably via acoustID, but that’s for the future). In the meantime, what I’m hoping to do is make it easier for people to edit and use track durations for analog releases, and both be made aware that the durations are less accurate and are “best guess” while also being able to have *some* idea of what the duration is rather than simply showing ?:??. In general, the recording duration is MB’s “best guess”, so showing that makes sense to me. Hmm, I don't think it is the opposite. I'm fine with *displaying* the best guess (recording times from CDs if there is no track time), I just don't think the data should be stored by default as such. Johannes ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] RFV: Add orchestrator and instrumentation at recording level
It's been more than 48 hours, so this has passed. Nikki Nikki wrote: This proposal is to add orchestrator and instrumentation at recording level. The RFV should expire on the 20th. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
