date:20130426

LordSputnik wrote

lixobix wrote
Well, I don't think there is a distinction :-) I'm still unclear as to
what 'plain recordings' are and why they would be added. Are you talking
about users adding each individual multi-track audio recordings?
They wouldn't be added. But your definition sentence doesn't include
mastering. After you've defined it, you say that mastering doesn't make
new recordings, but I prefer having this as part of the definition.

My definition does not include mastering because, as we agree, mastering
should not be considered at recording level. The fact that mastering does
not create a new recording does not affect what a recording is. It only
explains what it isn't. So you define recordings by the lack of mastering,
thus subverting them to mastering, which I think is wrong.

lixobix wrote
So an edit/mix made from a mastered track is not a recording? That would
mean artists like Girl Talk have no recordings: I'll just hear something
on the radio or at a party and go ahead and sample it off a CD or record
or download it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Ripper

Not exactly, because the definition doesn't care what the audio tracks are,
just that the whole *set* of audio tracks hasn't been mastered. The audio
tracks themselves may have been mastered individually.

The definition does care what audio tracks are: audio tracks... [that] have
not been mastered.

Your definition would work if you change have not been mastered to has
not been mastered. Have (plural) refers to the multiple individual audio
tracks. Has (singular) refers to the set, which it what you appear to be
concerned with.

--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652142.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

Also, if you do not know whether a set of audio tracks have been mastered, by
your definition you cannot say that it is a recording. By putting mastering
in the definition, you have to consider it in relation to recording, which
should not be the case.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652143.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

On 26 April 2013 12:25, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:

LordSputnik wrote

I'm not sure we're ever going to agree on this! But to me, the kind of
recording you initially define would include all differently mastered or
otherwise different in any way 'audio tracks' to use the phrase you don't
like. If I mastered a recording, the product would be recorded sound and
would be different from the unmastered recording -- IMO that's why it needs
to be in there.

The definition does care what audio tracks are: audio tracks... [that]
have
not been mastered.

I think this is a good point. Well spotted.

. Also, if you do not know whether a set of audio tracks have been
mastered, by
your definition you cannot say that it is a recording. By putting mastering
in the definition, you have to consider it in relation to recording, which
should not be the case.

I don't agree, all that matters is that a recording has not been mastered.
It is the thing absent of mastering, whether or not it subsequently
happened.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

Is this captured sound?

yes = recording
no = 

Is it the product of mixing or editing?

yes = recording
no = not recording

Mastering is not required for consideration. Mastering is not capturing
sound, it is processing sound.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652160.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

Like I said, I don't think we're going to agree! If I'm recording to
reel-to-reel I'm capturing sound, whether the source of that is a
microphone, a mixing desk or a compressor. Mastering isn't capturing sound
but nor is mixing or editing, (lower-case) recording (the verb) is.


On 26 April 2013 13:29, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:

 Is this captured sound?

 yes = recording
 no = 

 Is it the product of mixing or editing?

 yes = recording
 no = not recording

 Mastering is not required for consideration. Mastering is not capturing
 sound, it is processing sound.



 --
 View this message in context:
 http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652160.html
 Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

2013-04-26 Thread Frederic Da Vitoria

2013/4/26 lixobix arjtap...@aol.com

 LordSputnik wrote
 
  lixobix wrote
  Well, I don't think there is a distinction :-) I'm still unclear as to
  what 'plain recordings' are and why they would be added. Are you talking
  about users adding each individual multi-track audio recordings?
  They wouldn't be added. But your definition sentence doesn't include
  mastering. After you've defined it, you say that mastering doesn't make
  new recordings, but I prefer having this as part of the definition.

 My definition does not include mastering because, as we agree, mastering
 should not be considered at recording level. The fact that mastering does
 not create a new recording does not affect what a recording is. It only
 explains what it isn't. So you define recordings by the lack of mastering,
 thus subverting them to mastering, which I think is wrong.


I think you are misunderstanding: LordSputnik did not *define* recordings
by the absence of mastering, he mentioned masters because this should be
mentioned here as a reminder for readers. I agree mastering is not part of
what a Recording is. But I believe that it is important to explain clearly
that it is not a master, because some users (me included) separated masters
in Recordings before. This means that this way to understand the word
recording (different masters = different recordings) is natural to at
least some users, so that it should be clearly stated that this is not true
anymore, at least until we feel that the majority of MB users have
understood what MB Recordings are to be from now on. Of course, if some day
masters are implemented in MB, then this will not need to be reminded any
more.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

Tom Crocker wrote
On 26 April 2013 12:25, lixobix lt;

arjtaplin@

gt; wrote:

LordSputnik wrote

lixobix wrote
Well, I don't think there is a distinction :-) I'm still unclear as to
what 'plain recordings' are and why they would be added. Are you
talking
about users adding each individual multi-track audio recordings?
They wouldn't be added. But your definition sentence doesn't include
mastering. After you've defined it, you say that mastering doesn't make
new recordings, but I prefer having this as part of the definition.

My definition does not include mastering because, as we agree, mastering
should not be considered at recording level. The fact that mastering does
not create a new recording does not affect what a recording is. It only
explains what it isn't. So you define recordings by the lack of
mastering,
thus subverting them to mastering, which I think is wrong.

Yes, but it is not *captured* sound, just as mixing and editing is not
captured sound. Mixing and editing is included specifically. Mastering is
not. So mixing/editing, but not mastering is allowed.

Tom Crocker wrote
. Also, if you do not know whether a set of audio tracks have been
mastered, by
your definition you cannot say that it is a recording. By putting
mastering
in the definition, you have to consider it in relation to recording, which
should not be the case.

I don't agree, all that matters is that a recording has not been mastered.
It is the thing absent of mastering, whether or not it subsequently
happened.

That is the problem exactly. We should not define recording *as* the absence
of mastering, but *regardless* of mastering. By the current definition, once
a set of audio tracks has been mastered, it ceases to be a recording,
because it says a they must not have been mastered. If a white wall is a
wall that has not been painted blue, then a wall that has been painted blue
is not a white wall. Thus mastering cannot be part of the definition. It can
only be incidental.

--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652159.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

On 26 April 2013 13:24, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:

Tom Crocker wrote
On 26 April 2013 12:25, lixobix lt;

arjtaplin@

gt; wrote:

LordSputnik wrote

lixobix wrote
Well, I don't think there is a distinction :-) I'm still unclear as
to
what 'plain recordings' are and why they would be added. Are you
talking
about users adding each individual multi-track audio recordings?
They wouldn't be added. But your definition sentence doesn't include
mastering. After you've defined it, you say that mastering doesn't
make
new recordings, but I prefer having this as part of the definition.

My definition does not include mastering because, as we agree, mastering
should not be considered at recording level. The fact that mastering
does
not create a new recording does not affect what a recording is. It only
explains what it isn't. So you define recordings by the lack of
mastering,
thus subverting them to mastering, which I think is wrong.

Yes, but it is not *captured* sound, just as mixing and editing is not
captured sound. Mixing and editing is included specifically. Mastering is
not. So mixing/editing, but not mastering is allowed.

:-)
I've already responded to this

I don't agree, all that matters is that a recording has not been
mastered.
It is the thing absent of mastering, whether or not it subsequently
happened.

That is the problem exactly. We should not define recording *as* the
absence
of mastering, but *regardless* of mastering. By the current definition,
once
a set of audio tracks has been mastered, it ceases to be a recording,
because it says a they must not have been mastered. If a white wall is a
wall that has not been painted blue, then a wall that has been painted blue
is not a white wall. Thus mastering cannot be part of the definition. It
can
only be incidental.

We aren't defining it as the absence of mastering, but that is a
requirement.
Interesting analogy, but precisely the point. The track I have on my CD at
home is not the MusicBrainz Recording. But it is closely related to it. It
features through a filter of mastering and encoding and other such stuff.
At least that's how I see it, but I'm not sure there's much point in us
going round this circle any longer.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[mb-style] RFV: Rights society relationship

2013-04-26 Thread Nikki

This proposal is for a new label type Rights Society and a
relationship between labels and releases, which will give the existing
entries a real meaning and also give us a more structured way to enter
rights society information.

Wiki page for the relationship:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Nikki/Rights_society_relationship
Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-209
RFC thread: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Rights-society-relationship-STYLE-209-td4651285.html

Note: I'm not extending this to any other entities as part of this RFC, 
but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to someone else doing it later if they 
want to.

Expiration date: 28th of April

Nikki

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

2013-04-26 Thread Frederic Da Vitoria

2013/4/26 lixobix arjtap...@aol.com

 We should not define recording *as* the absence
 of mastering, but *regardless* of mastering. By the current definition,
 once
 a set of audio tracks has been mastered, it ceases to be a recording,
 because it says a they must not have been mastered. If a white wall is a
 wall that has not been painted blue, then a wall that has been painted blue
 is not a white wall. Thus mastering cannot be part of the definition. It
 can
 only be incidental.


Ah, now I understand your point. OTOH, I don't think your point changes
anything. If I am not sure if the track I have on my release has been
mastered or not, I can still enter it as a Recording because this track
must have existed in a non-mastered stage at some point. Actually, we are
never entering our release tracks in Recordings, we are entering abstract
ancestors of our release tracks. Including (or should it be excluding?)
mastering in the definition is a way to try to give a reality to what we
are storing in the Recordings table. This may be wrong, I believe that we
are often not storing something which ever existed, what we are really
doing is creating a common point to anchor the ARs which we would otherwise
have to duplicate. But I guess many users need to maintain the illusion
that the MB entities map to real world objects.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

Tom Crocker wrote
Like I said, I don't think we're going to agree! If I'm recording to
reel-to-reel I'm capturing sound, whether the source of that is a
microphone, a mixing desk or a compressor. Mastering isn't capturing sound
but nor is mixing or editing, (lower-case) recording (the verb) is.

The source, whether a microphone, a mixing desk or a compressor is
important. A microphone captures sound. When a recording is played back
through a mixing desk or compressor, no sound is involved, only signals.
Mixing and editing are defined as creating recordings, so it does not matter
that they are not captured sound.

Tom Crocker wrote
We aren't defining it as the absence of mastering, but that is a
requirement.

That's a contradiction. If it's a requirement, it must be part of the
definition (it currently is).

Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Ah, now I understand your point. OTOH, I don't think your point changes
anything. If I am not sure if the track I have on my release has been
mastered or not, I can still enter it as a Recording because this track
must have existed in a non-mastered stage at some point. Actually, we are
never entering our release tracks in Recordings, we are entering abstract
ancestors of our release tracks. Including (or should it be excluding?)
mastering in the definition is a way to try to give a reality to what we
are storing in the Recordings table. This may be wrong, I believe that we
are often not storing something which ever existed, what we are really
doing is creating a common point to anchor the ARs which we would
otherwise have to duplicate. But I guess many users need to maintain the
illusion that the MB entities map to real world objects.

We should *define* exactly what it is we are storing, which is a captured
sound, or a mix or edit (a real thing, although not one we have access to).
Separately, we should *explain* that masters are not what we are storing in
recordings. But we should not conflate the two, because it is confusing and
does not make sense. Any reference to mastering in the *definition* means
that what we are trying to store is somehow related to mastering, which it
is not. We are not storing *a captured sound, or a mix or edit that has not
been mastered*, we are storing *a captured sound, or a mix or edit*.
Mastering does not change what a captured sound, or a mix or edit is, so it
is not part of the definition. But we should *explain*, for clarities sake,
*why* it is not.

--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652173.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Rights society relationship

2013-04-26 Thread Rachel Dwight


On Apr 26, 2013, at 8:00 AM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote:

 This proposal is for a new label type Rights Society and a
 relationship between labels and releases, which will give the existing
 entries a real meaning and also give us a more structured way to enter
 rights society information.
 
 Wiki page for the relationship:
 http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Nikki/Rights_society_relationship
 Ticket: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-209
 RFC thread: 
 http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-Rights-society-relationship-STYLE-209-td4651285.html
 
 Note: I'm not extending this to any other entities as part of this RFC, 
 but that doesn't mean I'm opposed to someone else doing it later if they 
 want to.

In that case I'll +1 and make that ticket later.

 
 Expiration date: 28th of April
 
 Nikki
 
 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Rights society relationship

2013-04-26 Thread Ben Ockmore

I'm not 100% behind this while the entity is still called Label, because
a label is not a rights society. Especially since the docs currently say
that http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Label/Non-Labels is a list of things which
aren't labels, so this would effectively be a complete U-turn on what we
had before.

I'd be more supportive if Label became Organization or something like
that, to allow *any* company/society *related to music* to be added to the
DB.
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFV: Rights society relationship

2013-04-26 Thread Ben Ockmore

Oh, this is an RFV. Never mind then, I should've said something before.
That's not a veto or anything...
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

Like I said, I don't think we're going to agree!
What if the signals from a synth go to a recorder?

Part of, but not *the* definition

On 26 April 2013 16:09, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:

Tom Crocker wrote
Like I said, I don't think we're going to agree! If I'm recording to
reel-to-reel I'm capturing sound, whether the source of that is a
microphone, a mixing desk or a compressor. Mastering isn't capturing
sound
but nor is mixing or editing, (lower-case) recording (the verb) is.

Tom Crocker wrote
We aren't defining it as the absence of mastering, but that is a
requirement.

That's a contradiction. If it's a requirement, it must be part of the
definition (it currently is).

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

It seems that not everyone is completely satisfied with the definition of
recordings. So, let's take a little time to improve it some more! \o/

Note: this doesn't affect the RFV for the Recordings Guidelines, because
it's not about the content of the Style Guideline, but a documentation page.
That's the reason why I've changed the topic.

lixobix wrote
Your definition would work if you change have not been mastered to has
not been mastered. Have (plural) refers to the multiple individual
audio tracks. Has (singular) refers to the set, which it what you appear
to be concerned with.

I agree with this. However, we do need to mention mastering in the
definition, because I want to make it clear that a MB Recording represents a
stage *before* any mastering. Mastering is the process that turns a
recording into a track.

I have three potential replacements for the existing redefinition, which
change it slightly. Alternatively, we can keep the current redefinition:

1. In MusicBrainz, a recording is an unmastered set of one or more audio
tracks, which may have been mixed or edited.

2. In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of one or more audio tracks prior
to mastering, which may have been mixed or edited.

3. In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of one or more audio tracks, which
may have been mixed or edited. then, in the mastering section... Mastering
is not involved in the creation of recordings.

I'd like to keep any other suggestions fairly close the what we have
currently, please, because many people believe that it's a good enough
definition as it is.

--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652180.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

Tom Crocker wrote
 Like I said, I don't think we're going to agree!
 What if the signals from a synth go to a recorder?

Perhaps A captured sound, a captured signal from a synthesiser, or the
product of mixing or editing.

Such a case causes the same problem under the current definition.


Tom Crocker wrote
 Part of, but not *the* definition

What is part of but not *the* definition?



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652181.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

...although to summarise:

1) Audio tracks could be confused with release tracks
2) They are not, and I think will not be, entities in MB
3) They are only mentioned in this definition
4) The definition is synonymous with the dictionary definition of
'recording'
5) Within the current definition, you can swap the word 'recording' with
'audio track' and it has the same meaning
6) I can't think of a clear distinction between 'audio track' and
'recording'



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652183.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC: STYLE-208 - New Recordings Guidelines

On 26 April 2013 16:53, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:

Tom Crocker wrote
Like I said, I don't think we're going to agree!
What if the signals from a synth go to a recorder?

Perhaps A captured sound, a captured signal from a synthesiser, or the
product of mixing or editing.

Such a case causes the same problem under the current definition.

Only your interpretation of it. Like I said, we see it differently. I see
them both and all as captured sound - it's the noun not the the verb, so it
doesn't have to follow immediately, it just is what it is. The way I see
it, my CDs and FLAC files are definitely captured sound. To follow your
analogy, they're all walls - in fact, in your case they were the same wall
just a different colour. And that's where the analogy breaks down because
you can't high-speed dub a wall (though you can daub one, but that's
entirely different!) :D

Tom Crocker wrote
Part of, but not *the* definition

What is part of but not *the* definition?

Absence of mastering

--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652181.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

LordSputnik wrote
 3. In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of one or more audio tracks,
 which may have been mixed or edited. then, in the mastering section...
 Mastering is not involved in the creation of recordings.

This is the best, although I still have my stated reservations about audio
tracks.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652182.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix wrote
...although to summarise:

1) Audio tracks could be confused with release tracks
2) They are not, and I think will not be, entities in MB
3) They are only mentioned in this definition
4) The definition is synonymous with the dictionary definition of
'recording'
5) Within the current definition, you can swap the word 'recording' with
'audio track' and it has the same meaning
6) I can't think of a clear distinction between 'audio track' and
'recording'

In response:

1) No. Because Audio tracks should not be confused with release tracks.
2) No, and that's irrelevant.
3) So are many things, such as equalization, panning and sound.
4) But not with the definition of MusicBrainz recording, because, as you
said in 2), audio tracks aren't entities in MB, hence there is a
distinction.
5) No, because an audio track isn't a MusicBrainz entity. We are defining a
MusicBrainz entity, not a general recording. A Release is a thing that
happens when you let go of something, but we don't store an entity any time
someone in the world drops a ball.
6) An audio track is captured sound, which implies that it hasn't been mixed
with other sounds. A recording can be mixed or edited.

--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652186.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

If you were to replace the words audio track with recording, you'd get
the following:

In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of one or more recordings, which may
have been mixed or edited, but have not been mastered.

A recording is any captured sound, including (but not limited to)
instrumental and vocal performances and existing recordings.

A recording can't be both of those things, which is why a separate term is
used. Especially since, in MusicBrainz, a recording is already closer to the
former idea than the latter.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652187.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

Without wishing to be exceptionally repetitive (and Ben's typed his
responses faster than me!):
The dictionary definition of a recording is not what we want the
musicbrainz definition to be. So we use the phrase audio track to neatly
(IMHO) side-step using the word recording to mean two different things in
the definition of recordings. Here it appears I have a slight difference of
opinion with Ben - I think an audio track is any inscription of sounds that
can be played back.


On 26 April 2013 17:07, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:

 ...although to summarise:

 1) Audio tracks could be confused with release tracks
 2) They are not, and I think will not be, entities in MB
 3) They are only mentioned in this definition
 4) The definition is synonymous with the dictionary definition of
 'recording'
 5) Within the current definition, you can swap the word 'recording' with
 'audio track' and it has the same meaning
 6) I can't think of a clear distinction between 'audio track' and
 'recording'



 --
 View this message in context:
 http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652183.html
 Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

I've been talking about audio tracks with hawke, and I think it'd be good if
we dropped captured sound, and replaced the whole thing with:

An audio track is a stored representation of sound. Audio tracks should not
be confused with release tracks.

So that the sound source is irrelevant.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652189.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

Tom Crocker wrote
 I see. That's how I'd always though of captured sound. Would it be asking
 too much to throw 'sequence' in there? as in 'a sequence of sounds'
 because
 time is very much an element. It's not just hum or
 hum but la di da di

I'm not sure we can exclude hums, because they could be used creatively in
songs.

I could go for

An audio track is any stored representation of sound which can be played
back. Audio tracks should not
be confused with release tracks.




--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652194.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

LordSputnik wrote
 If you were to replace the words audio track with recording, you'd get
 the following:
 
 In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of one or more recordings, which may
 have been mixed or edited, but have not been mastered.
 
 A recording is any captured sound, including (but not limited to)
 instrumental and vocal performances and existing recordings.
 
 A recording can't be both of those things, which is why a separate term is
 used. Especially since, in MusicBrainz, a recording is already closer to
 the former idea than the latter.

Well, that exposes the circularity. As you say:

An audio track is any captured sound, including (but not limited to)
instrumental and vocal performances and existing recordings

An audio track is ... any captured sound  

Any captured sound...  [includes] existing recording

Therefore: An audio track ... [includes] existing recording

Therefore: A recording is a set of one or more [things that include]
existing recordings



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652195.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

LordSputnik wrote
 I've been talking about audio tracks with hawke, and I think it'd be good
 if we dropped captured sound, and replaced the whole thing with:
 
 An audio track is a stored representation of sound. Audio tracks should
 not be confused with release tracks.
 
 So that the sound source is irrelevant.

No, because mastering creates a new stored representation of sound.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652198.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

On 26 April 2013 17:54, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:

 LordSputnik wrote
  I've been talking about audio tracks with hawke, and I think it'd be good
  if we dropped captured sound, and replaced the whole thing with:
 
  An audio track is a stored representation of sound. Audio tracks should
  not be confused with release tracks.
 
  So that the sound source is irrelevant.

 No, because mastering creates a new stored representation of sound.


And round the circle we go again!
So put (or leave) absence of mastering in the definition




 --
 View this message in context:
 http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652198.html
 Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix wrote
 No, because mastering creates a new stored representation of sound.

I don't see how that's a problem - there's nothing in the definition that
says mastered release tracks can't be used as audio tracks.

An audio track can include existing recording yes. It is circular, but the
circle has been split into two semicircles, and audio track and recording
represent two different points in the circle.

Also: http://yuml.me/ce01ba92



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652200.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[mb-style] RFC STYLE-216: Allow linking to Wikidata

2013-04-26 Thread Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

Wikidata (http://www.wikidata.org/), the linked-data project from
Wikimedia, now links to MBIDs, so there's no reason for us not to map back
to them. Additionally, we want to add Wikidata relationships to areas
(being added May 15) since we're getting data from them and thus we have
the mapping anyway. And we can also use a Wikidata mapping to import more
identifiers (like ISNI, coming May 15 too).

Proposed wiki page is
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:Reosarevok/Wikidata_Relationship_Type

Ticket is at http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-216

Expected RFV date is May 3

-- 
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

LordSputnik wrote
 
 lixobix wrote
 No, because mastering creates a new stored representation of sound.
 I don't see how that's a problem - there's nothing in the definition that
 says mastered release tracks can't be used as audio tracks.
 
 An audio track can include existing recording yes. It is circular, but the
 circle has been split into two semicircles, and audio track and recording
 represent two different points in the circle.
 
 Also: http://yuml.me/ce01ba92

Unmastered, prior to mastering and mastering is not involved would
exclude mastered release tracks. If an audio track can be a mastered release
track, then a recording can be a mastered release track.

In the diagram, there should be a link from AT 1 to RT 1 (without mixing).
In that case, there is no difference between AT 1 and a recording made from
at 1, as you can't mix a single track (although you could process it).

At 4 = R1, therefore audio tracks are the same as recordings.

If mastered RTs can be AT, then if AT = R, then mastered RTs = Recordings

You could rename R 1-3 as R 4-6, then AT 1-3 as R 1-3.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652204.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

The circularity is inevitable, as we are trying to define as recordings
things as mixes of other recordings. My point is that audio tracks cannot
solve this, and do not add anything as far as I see.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652205.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix wrote
 The circularity is inevitable, as we are trying to define as recordings
 things as mixes of other recordings. My point is that audio tracks cannot
 solve this, and do not add anything as far as I see.

Apart from the fact that they're pretty much universally used on almost
every modern released track? Audio tracks exist, they are real, they are
used to create what we define as recordings. There's no disputing this.

It's the correct term. You're just applying *one definition* of recording
and saying that we should use it for *all definitions* of recording, which
would result in nonsense guidelines.

The recording is a container for audio tracks. Even if it contains just one
audio track, that doesn't make it an audio track. A glove is not a hand.


lixobix wrote
 Unmastered, prior to mastering and mastering is not involved would
 exclude mastered release tracks. If an audio track can be a mastered
 release
 track, then a recording can be a mastered release track.

How about:

A recording cannot be the direct product of mastering.



--
View this message in context: 
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652207.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

LordSputnik wrote

lixobix wrote
The circularity is inevitable, as we are trying to define as recordings
things as mixes of other recordings. My point is that audio tracks cannot
solve this, and do not add anything as far as I see.
Apart from the fact that they're pretty much universally used on almost
every modern released track? Audio tracks exist, they are real, they are
used to create what we define as recordings. There's no disputing this.

It's the correct term. You're just applying *one definition* of recording
and saying that we should use it for *all definitions* of recording, which
would result in nonsense guidelines.

The recording is a container for audio tracks. Even if it contains just
one audio track, that doesn't make it an audio track. A glove is not a
hand.

A recording is a container for audio tracks.

How would we define audio track without using the word recording?

I appreciate that audio track is an accepted term in pro audio, but on
analysis it does not mean anything different to recording, so I see no
reason to adopt it.

LordSputnik wrote

lixobix wrote
Unmastered, prior to mastering and mastering is not involved would
exclude mastered release tracks. If an audio track can be a mastered
release
track, then a recording can be a mastered release track.
How about:

A recording cannot be the direct product of mastering.

In that case, conversely: A recording can be the indirect product of
mastering. How would we distinguish between direct and indirect products of
mastering?

--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652208.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-216: Allow linking to Wikidata

2013-04-26 Thread daniel.

+1

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

On Apr 26, 2013 7:47 PM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:

LordSputnik wrote

lixobix wrote
The circularity is inevitable, as we are trying to define as recordings
things as mixes of other recordings. My point is that audio tracks
cannot
solve this, and do not add anything as far as I see.
Apart from the fact that they're pretty much universally used on almost
every modern released track? Audio tracks exist, they are real, they are
used to create what we define as recordings. There's no disputing this.

It's the correct term. You're just applying *one definition* of
recording
and saying that we should use it for *all definitions* of recording,
which
would result in nonsense guidelines.

The recording is a container for audio tracks. Even if it contains just
one audio track, that doesn't make it an audio track. A glove is not a
hand.

A recording is a container for audio tracks.

How would we define audio track without using the word recording?

I appreciate that audio track is an accepted term in pro audio, but on
analysis it does not mean anything different to recording, so I see no
reason to adopt it.

Umm, he's already defined it without using the word and we've said why we
would use a different word, because it means a different thing

LordSputnik wrote

lixobix wrote
Unmastered, prior to mastering and mastering is not involved
would
exclude mastered release tracks. If an audio track can be a mastered
release
track, then a recording can be a mastered release track.
How about:

A recording cannot be the direct product of mastering.

In that case, conversely: A recording can be the indirect product of
mastering. How would we distinguish between direct and indirect products
of
mastering?

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix wrote
A recording is a container for audio tracks.

Perhaps the current definition of audio track is missing a from. An audio
track can be captured sound from an existing recording, so long as the
recording output has the same number of channels as the audio track. It is
perfectly acceptable for an audio track to have the sound from a set of
mixed audio tracks, or from a single audio track with the same number of
channels.

An audio tracks *is not* an MB Recording, and nothing you say can change
that fact. Both terms will be used in the final definition. An audio track
may be a general recording, but a general recording could be many things.

lixobix wrote
How would we define audio track without using the word recording?

As I mentioned a few replies ago, An audio track is a stored representation
of sound. Audio tracks should not be confused with release tracks.

lixobix wrote
I appreciate that audio track is an accepted term in pro audio, but on
analysis it does not mean anything different to recording, so I see no
reason to adopt it.

There is not specific meaning to recording. It's just some information
that's stored. A recording could easily be an old note I scribbled on a
napkin at a cafe. And audio track is always a stored representation of
sound.

lixobix wrote
In that case, conversely: A recording can be the indirect product of
mastering. How would we distinguish between direct and indirect products
of mastering?

Uh, a direct product of mastering has been produced directly from the source
material via the mastering process, and an indirect product of mastering is
one where mastering has been involved at some point, but not between the
recording and the source audio.

--
View this message in context:
http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4652212.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] RFC STYLE-216: Allow linking to Wikidata

2013-04-26 Thread Abel Cheung

+1 too


On Sat, Apr 27, 2013 at 2:49 AM, daniel. danber...@gmail.com wrote:

 +1

 ___
 MusicBrainz-style mailing list
 MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
 http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style




-- 
Abel Cheung   (GPG Key: 0xC67186FF)
Key fingerprint: 671C C7AE EFB5 110C D6D1  41EE 4152 E1F1 C671 86FF

* My blog: http://me.abelcheung.org/
* Open Source Hong Kong: http://www.opensource.hk/
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: [mb-style] Alternative Recording Definitions