Re: [mb-style] Recording times
Am 10.12.2011, 08:04 Uhr, schrieb Alex Mauer ha...@hawkesnest.net: how can i enter the time of a vinyl only release then? You’d enter it on the recordings associated with that release. i can't see the benefit and logic behind this. you should not enter it as duration of the track because it is unreliable but then you should (i guess you should?) exactly the same unreliable data as recording time. makes no sense to me and just adds addidtional work to the editor. -- lorenz pressler PGP 0x92E9551A ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
On 12/10/2011 11:48 AM, lorenz pressler wrote: Am 10.12.2011, 08:04 Uhr, schrieb Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net: how can i enter the time of a vinyl only release then? You’d enter it on the recordings associated with that release. i can't see the benefit and logic behind this. you should not enter it as duration of the track because it is unreliable but then you should (i guess you should?) exactly the same unreliable data as recording time. makes no sense to me and just adds addidtional work to the editor. Because you’d only have to enter it once (for the recording), instead of once for the recording and once for every associated track. ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
On 10/12/2011 19:39, Alex Mauer wrote: On 12/10/2011 11:48 AM, lorenz pressler wrote: Am 10.12.2011, 08:04 Uhr, schrieb Alex Mauerha...@hawkesnest.net: how can i enter the time of a vinyl only release then? You’d enter it on the recordings associated with that release. i can't see the benefit and logic behind this. you should not enter it as duration of the track because it is unreliable but then you should (i guess you should?) exactly the same unreliable data as recording time. makes no sense to me and just adds addidtional work to the editor. Because you’d only have to enter it once (for the recording), instead of once for the recording and once for every associated track. Thats a moot point because I think it's generally agreed that when you enter a tracktime for a new track/recording it should set the recording time as well.But this has nothing to do with removing recording times from analog releases ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
On 12/10/2011 01:48 PM, Paul Taylor wrote: Thats a moot point because I think it's generally agreed that when you enter a tracktime for a new track/recording it should set the recording time as well.But this has nothing to do with removing recording times from analog releases The point is, it only has to be set in one place, not several. This is equally applicable when correcting durations as when adding new ones. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
Am 24.11.2011, 12:12 Uhr, schrieb Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com: It seems to me that a recording is always going to be given a length that is equal to one of the track lengths it gets on a release. As a result, does this extra fragment of information actually mean anything to anyone? if i have two tracks of the same recording where one of them has an insane amount of silence in front or tail i set the recording length to the shorter one instead of the average. however i could live with average values on recording times. but i would oppose dropping tracktimes for analogue media. you can't measure it exactly and it will be probably only an aproximation, so what? how can i enter the time of a vinyl only release then? cheers, -- lorenz pressler PGP 0x92E9551A ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
Hello Lorenz, On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 06:03:27PM +0100, lorenz pressler wrote: if i have two tracks of the same recording where one of them has an insane amount of silence in front or tail i set the recording length to the shorter one instead of the average. however i could live with average values on recording times. I also think it is the correct way to take the shorted track time for the recording time, see my comment on MBS-2021 [1]. Taking the average doesn't make any sense, because for your example it has a duration that is always wrong. Since we only merge for silence at the beginning or end, the shortest track length comes closest to the real recording time. [1] http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/MBS-2021 Johannes ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
On 12/09/2011 11:03 AM, lorenz pressler wrote: but i would oppose dropping tracktimes for analogue media. you can't measure it exactly and it will be probably only an aproximation, so what? how can i enter the time of a vinyl only release then? You’d enter it on the recordings associated with that release. —Alex Mauer “hawke” ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
On 27 November 2011 23:42, jacobbrett jacobbr...@hotmail.com wrote: Frederic Da Vitoria wrote 2011/11/24, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosarevok@: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbrick@ wrote: Paul Taylor ijabz@ writes: snip: lots of text that I agree with Treating analog different to digital is a bad idea. But it might be worth revisiting why we need track times AND recording times for CD's, when do they actually differ ? This raises a question for me: is there any point in a recording having a stored length? And if so, what should it mean? Has this been decided and written down anywhere? It seems to me that a recording is always going to be given a length that is equal to one of the track lengths it gets on a release. As a result, does this extra fragment of information actually mean anything to anyone? I at first expected recording length to be the average of all the track lengths for that recording to be honest. That sounded more reasonable to me. So yeah, is there a reason why it is user-entered? This is just a detail, but using the longest length would seem better to me. The choice is not always clear-cut, though I would go with the most common recording length, skewing the results firstly towards the main release (commonly album/EP), then supporting EP/single, then other (compilation etc.). Obviously, one would only compare the same master (as opposed to a significantly different remaster that cuts the tracks audio earlier/later). This is my preferred method too. Probably doesn't much difference in the end, but it strikes me as a cleaner approach than simply averaging. As for use cases, I find the duration rather important to weed out edits and mixes when merging recordings. -- Per / Wizzcat ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
Oliver Charles wrote: Really you can put any value here, because recording duration is fairly meaningless. I think the most sensible might actually be the mode. But I'm in the camp of getting rid of it, too. We can't get rid of it entirely because it's needed for standalone recordings (and what would be shown on an artist's recordings page and in recording search results?). Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Oliver Charles wrote: Really you can put any value here, because recording duration is fairly meaningless. I think the most sensible might actually be the mode. But I'm in the camp of getting rid of it, too. We can't get rid of it entirely because it's needed for standalone recordings (and what would be shown on an artist's recordings page and in recording search results?). I don't want to get rid of it, but make it not editable if it is on a release would make sense IMO. Nikki ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
2011/11/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Oliver Charles wrote: Really you can put any value here, because recording duration is fairly meaningless. I think the most sensible might actually be the mode. But I'm in the camp of getting rid of it, too. We can't get rid of it entirely because it's needed for standalone recordings (and what would be shown on an artist's recordings page and in recording search results?). I don't want to get rid of it, but make it not editable if it is on a release would make sense IMO. I disagree. If you don't want to use it no problem with me, but don't prevent those who find it useful from doing it. -- 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] Recording times
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Oliver Charles wrote: Really you can put any value here, because recording duration is fairly meaningless. I think the most sensible might actually be the mode. But I'm in the camp of getting rid of it, too. We can't get rid of it entirely because it's needed for standalone recordings (and what would be shown on an artist's recordings page and in recording search results?). I don't want to get rid of it, but make it not editable if it is on a release would make sense IMO. I disagree. If you don't want to use it no problem with me, but don't prevent those who find it useful from doing it. But how is it useful? We don't really have a definition for it. What I mean with not editable doesn't mean not editable and blank, btw, it means not editable with values automatically calculated from linked track times -- 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 -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
2011/11/25, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com: 2011/11/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Oliver Charles wrote: Really you can put any value here, because recording duration is fairly meaningless. I think the most sensible might actually be the mode. But I'm in the camp of getting rid of it, too. We can't get rid of it entirely because it's needed for standalone recordings (and what would be shown on an artist's recordings page and in recording search results?). I don't want to get rid of it, but make it not editable if it is on a release would make sense IMO. I disagree. If you don't want to use it no problem with me, but don't prevent those who find it useful from doing it. But how is it useful? We don't really have a definition for it. What I mean with not editable doesn't mean not editable and blank, btw, it means not editable with values automatically calculated from linked track times Sorry, I'm mixing this thread with the one on oops, probably clicked in the wrong place. I was saying I had mixed this thread with the one about removing durations for analog releases. Yes, I agree recording durations should not be editable. They should be calculated from the tracks. Now that I think more intelligently, I agree the average seems the best method. Not a weighted average, but the half sum of the minimum and maximum values. -- 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] Recording times
2011/11/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Oliver Charles wrote: Really you can put any value here, because recording duration is fairly meaningless. I think the most sensible might actually be the mode. But I'm in the camp of getting rid of it, too. We can't get rid of it entirely because it's needed for standalone recordings (and what would be shown on an artist's recordings page and in recording search results?). I don't want to get rid of it, but make it not editable if it is on a release would make sense IMO. I disagree. If you don't want to use it no problem with me, but don't prevent those who find it useful from doing it. But how is it useful? We don't really have a definition for it. What I mean with not editable doesn't mean not editable and blank, btw, it means not editable with values automatically calculated from linked track times Sorry, I'm mixing this thread with the one on -- 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] Recording times
There are releases where a track has a long silence apended to it, usually because it is followed by a hidden track. In these cases, doesn't it make sense to manually set the recording time to the actual song length? (an example: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/161d6e85-aaa6-4703-a35e-ee77f951f7d8; this one has an annotation with the actual time, but currently the recording time includes the silence.) One alternative would be to change these recordings to track name / [silence], create a standalone recording which omits the silence and add a compilation AR between them., but this seems like overkill to me. 2011/11/25 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com 2011/11/25, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com: 2011/11/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote: 2011/11/25, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 1:13 PM, Nikki aei...@gmail.com wrote: Oliver Charles wrote: Really you can put any value here, because recording duration is fairly meaningless. I think the most sensible might actually be the mode. But I'm in the camp of getting rid of it, too. We can't get rid of it entirely because it's needed for standalone recordings (and what would be shown on an artist's recordings page and in recording search results?). I don't want to get rid of it, but make it not editable if it is on a release would make sense IMO. I disagree. If you don't want to use it no problem with me, but don't prevent those who find it useful from doing it. But how is it useful? We don't really have a definition for it. What I mean with not editable doesn't mean not editable and blank, btw, it means not editable with values automatically calculated from linked track times Sorry, I'm mixing this thread with the one on oops, probably clicked in the wrong place. I was saying I had mixed this thread with the one about removing durations for analog releases. Yes, I agree recording durations should not be editable. They should be calculated from the tracks. Now that I think more intelligently, I agree the average seems the best method. Not a weighted average, but the half sum of the minimum and maximum values. -- 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 ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
[mb-style] Recording times
Paul Taylor ij...@fastmail.fm writes: snip: lots of text that I agree with Treating analog different to digital is a bad idea. But it might be worth revisiting why we need track times AND recording times for CD's, when do they actually differ ? This raises a question for me: is there any point in a recording having a stored length? And if so, what should it mean? Has this been decided and written down anywhere? It seems to me that a recording is always going to be given a length that is equal to one of the track lengths it gets on a release. As a result, does this extra fragment of information actually mean anything to anyone? Rupert pgpVMMBYHv6HS.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Taylor ij...@fastmail.fm writes: snip: lots of text that I agree with Treating analog different to digital is a bad idea. But it might be worth revisiting why we need track times AND recording times for CD's, when do they actually differ ? This raises a question for me: is there any point in a recording having a stored length? And if so, what should it mean? Has this been decided and written down anywhere? It seems to me that a recording is always going to be given a length that is equal to one of the track lengths it gets on a release. As a result, does this extra fragment of information actually mean anything to anyone? I at first expected recording length to be the average of all the track lengths for that recording to be honest. That sounded more reasonable to me. So yeah, is there a reason why it is user-entered? :) Rupert ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style -- Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
2011/11/24, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Taylor ij...@fastmail.fm writes: snip: lots of text that I agree with Treating analog different to digital is a bad idea. But it might be worth revisiting why we need track times AND recording times for CD's, when do they actually differ ? This raises a question for me: is there any point in a recording having a stored length? And if so, what should it mean? Has this been decided and written down anywhere? It seems to me that a recording is always going to be given a length that is equal to one of the track lengths it gets on a release. As a result, does this extra fragment of information actually mean anything to anyone? I at first expected recording length to be the average of all the track lengths for that recording to be honest. That sounded more reasonable to me. So yeah, is there a reason why it is user-entered? This is just a detail, but using the longest length would seem better to me. -- 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] Recording times
Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com writes: 2011/11/24, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Taylor ij...@fastmail.fm writes: snip: lots of text that I agree with Treating analog different to digital is a bad idea. But it might be worth revisiting why we need track times AND recording times for CD's, when do they actually differ ? This raises a question for me: is there any point in a recording having a stored length? And if so, what should it mean? Has this been decided and written down anywhere? It seems to me that a recording is always going to be given a length that is equal to one of the track lengths it gets on a release. As a result, does this extra fragment of information actually mean anything to anyone? I at first expected recording length to be the average of all the track lengths for that recording to be honest. That sounded more reasonable to me. So yeah, is there a reason why it is user-entered? This is just a detail, but using the longest length would seem better to me. Really you can put any value here, because recording duration is fairly meaningless. I think the most sensible might actually be the mode. But I'm in the camp of getting rid of it, too. - Ollie ___ MusicBrainz-style mailing list MusicBrainz-style@lists.musicbrainz.org http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Re: [mb-style] Recording times
2011/11/24 Oliver Charles oliver.g.charles.w...@gmail.com Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com writes: 2011/11/24, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.com: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Rupert Swarbrick rswarbr...@gmail.com wrote: Paul Taylor ij...@fastmail.fm writes: snip: lots of text that I agree with Treating analog different to digital is a bad idea. But it might be worth revisiting why we need track times AND recording times for CD's, when do they actually differ ? This raises a question for me: is there any point in a recording having a stored length? And if so, what should it mean? Has this been decided and written down anywhere? It seems to me that a recording is always going to be given a length that is equal to one of the track lengths it gets on a release. As a result, does this extra fragment of information actually mean anything to anyone? I at first expected recording length to be the average of all the track lengths for that recording to be honest. That sounded more reasonable to me. So yeah, is there a reason why it is user-entered? This is just a detail, but using the longest length would seem better to me. Really you can put any value here, because recording duration is fairly meaningless. I think the most sensible might actually be the mode. But I'm in the camp of getting rid of it, too. We can't really discuss of the meaning or the best way to choose the durations any more than an atheist and a catholic could discuss the sex of angels :-) -- 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
