Hi. Sorry to join the conversation late. I had a skim through the IRC logs
but may have missed it: if a track is pitched quite differently (10 seconds
difference over 4 minutes) but is otherwise apparently the same 'mix' of
'stems' does that make it one recording/mix in the new proposal? They
On 8 April 2013 15:11, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
Hi. Sorry to join the conversation late. I had a skim through the IRC
logs
but may have missed it: if a track is pitched quite differently (10
seconds
difference over 4 minutes) but is otherwise apparently
On 8 April 2013 14:08, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
And this part:
*Remaster* is a bit of a misnomer. Huh? If we must define what a
remaster is, wikipedia's version sounds OK to me: Remastering is the
process of making a new master for an album, movie, or any other creation.
A
2013 16:39, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
Thanks for that. Perhaps that is an example that would further clarify
the
new position.
Perhaps this guideline could do with an examples section, where a few
versions of some tracks are taken and the process of deciding
So is stem mastering mixing or remastering in the proposal?
On 8 April 2013 17:31, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
symphonick wrote
You're getting way too deep into technical details here. Mastering is
still
a separate process from mixing. If the mastering engineer has submixed
On 8 April 2013 18:08, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
I have a great example of such a work with recordings/tracks as edge
cases,
but the entries will need cleaning up to be part of an official example
(and I'll have to undo the separation of masters/remasters I
In 'using recordings' I wouldn't start by saying it can be difficult, I'd
lose that paragraph. Then, could you say a recording is a unique mix *or
raw audio track* (e.g. live bootlegs). Then: In *many* cases, a track will
be the original *recording *of a performance of a song...
I think you need
On 9 April 2013 00:53, pabouk pab...@centrum.cz wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
lixobix wrote
Also, are we keeping partial recordings, i.e. extracts from recordings,
as separate recordings?
I expect so, it's not part of this guideline (I'm not entirely sure where
that's spoken about in the
On 9 April 2013 14:41, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
here:
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Edit_Relationship_Type
But isn't the relationship type deprecated?
http://musicbrainz.org/doc/Category:Alternative_Version_Relationship_Class
I thought it was Earliest release
homage, dedication, tribute, celebration, recognition, praise. They are all
forms of honour and it would be nice if we could group them together. Maybe
you could have an honour relationship and choose the type of honour. But I
presume we want to steer clear of 'thanks' lists.
On 9 April 2013
On Apr 9, 2013 9:18 PM, monxton musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org wrote:
On 09/04/2013 13:37, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote:
On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 3:34 PM, monxton wrote:
We do already have the tribute to relationship for release
groups. So
I think this should use the same form
I would change the link phrases for chorus master because I think they're a
little clunky:
Artist http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Artist *was chorus master on*
Releasehttp://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release
Release http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release *has chorus master
I’m liking it, it’s getting there. Don’t be disheartened but I’ve got quit
a few suggestions! Hope they help.
I would reorganise the sections so that you lead the reader from the simple
case to the complex: Different performances; Different recordings of the
same performance; Remixes and
On 11 April 2013 03:31, Music Brainz Music Information
musicbrainz.r...@ncf.ca wrote:
I can't agree with the intent of Audio Channels. While of course
recordings with different numbers of channels with sound different, I
still don't feel it's a productive use of our time replicating
there is no evidence that this was the
result of mixing and therefore these different tracks are one recording.
We could do with some other examples: same performance different recording;
? audio channels;
On 11 April 2013 07:01, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 April 2013 03:31
in the database. Anyway, I'm pretty sure we're
disagreeing over a slight difference in choice of words rather than meaning.
On 11 April 2013 13:17, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
I've put together some examples that could go at the end. Hopefully these
would help
Sounds awesome.
On 11 April 2013 14:15, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
If the UI shows this, then I agree with your RFC as is. If not, I suggest
you edit your example: if an artist usually performs vocals and guitar for
a band, but also plays trombone in two recordings, only
lixobix, I agree entirely. And I think that you've managed to write it with
great clarity (which is more than I managed to do above!)
On 11 April 2013 16:52, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
Edits / mixes
I'm not saying edits are never mixes, just that simply cutting
As I said before, I think we're agreeing on meaning, just very slightly
disagreeing on wording. I think you're saying that sometimes the words edit
and mix can be used interchangeably, I agree. A mix is the result of
editing and mixing, I agree. But that's almost the point, both terms are
used in
On 11 April 2013 19:08, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
As a rather important side note, could someone show me where they got the
idea that The Beatles 2009 Remasters are actually remixed? I can't find any
source saying that after a quick google. In fact, I'm finding that they ARE
remasters:
On 11 April 2013 21:00, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
The mix is passed to the mastering engineer who will produce the master.
Editing and mixing take place before the mix is completed and sent for
mastering.
But editing can happen after mixdown (i.e. once a mix is completed) such
On 11 April 2013 17:56, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
An existing mix can be taken and used as the basis for a new mix, which
will be a remix of the existing mix.
No. It's possible, but not how I would define (traditional)
mixing/remixing.
Wikipedia: audio mixing or mixdown is the
On 12 April 2013 09:32, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds fine (but I think you should list edit too). No need to get into
technical details.
/symphonick
So, to slightly reword what lixobix said:
An edit is a mix that is restructured. This involves adding or removing
sections
Thanks for your work on this. In general, MusicBrainz needs more guidance
than there currently is.
I'll let you know when I've tidied up the example recordings and give you
all some links so you can vote my edits through!
Overall, I think with work it can be shorter and simpler and still clearly
On 12 April 2013 19:07, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
FWIW I believe some edits do involve mixing, such as a so-called radio
edit where they change
swear words to similar sounding words.
This is a good point I hadn't considered. It's quite likely that they make
/cfd90954-89a3-4d28-9537-808cd3a7b1c4
dub: http://musicbrainz.org/recording/11b337fa-0d67-4a73-8f44-69aa55acd81c
On 12 April 2013 20:28, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 April 2013 19:07, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
FWIW I believe some edits do
On 13 April 2013 00:09, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
My point is that neither the definition of a mix or an edit needs to be
exclusive because we're defining recordings. Your general definition of
an
edit was excellent, it just didn't need to be added to by way
Not sure what happened there :embarrassed:!
I meant to quote the first post:
This second page isn't part of the proposal, and may eventually be used to
update the Recording definition page, but that's completely up to the
developers.
On 13 April 2013 00:13, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I'm sure you know but:
A Recording in MusicBrainz is a unique mix or unique edit of audio.
Would be my choice. I think it's problematic to define a recording as only
a mix (then you should call it a mix) and to define mix to mean something
it doesn't.
On Apr 13, 2013 2:46 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/13 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I'm sure you know but:
A Recording in MusicBrainz is a unique mix or unique edit of audio.
Would be my choice. I think it's problematic to define a recording as
only a mix (then you
:
symphonick wrote
2013/4/13 Tom Crocker lt;
tomcrockermail@
gt;
A *MusicBrainz Recording* is defined as the result of *editing* and/or *
mixing* one or more *audio tracks*.
+1, although perhaps swap mixing and editing: mixing and/or editing, as
mixing is more prevalent than editing
On 14 April 2013 12:32, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
*A MusicBrainz Recording is the product of editing one or more audio
tracks,
mixing multiple audio tracks or both.*
Sorry to be pedantic, but mixing multiple audio tracks or both could be
read as mixing multiple or two audio tracks.
recordings. 1: Different mixes. 2: ...
2013/4/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are
lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea?
Assuming people agree with redefining recordings, I've tried to edit both
On 14 April 2013 21:10, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/14 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I imagined more people would offer an opinion. Can I check if there are
lots of people who think redefining recordings is a bad idea?
Assuming people agree with redefining
Just wanted to say that I came across this
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf US Government circular about
copyright for sound recordings. Obviously, there is stuff in here that is
different from how we want to define things in MB, but it does have some
very precise definitions. What's
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren wrote
Is there any reason why recording is sometimes capitalised around the
page? I'd just keep it always lowercase.
Yes, I did that to try to emphasise that an MB Recording is being spoken
about, rather than a generic recording, however if it looks too weird
mastering has
produced sufficient uniqueness to represent a new recording, because we
can't consistently interpret it.
On 15 April 2013 09:15, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/15 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 14 April 2013 21:10, Frederic Da Vitoria davito
...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/15 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
Just wanted to say that I came across this
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ56.pdf US Government circular about
copyright for sound recordings. Obviously, there is stuff in here that is
different from how we want to define things in MB
on the
context. So I'd prefer original (or primary, or base, or another
word). Now that I think of it, original could mean first released. Not
good :-(
2013/4/15 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
Yep, I considered original and I'm not sure. It needs thinking about
because we should only
I think you're right to mention release or publication as a potentially
important piece of the puzzle (if I remember correctly it's a MB
requirement that it is 'released'). We just want to be careful not to
disappear into a black hole of definitions.
On 15 April 2013 13:20, lixobix
On 15 April 2013 22:26, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/15 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
I've done a small update, mainly fixing the things symphonick mentioned
(downmixing wording, added silence). I also replaced the words raw
audio,
with a new sentence using direct audio,
On 16 April 2013 10:19, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/16 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
2013/4/16 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 15 April 2013 22:26, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/15 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
I've done a small
in previously unreleased.
Previously to what?
2013/4/16 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 16 April 2013 10:19, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/16 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
2013/4/16 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 15 April 2013 22:26
Released:
In terms of releases the beginners guide says:
While we welcome bootlegs, we discourage adding home-made compilations or
mixtapes. These kinds of releases are not widely available and any
information about them is typically only useful to the individual who
created them.
I'm sure I've
I don't know how many entries I get:
In MusicBrainz, a Recording is an audio track or the result of mixing
and/or editing one or more audio tracks.
My only worry with this (and possibly the others) is that we might be
letting in remastering etc. by the back door. The usage examples would
cover it
On 16 April 2013 15:07, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
Nice: you put the simple audio track first, which is chronologically
correct most of the times.
Thanks
About the remaster: none of the other suggested definitions mention it
either, so you're not worse :-)
About
One other thing. Is audio track confusing given we have tracks on releases?
On Apr 16, 2013 12:42 PM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote:
As I say, I liked the all recordings being released part. Previously
unreleased as in previous to its release. Because an audio track can
On Apr 16, 2013 7:32 PM, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
We could probably exclude the 'released' criterion. However, if we include
unmixed, unedited recordings, then without it, the definition includes any
single instrument recording from a multi-track recording. Each of these is
in itself
With the style guide, I think there's too much text as it is.
We could streamline it by putting two lists of basic rules of reasons for
and against creating a new recording, with the supporting detail below.
Cases where a new recording should be used :
Recordings of different performances
On Apr 16, 2013 1:35 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't this a tautology? Wouldn't released be enough?
Sorry didn't spot that this was aimed at me. I don't think so, it rules out
re-releases which seems like the main point of the change
2013/4/16 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm
My latest version :
A MusicBrainz Recording is an original audio track or the product of
mixing and/or editing one or more audio tracks. (Optional) MusicBrainz
recordings must have been released.
Definitions of audio track, mixing and editing as now.
I don't think this is any more complex than
We're getting there
On 17 April 2013 01:10, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I've slightly altered the definition of recording to what I see as a
simple,
straightforward sentence reflecting the comments from the past few days.
tracks.
On 17 April 2013 09:58, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/17 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
2013/4/17 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
MusicBrainz Recordings do not indicate any particular mastering.
isn't quite clear to my French ears. I feel I understand
Tom Crocker wrote
Currently, audio-track includes existing recordings(which is necessary
for
the mixing and editing definitions), and recorded sound, so I'm not sure
in
which way it's more specific than a recording? I was using it as a
convenient way of talking about *any* recording
://wiki.musicbrainz.org/artist...
These would also avoid the confusion of it being a 'mixed performance' =
not very good performance
On 17 April 2013 14:25, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
Currently, audio-track includes existing recordings(which is necessary
That was why I took it out of the definition . But remasters don't involve
combining tracks, which is required in the definition of mix
On Apr 18, 2013 11:10 AM, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
Hmm, I'm wondering: since we include equalization, volume adjustment and
compression
symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/18 Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com
Ah, right. I only missed the first sentence :-P
2013/4/18 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
That was why I took it out of the definition . But remasters don't
involve combining tracks, which is required
I agree with Lixobix about recordings = sounds = audio tracks. If you
start by defining recordings as all captured sounds, other definitions on
top of that seem superfluous to me.
Me too. The reason for extra definitions goes back to the original attempt
to define a recording as a mix (which
Or maybe it would be good to spell out exactly what all this has been about:
A *recording* is a captured series of musical, vocal or other sounds but
is not associated with any particular mastering
and leave it at that.
On 18 April 2013 14:45, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com wrote:
I
On 18 April 2013 20:49, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
Currently MB Recordings are often used for any and all captured sounds,
rather than
those sufficiently different (which we seemed to agree were those
modified
by editing or mixing, but not by mastering
Oh okay, I get the way you mean it. To be honest I think all of these
including my various similar ones are open to misinterpretation except
explicitly ruling out mastering. Why not?
___
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
On Apr 19, 2013 12:48 AM, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I've been thinking for a while, and came up with a definition that I
believe
is better than the existing one:
In MusicBrainz, a recording is a set of one or more audio tracks, which
may
have been mixed or edited, but have not
On Apr 18, 2013 10:27 PM, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
I can also safely say that recording won't be directly defined as a
captured series of sounds for the foreseeable future, following a largely
negative reaction when I mentioned it on IRC.
I shouldn't say what I think of them!
On 19 April 2013 09:43, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
That's the last point which should be clarified here IMO: The audio
track definition should state that audio track are not to be confused
with Tracks in Releases.
It's some slippery wording that's needed if it's to be
users mixing both track concepts. Any
of those two sentences with a link to the Track definition would be perfect
IMO
Would Audio tracks should not be confused with release tracks (items in a
tracklist) help?
2013/4/19 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
On 19 April 2013 09:43, Frederic Da
While you're adding links, I guess you could replicate the track link in
the overview section on the definitions page.
On 19 April 2013 12:21, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording
You've confused me with that explanation!
On 19 April 2013 12:42, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Shouldn't of audio track be of an audio track or of audio tracks?
Not necessarily. It's a bit like saying the job involves eating pieces of
chocolate bar.
Good choice
On 19 April 2013 12:44, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
While you're adding links, I guess you could replicate the track link in
the overview section on the definitions page.
Added it to the last sentence.
I haven't linked release tracks
Style page
Is it worth changing this: In many cases, a released track will be the
original recording produced from a performance. in light of davitofrg's
comment (a few days ago) to: In many cases, a released track *should be
linked to *** the original recording produced
Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
Style page
In the edits section, you still have a paragraph about remasters:
Remastered tracks generally feature the original recording with
different mastering applied. The exception to this is where a track
labelled as a remaster
How about:
Mastering is a process that is usually applied to a set of recordings to
prepare them for release together.
On 19 April 2013 16:48, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/19 monxton musicbra...@jordan-maynard.org
On 19/04/2013 12:42, LordSputnik wrote:
Frederic Da Vitoria
+1
On Apr 19, 2013 7:35 PM, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, I've renamed Recorded Performances to Different Sources as Tom
said.
I've also slightly reworded that section to mention different sources in
the text.
I've also improved the formatting of the Edits, Remasters and
On 20 April 2013 01:59, Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren reosare...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.comwrote:
Sorry. Me again.
Having said the overview was fine! I think you need a relational word or
two between recording and performance, because
On 20 April 2013 01:31, pabouk pab...@centrum.cz wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
Revision 6 of the guidelines/defintions:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Recording
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording
In MusicBrainz, a recording is a
@jacobbrett
It seems to me your proposal would lead to massive amounts of duplicated
data - bad in any database, but particularly one as big as this. If a
Master entity should be created, it should be for a collection of
recordings. In that case, if it is possible to know if / which master was
I agree that which relationships to use in which cases is an issue to
discuss separately. But if it would help rocknrollarchivist you could add
'overdub' to the list of possible name for different mixes in the usage
guide (since it clearly falls into this category within our definition,
regardless
recording made since the
advent of multi-track tape recorders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdubbing
2013/4/22 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
I agree that which relationships to use in which cases is an issue to
discuss separately. But if it would help rocknrollarchivist you could add
...@gmail.com wrote:
Tom Crocker wrote
But if it would help rocknrollarchivist you could add
'overdub' to the list of possible name for different mixes in the usage
guide (since it clearly falls into this category within our definition,
regardless of what relationships it should have)
I think
On 22 April 2013 12:43, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
Since overdub is sometimes printed on the track list, (and since track
lists seldom give definitions), we could add the word overdub in one of the
Recordings pages. I believe the style page will be more often accessed, so
Can we see some examples? All I can think of would be when an artist writes
the story behind the song, but don't know how it's been used (although 'not
much' seems to be the answer!)
I agree that ideally it wouldn't be on a recording, but it might make sense
to have it for a track and since we
:* musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org [mailto:
musicbrainz-style-boun...@lists.musicbrainz.org] *On Behalf Of *Tom
Crocker
*Sent:* April-22-13 8:23 AM
*To:* MusicBrainz Style Discussion
*Subject:* Re: [mb-style] STYLE-214: Remove Liner Notes relationship
fromrecordings
Can we see
Well Like I said, I'd put it in mixing because that's how I see it too. But
it doesn't have to be *before* mixing because it can be *during* mixing -
live to a single track. Anyway, I don't think it really matters
On 22 April 2013 16:26, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/4/22 Tom
in the actual recording definition. Saying
that a track can be labelled overdub in the remix paragraph sounds fine.
2013/4/22 Tom Crocker tomcrockerm...@gmail.com
Well Like I said, I'd put it in mixing because that's how I see it too.
But it doesn't have to be *before* mixing because it can
Sorry! +1
On Apr 22, 2013 10:37 PM, symphonick symphon...@gmail.com wrote:
Here we go again:
+1
2013/4/22 LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com
Frederic Da Vitoria wrote
Yes, maybe. As long as it is somewhere, I guess that's the most
important
part :-)
All done, added it to the remix
We store release tracks (the tracks on a release) and recordings (the
chunks of recorded audio that sound very similar on different releases but
may have been 'tuned' (mastered) differently):
It is *usually *the case that a *recording *is a mix of a performance of a
work
I'll think about it but there are many ways to make a recording so it may
be more confusing than informative!
On 23 April 2013 09:35, Frederic Da Vitoria davito...@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe we should try to design a page with a diagram of what happens from a
performance (or even from a work) to
Are Track IDs confirmed?
I believe so, but perhaps someone who knows could say.
As for the name, it's the name the rest of the world gives them, only us
who has misinterpreted it. You shouldn't call the entity mix (the one you
point out most people care about) because they aren't all
On 23 April 2013 16:52, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com wrote:
LordSputnik wrote
lixobix wrote
This is why I wanted to drop the reference to audio tracks...
A recording is a captured series of sounds, or the product of mixing
and/or editing of one or more
other recordings. Mastering does
The but not limited to bit in the audio track definition is important
here :)
On Apr 23, 2013 5:18 PM, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
lixobix wrote
So this would have to be done manually? That's a lot of work... Is there
no way this could be automated? I don't know the pragmatics,
On the recording definition page, would it be useful to mention that
explanation and further examples can be found on the style guide page?
You've already got the link but it might help someone who's struggling to
understand it
___
MusicBrainz-style
Well done for steering the proposal this far!
On 25 April 2013 13:57, LordSputnik ben.s...@gmail.com wrote:
JIRA Page: http://tickets.musicbrainz.org/browse/STYLE-208
Wiki Page:
http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User:LordSputnik/Proposals/Style/Recording
Expected RFV Expiration: 2013-04-27,
On 26 April 2013 12:25, lixobix arjtap...@aol.com 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I like the current definition because it's succinct and says enough with
the other guidance to convey the intention. I'm happy for it to stay as it
is.
The problem with the current definition (as much as there is one) is that
it doesn't separate the single audio track from the ones that need
1 - 100 of 443 matches
Mail list logo
