gmane.comp.audio.musicbrainz.style

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

Frederic Da Vitoria — 2013-05-18T23:23:35

2013/5/18 Tom Crocker <tomcrockermail-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org>

I have been less assiduous about this thread in the past days, so that I am
now unable to find where is/are the last proposition(s). Could someone post
the relevant links?

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

Tom Crocker — 2013-05-18T19:07:28


But if it's the audio before it was copied or mastered, why would copying a
copy make a new recording?
I think the wikipedia page is a bit problematic because it is
contradictory. The definition at the top is fine, but it also describes
mastering as cutting a master direct from acoustic energy rather than
recorded audio. By that second definition, our 'recording' (audio before it
was mastered) is not actually recorded.
The problem with "audio before it was
mastered<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_mastering>to create at
least one released track" is that mastering doesn't create
released tracks.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style-VWJlPdIPk9unah5wVhspdpv38IJrVKKD< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

Ben Ockmore — 2013-05-18T18:04:32

But if a track is copied and then released, the definition with "copied"
implies the original track is itself a recording. Mastering helps to avoid
that, plus, there's a link to the Wikipedia page for anyone who's unsure of
what that covers.

I think we probably have enough feedback on this now, so are there any
significant objections to the definition that we haven't already covered?
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style-VWJlPdIPk9unah5wVhspdpv38IJrVKKD< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

Tom Crocker — 2013-05-18T17:48:14

It helps to have copying because you still copy a master to create release
tracks. It also gives a hint to someone who has never heard of mastering of
the kind of thing we are partitioning off from everything else.



On 18 May 2013 15:28, Ben Ockmore <ben.sput-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style-VWJlPdIPk9unah5wVhspdpv38IJrVKKD< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

Ben Ockmore — 2013-05-18T14:28:22

But that sort of implies recording audio is only used to make one release
track.

Really, this definition and the one on the wiki page are identical now - I
think it's just a matter of personal preference.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style-VWJlPdIPk9unah5wVhspdpv38IJrVKKD< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix — 2013-05-18T14:24:11

In that case "A recording is the audio used to make a release track, through
the process of mastering" would work.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4653237.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

Ben Ockmore — 2013-05-18T12:52:09

I agree with 1), and I think that's what Wikipedia says too...

What it means is that in some cases a master entity will represent the same
audio as a recording entity, but I see no problem with that.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style-VWJlPdIPk9unah5wVhspdpv38IJrVKKD< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix — 2013-05-18T12:06:20

My main issue is that there are two conflicting views of what a master is, so
depending on which view we take affects how we define recordings:

1) Anything used to make release tracks is a master (everything corresponds
to at least 1 master)
2) Audio that has undergone processing to make release tracks is a master
(only some recordings correspond to at least one master)



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4653235.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix — 2013-05-18T12:01:00

LordSputnik wrote



Something like:

"A recording is the audio used to make a release track, through the process
of mastering"

That might work for now, although if/when master entities are added, it
could be problematic. There is still the issue of how to address
master-recordings, where there is no "transferring of recorded audio",
because the recorded audio is the master.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4653234.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix — 2013-05-18T11:12:00

Another, more complex option would be to add a third entity: a
"master-recording", which would be the primitive type of recording that is
both a recording and a master.



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4653232.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

Ben Ockmore — 2013-05-18T11:06:06

I think if the wiki includes direct transfers like that, we can drop
copying completely.

I'm happy with mastering being "the process of preparing and transferring
recorded audio". I don't think that this will be misinterpreted as allowing
copying of masters, since the style guideline explicitly rules that out. I
think that whether we define our own mastering or not, in most cases it's
not going the matter much to editors, and in that case I'd rather keep the
definition simpler.
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style-VWJlPdIPk9unah5wVhspdpv38IJrVKKD< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix — 2013-05-18T10:53:19

I'm tending towards ignoring wiki here, and defining mastering exclusively as
a transfer including audio processing. Thus early/primitive recordings would
not have corresponding masters, but would be used to make release tracks as
they are. This corresponds with the general/modern conception of mastering.
So it would be possible to make a release track from a recording or a
master. In that case, recordings could be defined something like:

"A recording is the audio used to make a release track or a master, but is
not a master itself."



--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/RFC-STYLE-208-New-Recordings-Guidelines-tp4651054p4653231.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Alternative Recording Definitions

lixobix — 2013-05-18T10:44:58

LordSputnik wrote

The problem is that wiki does not say what your are saying. It says
mastering is "the process of preparing and transferring recorded audio". It
goes on to describe early mastering as "the direct transfer of acoustic
energy from the diaphragm of the recording horn to the mastering lathe". The
word "preparing" therefore has a very vague meaning if it includes the early
definition, as there is no processing of the audio between the recording and
the mastering (they are practically the same thing). Arguably "preparing"
could simply mean cueing up the final mix for transfer. So aside from the
vague word "preparing", the main definition can be read as "the process of
transferring recorded audio": i.e. copying. Thus according to the wiki
definition there is no difference between "mastering" and "copying".


LordSputnik wrote

I understand what you're trying to say, I just don't think it works when you
analyse it. As I explained above, you have to explain how copying and
mastering are different. Y

Re: RFC3 STYLE-121: Track numbering

Ross Tyler — 2013-05-17T21:46:38

Not enough flexibility. We should have the power to express both side 
and track identifiers as presented on the release. I am against anything 
that takes this capability away.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style< at >lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: RFC3 STYLE-121: Track numbering

Alex Mauer — 2013-05-17T19:40:19

Artist intent *always* trumps other considerations, so that’s fine.


Ultimately that may be the way to go, and I think if/when Musicbrainz
gets proper side support, I would agree with that. But I don’t think
we’re there yet.

So for now all this proposal does is create a way to distinguish sides
and a naming convention, while still retaining a lot of flexibility.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style< at >lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: RFC3 STYLE-121: Track numbering

Ross Tyler — 2013-05-17T19:11:50

I disagree. Cheech & Chong labeled sides UNO (Cheech) and YE (Chong). MB 
should be able to express this obvious artist intent
http://musicbrainz.org/release/bf1a7aab-016b-44f7-b6a7-d255fc44ebf7
I agree that free prose to describe what one sees on a side is not 
appropriate. However, if one sees an identifier, we should be able to 
express that identifier in MB. You say "this" and "that" are supported 
but the way both of us have interpreted your guidance this would result 
in something ugly like "this1" or "that2". I would much more prefer a 
delimiter between the identifiers resulting in "this 1" and "that 2". We 
should treat the side/track identifiers as orthogonal name spaces and 
combine them into the track number field with a delimiter. We already do 
this for other things (title: subtitle, ...). We would need to iron out 
some edge cases (null identifiers, ...).
Whatever your  purpose, if it conflicts with the ability to express what 
identifiers are actually on the release, I will disagree. I don't

Re: RFC3 STYLE-121: Track numbering

Alex Mauer — 2013-05-17T17:49:19

I mainly wanted to avoid it in the interest of simplicity.

I don’t want to have so many different symbols that people can’t
remember which one means what, and I would rather keep their use to the
relatively rare cases (subtracks aren’t particularly common, and
alternate audio even less so, especially when it’s restricted to
parallel-groove vinyl).  (1-1 vs 1.1 vs. 1#1 gets confusing)

There just isn’t that much difference between 'A-1' and '1-1' to justify
requiring that you track down the cover art to see how it was printed on
any given release. Plus I at least find it easier to think of it when
it’s always 'letter means side, number means track' — otherwise it’s,
“wait, is the first number the side, or the track, or the disc #”?


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style< at >lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: RFC3 STYLE-121: Track numbering

Alex Mauer — 2013-05-17T17:39:57

Yep, fits just fine, as the guideline also covers DVD 'Titles' and
various 'sub-tracks', as well as sides.

I had a bit of a go at rewording it, but I couldn’t come up with
anything better so I just pasted and wikified your phrasing. :-)



_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style< at >lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: RFC3 STYLE-121: Track numbering

Tom Crocker — 2013-05-17T17:34:02

I had quite a lot of sympathy with what was being suggested by rosstyler,
but these examples illustrate some of the problems with them. IMHO,
this/that and other/this are explanations based on which label the tracks
are printed on, allowing the other label to be unencumbered with text.
There doesn't seem much reason for replicating this, even if we had
side/grouping headers, but at least it wouldn't mess up the track list. I
would however be more inclined to see side numbers incorporated. I'd
propose a hyphen, but don't know if there was some good reason this was
being avoided? I see period and hash are taken. I'd drop 'side' etc. and
probably convert spelt-out numbers to numbers. But I don't have strong
opinions on this.


On 17 May 2013 17:14, Alex Mauer <hawke-jojDulvOGOmQvBXZIOnqxg< at >public.gmane.org> wrote:

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style-VWJlPdIPk9unah5wVhspdpv38IJrVKKD< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbr

Re: RFC3 STYLE-121: Track numbering

Tom Crocker — 2013-05-17T17:22:56


I don't think it contradicts the advice either, it just seems inconsistent
(we title hidden tracks but don't number them).
I think something needs to be done to update the untitled/unknown/hidden
advice to NGS (I'm guessing it was written before this). As a noob it took
me quite a lot of work to try and interpret it and I don't think it makes
much sense. But obviously that's not a topic for here. I'd be happy to have
a go at this but I imagine there is assumed wisdom on this that I don't
understand.



Okay great, as long as it fits with the guidance you're issuing (e.g. other
groupings)!  I just wrote it as an example, but don't know how well it fits.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style-VWJlPdIPk9unah5wVhspdpv38IJrVKKD< at >public.gmane.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

Re: RFC3 STYLE-121: Track numbering

Alex Mauer — 2013-05-17T17:12:20

I don’t *think* it contradicts current guidance; in fact, I can’t really
find much on hidden tracks.

There’s http://beta.musicbrainz.org/doc/Hidden_Track but it’s unofficial
and just links to other style guides, mostly
http://beta.musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Unknown_and_untitled/Special_purpose_track_title

None of those mention the track number (presumably because we couldn’t
edit it at all at the time they were written).

Maybe we need to convert http://beta.musicbrainz.org/doc/Hidden_Track to
an official Hidden Track Style?


Looks good, added to the top.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
MusicBrainz-style< at >lists.musicbrainz.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style