User talk:Reosarevok/Recording Issues/Summary

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

This is a summary of the ideas proposals on User talk:Reosarevok/Recording Issues, to be used as a quick reference. All of these summaries are based on my interpretation of the proposal - while I've tried to be as accurate as possible, let me know if I've misunderstood your ideas. For more information please see the individual proposal pages.

Number   Proposer   Link   Summary  
1 LordSputnik Link Create a track entity and a master entity to group tracks. Redefine recordings as mixes, and move most production relationships from recordings and releases to masters.
2 Freso Link Various modifications to recordings, including: Move AcoustIDs to tracksMake tracks uniquely identifiable, have a place to put shared performance relationships, allow cover art for tracks, and use a smarter recording length system.
3 Warp Link Give tracks MBIDs. Rewrite the recording style guideline to allow more frequent merging, based on recordings corresponding to the "expression" level in FRBR.
4 Mudcrow Link A recording is a mix.
5 Murdos - Thinks the current system is fine the way it is.
6 reosarevok - Would like any new levels to be optional.
7 jesus2099 - Wants to introduce mix, cut and master entities, and define recordings as audio captured in a single studio take. Wants to indicate when a track uses an unknown version of a recording by relating the track to some sort of special recording.
8 nikki Link Would prefer to just define recordings as mixes and put mastering information on releases. If we really have to add new levels, would create a new master level and define recordings as mixes, but minimalising changes to the current system.
9 kepstin Link Recordings are mostly mixes, although notable remasters should also be given separate recordings. Create a "recording group" entity above recordings, which roughly corresponds to a studio take/performance. Create a Master entity below recordings, and automatically create Masters for every track. Provide better support for lightweight releases (single track downloads).
10 The BBC [1] There should be more recording merging or recording groups. Their idea of a "song" needs to match up to something in MusicBrainz. Currently, works don't provide enough coverage and there are too many recordings.
11 symphonick Link Masters, if they exist, should be a level in between Release Groups and Releases. If tracks are introduced, there needs to be a way to connect multiple tracklists to a single release.
12 Caller#6 Link Agrees with mudcrow on the use of the word "recording". Agrees with reosarevok that any further levels should be optional. Tracks should have MBIDs, and we should have mixes.
14 rochusw Link Tracks should have an identifier, and users should be discouraged from attaching more than on AcoustID to tracks. A mix should inherit fingerprints from attached tracks. Any additional levels should be optional. Recordings should be redefined as mixes. There should be more support for lightweight releases.
15 ianmcorvidae Link Tracks need IDs, whatever happens with the rest of the system. The interface need improving, and any modifications should make it more intuitive and help manage complexity. MB documentation needs vast improvements, including definitions for all entities. Recordings should be mixes. Review everything. In general: this discussion isn't productive, we have bigger problems to be dealing with.
16 jacobbrett Link Would like to see recording, mix, master and track entities, though only revealing the former two to the user by default. Wants to use “catch‐all” entries for ambiguous circumstances. Would like track entities to have a bunch of cool metadata.