Difference between revisions of "User:Rochusw/Recordings"
From MusicBrainz Wiki
|Line 19:||Line 19:|
In most cases it should be possible, to relate a track at least to the correct performance group.
In most cases it should be possible, to relate a track at least to the correct performance group
Revision as of 11:42, 24 December 2012
Problems with Recordings
- Most casual editors don't know, which recording should be related to which track, because there is no obviously correct entity. So they choose either a new recording (best choise, when in doubt) or a recording with the same name and a similar length.
- It is hard to split recordings, which were incorrectly merged (or reused, see above), because the information which fingerprint was added originally for which track is lost (can't be stored, because a track has no identifier).
Fingerprints / Digests
- Tracks should have an identifier
- It should be difficult (require vote or at least confirmation) to relate more than one fingerprint of the same type to a track
Most levels should be optional. Entities, that could be useful, are:
- Work Group ("I don't know which variant of this work it is..." - some traditional works have this problem)
- Performance Group (Perfomances by this artist. Tree-structure possible, e.g. subgroup by band-members, subsubgroup by tour ...)
- Performance (Could be releated to Place/Time/Events. "Live" attribute should be on this level)
- Mix (Probably the best choice for the current recording level)
- Master (very optional, this level should be created if you know exactly what you are doing)
In most cases it should be possible, to relate a track at least to the correct performance group. The release editor should make good suggestions, a start would be
- Relate track to same mix, if the release is based on a release from the same release group.
- Create new performance, if it is a live release
- Relate track to performance group with same "base" name of the same artist else.