User talk:Reosarevok/Recording Issues

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 10:34, 30 December 2012 by LordSputnik (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Please add new proposals to the bottom of the page, so that all the numbers stay the same for existing proposals!

  1. Sput wants recordings to be mixes, tracks to be entities, and master entities to group tracks.
  2. Freso's thoughts
  3. warp just wants track ids
  4. mudcrow put some stuff here, though ian's linking it to this page
  5. User:Murdos is perfectly happy with the current system
  6. reosarevok would love more levels if and only if they're optional and shown to users only if they ask for them.
  7. Jesus said An MB recording is this song’s a recording session’s take, and we have some new sub sets of masters, cuts and mixes, as well as a DON’TKNOWWHICH catch-all special set in the same MB recording.
  8. nikki would like recordings to be mixes, but has some more detailed thoughts here
    1. reosarevok likes the sound of this (and while we're at that, he'll mention he wants something similar for works and arrangements)
    2. symphonick also wants recordings = mixes, and agrees that masters s/b @ release level
  9. User:Kepstin/Recording_Thoughts has a similar master level to nikki's proposal, and the addition of a higher level entity to group alternate versions, possibly with AR movement to reduce redundant data.
  10. The BBC has some thoughts too. They'd like recording groups, but that could just be because we're too cautious about merging recordings. Would be nice if we could get them to clarify. --Nikki (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  11. symphonick's wishlist & thoughts
  12. caller#6 wants an FRBR "expression".
  13. forums thread
  14. rochusw also supports track ids and "DON'TKNOWWHICH" levels.
    1. I especially like the bit about tracks normally only having one AcoustID, very good point. --LordSputnik (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    2. Anyone prescribing changes to AcoustID: Please read my comment on the forums thread. We do not control AcoustID -- luks will decide what AcoustID does with respect to this change, and I'm confident he'll decide better than any of us. Proposals should treat AcoustID as it is: a third-party entity. Ianmcorvidae (talk) 20:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)\
    3. I don't see why editors can't make suggestions about how they'd like AcoustID to be more integrated with MB? If luks reads them and thinks they're good enough, there's no reason why he wouldn't use the suggestions... And besides, we can implement the idea in this proposal as a style guideline - "if you see more than one fingerprint on a track, examine it, and if it's wrong, unlink it". --LordSputnik (talk) 10:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  15. ianmcorvidae is a curmudgeon who thinks the whole discussion is about symptoms of larger problems that we should focus on solving instead of making things more complex
    1. Both nikki's proposal and mine say that we need Master before we have Mix. If we remove the Master part of recordings without creating a new entity to put Master relationships on, we're going to waste a lot of time moving any production relationships into annotations and then back onto Masters when they're eventually made. If we create a simple, optional Master level before 2. and 3., it'll save editors time, and won't detract from any future modifications that may be needed once 2 and 3 have been done. --LordSputnik (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)