Difference between revisions of "User talk:Reosarevok/Recording Issues/Summary"

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Line 20: Line 20:
 
|-
 
|-
 
|8||nikki||[[User:Nikki/Recordings|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.
 
|8||nikki||[[User:Nikki/Recordings|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||[[User:Kepstin/Recording_Thoughts|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).
 
|-
 
|-
 
|16||jacobbrett||[[User:Jacobbrett/Recordings|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.
 
|16||jacobbrett||[[User:Jacobbrett/Recordings|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.
 
|}
 
|}

Revision as of 19:25, 7 January 2013

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 tracks, 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 happy with the current system.
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).
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.