[mb-style] policy on merging of recordings

Johannes Weißl jargon at molb.org
Sun Jul 10 22:32:34 UTC 2011


Hello Lorenz,

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:49:34PM +0200, lorenz pressler wrote:
> > Which brings a question: does "a recording represents unique audio data
> > (including eventual mastering and (re-)mixing)" mean that different  
> > masters
> > should be represented by different recordings or not? If they should be
> > separated, then merging them could be dangerous because it could lead to
> > merging a poor-quality transfer, a good quality later transfer, and a
> > not-so-good still later "digital remaster".
> 
> afair every remaster should get its own recording, this is why i am  
> asking. wrong merges are to happen, but i'm not sure if its better for  
> data-quality to have lots of recordings that should be just a few, or to  
> have a few recordings where there might have been some mis-merges included.

If you have good reasons to believe that they are the same recording (<5
seconds time difference, same name, comment and artist), I would merge
them. The situation for many artists is terrible, if so many (possibly
identical) recordings exist they have lost any meaning / information at
all. So the argument: "Don't merge, we loose information" doesn't really
count.

If later someone has proof that a recording on a release is different,
it is easy to correct that (just create a new recording and relate the
track to this one).

Does anybody know if there is an automatic merge barrier (additional
question, etc.) if you try to merge recordings that are related to each
other (e.g. "remaster of" / "remix of" / "compilation of") or related to
a work in different ways (e.g. "live performance of" vs "performance
of")? This would be great, because these recordings should not be merged
by accident.


Johannes



More information about the MusicBrainz-style mailing list