[mb-users] Two questions about mash-ups
gavinclarkeuk at yahoo.co.uk
Sat Jun 4 12:17:00 UTC 2005
Matthew Exon <03999128 at exon.dyndns.org> wrote:
Daniel Bumke wrote:
> Not been followind this discussion too closely, but why not simply use
> the "contains samples from" relationship, as per
As I mention in my other post, I'm coming around to the view that
"mash-up" is just an artifact of the limitation that remixes can only
have one source track. But I think there's a difference between "remix"
and "samples" that's worth capturing, even if it's a little difficult to
In my mind a remix generally shares a title with the track that has been remixed, for example Insomnia (Monster Mix), whereas a mash up tends to be regarded more as a separate work with a new title (Fatboy Slim vs Eminem - My Name is the Real Slim Shady). I'd be tempted to drop the mash up relationship and just use the samples relationship for mash ups and use the remix relationship to tie same title remixes to their original tracks.
The main reason for this being that it will become impossible to find a rule to distinguish between a mash up and track which samples another track.
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the MusicBrainz-users