audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
46 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

jesus2099
http://musicbrainz.org/edit/22806806 seems that maybe there is a bug in new recording guideline ?
i haven’t read it myself, just reporting here, i didn’t find reo in IRC…
 PATATE12   jesus2099   GOLD MASTER KING   FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

jesus2099
the thing is that maybe this guideline could lead to merge audio-video recs and audio recs for the same performance.
Here we have different cuts and also same cuts (kind of).
i think we should not merge audio+video and audio, right ? it should be said in there.
And are we supposed to merge when different cut ? I hope not.
 PATATE12   jesus2099   GOLD MASTER KING   FAKE E-MAIL ADDRESS 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

tommycrock

Well, my understanding was that we were only interested in audio, even though we include some media that have video. So by that we would merge the recordings, but I could be completely wrong :-O

On Jul 3, 2013 4:11 PM, "jesus2099" <[hidden email]> wrote:
the thing is that maybe this guideline could lead to merge audio-video recs
and audio recs for the same performance.
Here we have different cuts and also same cuts (kind of).
i think we should not merge audio+video and audio, right ? it should be said
in there.
And are we supposed to merge when different cut ? I hope not.



-----
jesus2099, Tristan, patate12, GOLD MASTER KING
using a FAKE EMAIL ADDRESS
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/audio-video-vs-audio-new-recording-guideline-bug-tp4655266p4655267.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

Rachel Dwight

On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, my understanding was that we were only interested in audio, even though we include some media that have video. So by that we would merge the recordings, but I could be completely wrong :-O



I've heard some scuttlebutt about including audio-visual material sometime in the future.
We definitely need to chalk up some definitive guidelines, though. I'd count a visual element as a difference in the recording for now and not merge.

This is probably a topic for a separate proposal, but we undoubtedly need an "audiovisual" or "video" attribute for recordings. This would solve a lot of problems but would require extra ARs.

On Jul 3, 2013 4:11 PM, "jesus2099" <[hidden email]> wrote:
the thing is that maybe this guideline could lead to merge audio-video recs
and audio recs for the same performance.
Here we have different cuts and also same cuts (kind of).
i think we should not merge audio+video and audio, right ? it should be said
in there.
And are we supposed to merge when different cut ? I hope not.



-----
jesus2099, Tristan, patate12, GOLD MASTER KING
using a FAKE EMAIL ADDRESS
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/audio-video-vs-audio-new-recording-guideline-bug-tp4655266p4655267.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

tommycrock

Sounds like we need to at least add a note to the guidance, I'm not sure I can face another go at the definition.

Jesus, you said different cuts, I'm not quite sure if this is what you mean, but the way the guidance was agreed, differences that are fades/cuts  in/out at the beginning or end without 'substantially' altering the song are mastering choices and therefore the same recording. Cutting out crowd noise is mastering, cutting a whole section off a song is editing and leads to two recordings.

On Jul 3, 2013 8:05 PM, "Rachel Dwight" <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Jul 3, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, my understanding was that we were only interested in audio, even though we include some media that have video. So by that we would merge the recordings, but I could be completely wrong :-O



I've heard some scuttlebutt about including audio-visual material sometime in the future.
We definitely need to chalk up some definitive guidelines, though. I'd count a visual element as a difference in the recording for now and not merge.

This is probably a topic for a separate proposal, but we undoubtedly need an "audiovisual" or "video" attribute for recordings. This would solve a lot of problems but would require extra ARs.

On Jul 3, 2013 4:11 PM, "jesus2099" <[hidden email]> wrote:
the thing is that maybe this guideline could lead to merge audio-video recs
and audio recs for the same performance.
Here we have different cuts and also same cuts (kind of).
i think we should not merge audio+video and audio, right ? it should be said
in there.
And are we supposed to merge when different cut ? I hope not.



-----
jesus2099, Tristan, patate12, GOLD MASTER KING
using a FAKE EMAIL ADDRESS
--
View this message in context: http://musicbrainz.1054305.n4.nabble.com/audio-video-vs-audio-new-recording-guideline-bug-tp4655266p4655267.html
Sent from the MusicBrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

LordSputnik

As Tom said, since the song structure wasn't altered due to the cuts, the track differences are considered mastering. The recordings should be the same as the ones used on the CD (so long as it uses the same source material - ie. same original audio recordings)

I do think that completing the mix terminology doc page would be helpful in these situations... I'll try and get something done on that based on the mix/edit definitions we came up with before.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

As Tom said, since the song structure wasn't altered due to the cuts, the track differences are considered mastering. The recordings should be the same as the ones used on the CD (so long as it uses the same source material - ie. same original audio recordings)

I do think that completing the mix terminology doc page would be helpful in these situations... I'll try and get something done on that based on the mix/edit definitions we came up with before.

I don't remember any mention of video = audio during the discussion (maybe I just missed it, but I would certainly have vetoed any proposal that said that openly). Given that there has often been talk of marking video "recordings" as such, that a fair amount of relationships that can apply to videos don't apply to audio-only (even if we don't yet have almost any of them), and that they're conceptually very different (if extra channels are a new MB recording, an extra video certainly makes the entity much more different still) I see nothing to gain from such a thing. We need to work towards dealing better with musical videos, not hide them under the rug saying "whatever, merge them all".

--
Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

symphonick



2013/7/5 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>
On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

As Tom said, since the song structure wasn't altered due to the cuts, the track differences are considered mastering. The recordings should be the same as the ones used on the CD (so long as it uses the same source material - ie. same original audio recordings)

I do think that completing the mix terminology doc page would be helpful in these situations... I'll try and get something done on that based on the mix/edit definitions we came up with before.

I don't remember any mention of video = audio during the discussion (maybe I just missed it, but I would certainly have vetoed any proposal that said that openly). Given that there has often been talk of marking video "recordings" as such, that a fair amount of relationships that can apply to videos don't apply to audio-only (even if we don't yet have almost any of them), and that they're conceptually very different (if extra channels are a new MB recording, an extra video certainly makes the entity much more different still) I see nothing to gain from such a thing. We need to work towards dealing better with musical videos, not hide them under the rug saying "whatever, merge them all".



+1

BTW IMO "mastering" is not a good description for _mixing_ video & audio.

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

tommycrock


On Jul 5, 2013 10:44 AM, "symphonick" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2013/7/5 Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren <[hidden email]>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 5, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Ben Ockmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> As Tom said, since the song structure wasn't altered due to the cuts, the track differences are considered mastering. The recordings should be the same as the ones used on the CD (so long as it uses the same source material - ie. same original audio recordings)
>>>
>>> I do think that completing the mix terminology doc page would be helpful in these situations... I'll try and get something done on that based on the mix/edit definitions we came up with before.
>>
>> I don't remember any mention of video = audio during the discussion (maybe I just missed it, but I would certainly have vetoed any proposal that said that openly). Given that there has often been talk of marking video "recordings" as such, that a fair amount of relationships that can apply to videos don't apply to audio-only (even if we don't yet have almost any of them), and that they're conceptually very different (if extra channels are a new MB recording, an extra video certainly makes the entity much more different still) I see nothing to gain from such a thing. We need to work towards dealing better with musical videos, not hide them under the rug saying "whatever, merge them all".
>>
>>
>
> +1
>
> BTW IMO "mastering" is not a good description for _mixing_ video & audio.
>
> /symphonick

I (and I think Ben) was talking specifically about the issue of slightly different chunks of audio being one recording, because they begin or end in slightly different places. Clearly mixing  audio  and video isn't mastering.
The recording guidelines discussion never explicitly said video = audio (and I don't think it does) but it clearly only talked about audio, and the old and new definitions are about audio and not video. It makes sense to me to be able to mark recordings as video and differentiate alternative video against the same audio, but the new definition and guidance don't do that.
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

LordSputnik
In reply to this post by Nicolás Tamargo de Eguren

If a DVD has a video track which has identical audio to a track on a CD, I don't see why we should use different recordings. Recordings represent audio - why does video even come into it?

I definitely wouldn't support marking any MB recordings as videos, because that's not what the entity is meant to represent. If that functionality is required then another entity should be used.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

tommycrock

You make a good point that we should be thinking about a video recording entity that's separate to the audio recording. That would be the correct way to structure the database

On Jul 5, 2013 9:00 PM, "Ben Ockmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

If a DVD has a video track which has identical audio to a track on a CD, I don't see why we should use different recordings. Recordings represent audio - why does video even come into it?

I definitely wouldn't support marking any MB recordings as videos, because that's not what the entity is meant to represent. If that functionality is required then another entity should be used.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

Rachel Dwight

On Jul 6, 2013, at 4:41 AM, Tom Crocker <[hidden email]> wrote:

You make a good point that we should be thinking about a video recording entity that's separate to the audio recording. That would be the correct way to structure the database

I mentioned that a while back in this thread. Nikki told me a long time ago that there were plans to include video recordings in the future.
Shall we chalk up a plan to create a "video" attribute for recordings? Currently there's only a video attribute for the "Stream for free" AR.

On Jul 5, 2013 9:00 PM, "Ben Ockmore" <[hidden email]> wrote:

If a DVD has a video track which has identical audio to a track on a CD, I don't see why we should use different recordings. Recordings represent audio - why does video even come into it?

I definitely wouldn't support marking any MB recordings as videos, because that's not what the entity is meant to represent. If that functionality is required then another entity should be used.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

Kuno Woudt
In reply to this post by tommycrock
On 07/06/2013 11:41 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
> You make a good point that we should be thinking about a video recording
> entity that's separate to the audio recording. That would be the correct
> way to structure the database

Why do you need a separate entity?

I think it is interesting and important to keep recordings which include
a video track/channel separate from recordings which only contain audio
channels -- but having a video channel doesn't seem to fundamentally
make it not be a recording.

I'd be happy with a 'video' checkbox on the recording entity.

-- kuno / warp.


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

Rachel Dwight

On Jul 6, 2013, at 2:53 PM, Kuno Woudt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 07/06/2013 11:41 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
>> You make a good point that we should be thinking about a video recording
>> entity that's separate to the audio recording. That would be the correct
>> way to structure the database
>
> Why do you need a separate entity?
>
> I think it is interesting and important to keep recordings which include
> a video track/channel separate from recordings which only contain audio
> channels -- but having a video channel doesn't seem to fundamentally
> make it not be a recording.
>
> I'd be happy with a 'video' checkbox on the recording entity.
>
> -- kuno / warp.
>

That's what I intended.

>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

LordSputnik

Then you need a whole new set of relationships for recordings with the video flag, a separate set of style guidelines for merging recordings where video is present and you also need to change the recording definition *again*.

Recordings don't care about video... It's completely out of the context. Recordings group tracks containing audio and represent certain audio, and have nothing to do with video. You might as well say that two tracks can't use the same recording because one comes with a free kazoo that you can play while you listen to it.

It'd be cleaner to introduce a new entity to track music videos, if that's what's being asked for. If you want to indicate that a track has video, make it a property of the track, or mark it in the release annotation, or use the medium field. If you want to do something else, then I don't get it... :P


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

th1rtyf0ur
Hi- just joined the list & am jumping in here since I'm on the other side
of the ticket jesus2099 mentioned. :)

I agree that Recordings should refer only to audio, and that Video tracks
should be handled as a separate entity. Recordings track the performance
of the song- if there's a live concert on both DVD and CD that contains the
exact same audio, it doesn't make sense to use a different recording.
Likewise, a music video using the same audio as a studio track shouldn't
either. Also, audio & video are fundamentally different in how they're
recorded, edited, etc.- audio typically gets edited, mixed & mastered from
multi-track originals, video is edited (never 'mixed' or 'mastered') from
multiple reels of footage- the terminology is completely different and the
relationships should, IMO, reflect that.

Now, it seems that there is a simple/easy way to add video, and a more
complex, but more robust method. The simple way is just to add a flag at
the track level that says 'contains video' (possibly by default on any
DVD-Video/etc. media), and allow comments at the track level to handle any
video-specific notes. The other would be to add a Video-type entity
similar to Recording, which theoretically could handle more complicated
information. An old forum thread I found that talks about handling video
(http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=3077) brings up the
possibility of a song that has 2 different music videos for the same audio
(I can easily see this happening for 'censored' vs 'uncensored' videos).
It would also be possible to label multi-angle DVD tracks with a more
complicated relationship setting by assigning multiple 'Video' tracks to
the same Media track, in the same way that multiple Recordings can be
added to a track for medleys/etc. Likewise, relationships could specify
things like live footage, interview/documentary, behind-the-scenes, etc.
if it's decided we want that level of detail.

My vote would be for the 2nd, more flexible setup. :) I'd be happy to help
w/ development on this.

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

Rachel Dwight

On Jul 6, 2013, at 10:18 PM, th1rtyf0ur <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi- just joined the list & am jumping in here since I'm on the other side
> of the ticket jesus2099 mentioned. :)
>
> I agree that Recordings should refer only to audio, and that Video tracks
> should be handled as a separate entity. Recordings track the performance
> of the song- if there's a live concert on both DVD and CD that contains the
> exact same audio, it doesn't make sense to use a different recording.
> Likewise, a music video using the same audio as a studio track shouldn't
> either. Also, audio & video are fundamentally different in how they're
> recorded, edited, etc.- audio typically gets edited, mixed & mastered from
> multi-track originals, video is edited (never 'mixed' or 'mastered') from
> multiple reels of footage- the terminology is completely different and the
> relationships should, IMO, reflect that.
>
> Now, it seems that there is a simple/easy way to add video, and a more
> complex, but more robust method. The simple way is just to add a flag at
> the track level that says 'contains video' (possibly by default on any
> DVD-Video/etc. media), and allow comments at the track level to handle any
> video-specific notes. The other would be to add a Video-type entity
> similar to Recording, which theoretically could handle more complicated
> information. An old forum thread I found that talks about handling video
> (http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=3077) brings up the
> possibility of a song that has 2 different music videos for the same audio
> (I can easily see this happening for 'censored' vs 'uncensored' videos).
> It would also be possible to label multi-angle DVD tracks with a more
> complicated relationship setting by assigning multiple 'Video' tracks to
> the same Media track, in the same way that multiple Recordings can be
> added to a track for medleys/etc. Likewise, relationships could specify
> things like live footage, interview/documentary, behind-the-scenes, etc.
> if it's decided we want that level of detail.
>
> My vote would be for the 2nd, more flexible setup. :) I'd be happy to help
> w/ development on this.
>

Sounds workable to me. I can't develop anything (as in with code) but I can help conceive and iron out ideas.
This way we can link audio tracks with video via an AR later on.

> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

symphonick
Yeah, I guess a new entity must be created for video and audio to be independent of each other. A recording can't "contain" video and be shared between say an audio only CD and a video DVD.

(and I agree the "recordings" terminology was not intended for video anyway)


2013/7/7 Rachel Dwight <[hidden email]>

On Jul 6, 2013, at 10:18 PM, th1rtyf0ur <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi- just joined the list & am jumping in here since I'm on the other side
> of the ticket jesus2099 mentioned. :)
>
> I agree that Recordings should refer only to audio, and that Video tracks
> should be handled as a separate entity. Recordings track the performance
> of the song- if there's a live concert on both DVD and CD that contains the
> exact same audio, it doesn't make sense to use a different recording.
> Likewise, a music video using the same audio as a studio track shouldn't
> either. Also, audio & video are fundamentally different in how they're
> recorded, edited, etc.- audio typically gets edited, mixed & mastered from
> multi-track originals, video is edited (never 'mixed' or 'mastered') from
> multiple reels of footage- the terminology is completely different and the
> relationships should, IMO, reflect that.
>
> Now, it seems that there is a simple/easy way to add video, and a more
> complex, but more robust method. The simple way is just to add a flag at
> the track level that says 'contains video' (possibly by default on any
> DVD-Video/etc. media), and allow comments at the track level to handle any
> video-specific notes. The other would be to add a Video-type entity
> similar to Recording, which theoretically could handle more complicated
> information. An old forum thread I found that talks about handling video
> (http://forums.musicbrainz.org/viewtopic.php?id=3077) brings up the
> possibility of a song that has 2 different music videos for the same audio
> (I can easily see this happening for 'censored' vs 'uncensored' videos).
> It would also be possible to label multi-angle DVD tracks with a more
> complicated relationship setting by assigning multiple 'Video' tracks to
> the same Media track, in the same way that multiple Recordings can be
> added to a track for medleys/etc. Likewise, relationships could specify
> things like live footage, interview/documentary, behind-the-scenes, etc.
> if it's decided we want that level of detail.
>
> My vote would be for the 2nd, more flexible setup. :) I'd be happy to help
> w/ development on this.
>

Sounds workable to me. I can't develop anything (as in with code) but I can help conceive and iron out ideas.
This way we can link audio tracks with video via an AR later on.

> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



--

/symphonick

_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

tommycrock
In reply to this post by Kuno Woudt


On Jul 6, 2013 9:53 PM, "Kuno Woudt" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> On 07/06/2013 11:41 AM, Tom Crocker wrote:
> > You make a good point that we should be thinking about a video recording
> > entity that's separate to the audio recording. That would be the correct
> > way to structure the database
>
> Why do you need a separate entity?
>
> I think it is interesting and important to keep recordings which include
> a video track/channel separate from recordings which only contain audio
> channels -- but having a video channel doesn't seem to fundamentally
> make it not be a recording.
>
> I'd be happy with a 'video' checkbox on the recording entity.
>
> -- kuno / warp.
>

I think this has mainly been answered but:
Regardless of how we handle it in the interface, as a music database, with lots of audio only recordings, we're interested in which tracks contain the 'same' audio. From a database design point of view, when you're guaranteed to be replicating data (audio performance artist, work, audio mixing, audio production, etc.) you should introduce a new table. Not only will this sometimes occur but it's likely to be the norm, with most videos having an audio only version and possibly different videos having the same audio. An 'is the same audio' relationship would be a fudge and require a lot more work to enter the correct relationships.

So, I think the way I would do it is to make the current recording entity an 'audio recording'. Have tracks link to a recording table that's linked to an audio recording and optionally video recording. Either that or you allow tracks to be linked to either the audio or video recording entity and link each video recording to one audio recording, but that seems a bit complicated.

In terms of the front end you can have a tick box to say the recording contains video, that then opens up the possibility of video relations, and you can get to choose which audio and video the recording links to.

There might be a better approach but if we are going to include video data this would be better than absorbing it into the existing recording entity
>
> _______________________________________________
> MusicBrainz-style mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style


_______________________________________________
MusicBrainz-style mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: audio-video vs. audio : new recording guideline bug ?

LordSputnik
In reply to this post by jesus2099
So, we discussed this during the meeting tonight. A lot of people said add a flag for videos:

http://chatlogs.musicbrainz.org/musicbrainz-devel/2013/2013-08/2013-08-12.html#T19-07-55-988132

In fact, most people seem to be in favour of just adding a flag.

I myself still don't see what keeping video recordings un-merged provides in terms of information. It tells us that the tracks featuring the recording are videos? Then, in my view, that information should be stored at the (currently non-existent) track level.

I'd like to see a use case that tells me why information would be better at the recording level than the track level, and clearly defines exactly what information this is.

Unless, of course, everyone thinks opposite to me, in which case I'll just shut up... :P
123