yuck. I'd rather see no ETI guideline for recordings.
no offense, I know some people worked hard on getting consensus.
th1rtyf0ur
crap. any way to undo a recording merge?
JonnyJD joined the channel
CallerNo6
you can cancel the edit
but if it's already been applied, then there's no shortcut. you'll need to make a new recording (or recordings) from scratch.
th1rtyf0ur
it's already thru
i can't even tell wtf I did wrong anymore. looks like I made a new one, 'cause a 'live'recording on a bootleg was using the studio recording, but then they got merged.. probably before my 'live' disambiguation note went through. rgh
CallerNo6
but you caught it. cool.
th1rtyf0ur
yeah- the live boot was using the same recording as the studio one,so when I added the live stuff to the bootleg, it tagged the wrong recording.
making a new recording for the live boot
still don't know how the hell there's a >6m version of Bye June, though
..which says it's from a demo tape, which should be the <3m studio version
damn bootleg compilations XD
ianmcorvidae|n4 joined the channel
STalKer-X joined the channel
backwards recordings: "is an edit of"?
(ex: "!aaaH-aH, yawA eM ekaT ot gnimoC er'yehT", b-side of "They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!")
(literally the same recording, played backwards) XD
drsaunde
the most bizarre UK #1 ever
Napoleon XIV
i would call it a "remix" more than an "edit"
th1rtyf0ur
hm.. I consider remixing a much more complicated action
usually involves making many cuts & splices, adding new samples, etc.
just playing it backwards seems like more of an edit.
although MB's definition of "edit" seems to be based on shortening the track length
or censoring some parts
"or a shortened, censored, or otherwise edited version of the same material"
ok, 'otherwise edited' then
drsaunde
edit implies something was taken away...not necessarily shortened
nothing was taken away in this case, but it was re-arranged...not a typical remix but more so than saying something was removed
A CD with MP3s is a "CD", not "Digital Media"... right?
nikki would say yes
nikki
(but afaik some people disagree)
warp
it is both!
kepstin-work
it's certainly not an audio cd, but we don't have any special type just for those
nikki
well, for me it refers to the physical format, which is a cd :P
kepstin-work
nikki: you must really hate the audio/video dvd formats then :)
nikki
(and the subformat things were just there until we supported stuff like that properly, a bit more like discogs)
heh
I don't mind them that much, actually, I just wish we'd actually get round to implementing better stuff :P
I do however dislike that stupid videotape one and putting things like usb stick under digital media :P
anyway, some people have suggested adding a type for cd data stuff, but nobody's proposed it properly afaik
kepstin-work wouldn't mind having 'Audio CD' and 'CD-ROM' as media types until we figure out something better.
what happens to the existing cd one? renamed to audio cd and a new cd added?
Freso
The two just added as subtypes would be my suggestion.
nikki
(I mean, I guess it'd be more correct to add a new audio cd thing, but the amount of data that would need fixing would be terrible)
Freso
Anyone have a quick link for the audio book guidelines?
kepstin-work
yeah, renaming the current one to audio cd would be the only thing that makes sense
Freso
Nvm.
I'm not sure how to read the guidelines.
Should I use "read by" *always*? And should I use the literal "read by" or the localised version of it?
Also "Part N" or the localised version used in the MP3 files themself?
reosarevok
Freso: IIRC it does say something like "use whatever the cover uses for join phrase, and if it uses nothing then 'read by' or its equivalent in the appropriate language"
Speaking from memory though
that's what I'd do anyway :p
(and appropriate language for part too
)
(that it might not say but seems reasonable)
hawke_1
nikki: what’s wrong with videotape?
nikki
it doesn't fit
hawke_1
It doesn’t?
nikki
no, that's not how the rest of the list is structured