Ladies and Gentlemen! and/or Hey guys!
The title describes my two requests.
- I would like the MERGE menu representation to be a simple and direct description.
On this point, I want roughness.
It is difficult to understand the message of the MERGE progress menu say,
You are about to merge the following recordings into a single recording.
Please select the recording which you would like other recordings to be merged into:
It is an expression too elegant and polite.
and to me, difficult to understand immediately.
I am a elementary reading comprehension in English.
āwhichā - āotherā - āintoā ā¦ The syntax is long.
Because Complex dependency,I was confusion.
I hope for a more simple and direct expression.
For example:
You are about to merge the following recordings into a single recording.
Please select the recording of the BOSS! Do not check recording of HENCHMAN:
Or more example:
You are about to merge the following recordings into a single recording.
Please select the recording of the MASTER! Do not check recording of SLAVE:
see also:Edits for I&you - MusicBrainz
- I ask for precision is about āmy understandingā of MERGE recordings.
This reconfirmation may be useful when using āmb. MASS MERGE RECORDINGSā.
( https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Guides/Userscripts )
But I do not know more because I have no experience installing this tool.
The original sound of the long CD is cut short and sold by the electronic distribution.
I think the flow of this work is a natural idea.
But what about the following?
Short electronic sold digital data is original.
The CD added a few seconds of blank to it between songs and songs.
So it was a little long recording time.
Do these steps make the CD available for sale?
I feel unnatural.
Of course, the data at the hands of the engineer who made the sound mix will be original (master).
And, the engineer once burned it to the CD from the master.
Also, another once sent to the online download distributor.
This may the most natural think.
But thatās no reason to electronic distribution should be the BOSS.
Originally, I am a careless temper.
I confess.
I feel it is troublesome that MusicBrainz tends to aspire to be very precise.
However, users of āmb. MASS MERGE RECORDINGSā tend to make the short song a BOSS and make the long one a HENCHMAN.
Is the upper and lower relationship between the BOSS and HENCHMAN correct?
Or, is there any rule about merging, I donāt know yet?
On the system, it would be meaningful?
Or, is it useless to decide the parent and child?
After all, is it quite the same, especially good that we donāt care?
However, there is a reason why I worried about such a detailed thing.
The text of the menu seems to be written assuming the parent-child relation rather than the image which tie mutually equal.
But Edit #59884419 - MusicBrainz seems to me, swallow whole by absorbed merger.
I canāt understand the nuances of merging.
see also:
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/59483361
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/59501012
Of course, the user of these special tools like āmb. MASS MERGE RECORDINGSā, they familiar with MusicBrainz. They are very knowledgeable about systems and design ideas.
And they always do a devoted job.
They have a kind heart that teaches many times complicated and troublesome things.
Everyone knows that, but remember that too.
Thanks for taking your time, all.