Mastering relationships

Since mastering relationships can no longer be applied to recordings, how do I set mastering relationships on a release where mastering is per recording?

Additionally, is a mastering company best entered as an artist or place? I would think artist as the company can master at any suitable place, but artist does not appear setup to handle companies.


Release level, with annotation listing the specific track (mastering is per track, not per recording, since a recording represents a mix, but we don’t currently have relationships at the track level).

Companies have been entered as artist/other sometimes, if Label -> mastering doesn’t exist (I don’t remember right now) then go for artist probably.


Ahh, I did not see this, I will look again.

Agree. I mentioned this on an edit you commented on, where there is a missing piece between recording and release. I see how you are addressing it though now.

So you prefer a mastering company to be entered as a label, and the relationship applied as mastering by label? I did not consider that one much as a mastering company does a small portion of the job, depending obviously though on what exactly is being called “mastering”.

I checked the release I am working on, and there is not an option for a label relationship to mastering.
Here is specifically what I am working with:
Tracks 1-6 Mastered by Calyx Mastering
Tracks 7 and 8 were mastered by Clay Jones at Pete’s Room, Oxford, MS.
Tracks 7-8 are easy enough, there is an artist + place. But for Calyx Mastering, it is unclear. This is not really an artist, and not really a place either. As it is a company, the actual “artist” could be one or many. As it relates to a place, it is also not specific to a place, as Calyx Mastering could do said mastering at its own facility, at another facility or even in the home of one of its owners or employees.

Do you prefer Calyx Mastering to be entered as an artist, as I believe you intended to suggest? I am just clarifying, and giving you a specific example so you know my facts as well. I can see artist working, in the same sense that an artist can be a person or group. I also do not see where you would like such an annotation on tracks, could you specify exactly which entry field you want used?

I wanted to ask this separate, as it is only related to your reply and not the question I asked. With the ISRC, why is this then applied at the recording level, when the ISRC is not a one-to-one relationship with a recording (ie a mix)? The ISRC would apply to the release on the track level as a one-to-one relationship, while the recording has a one-to-many relationship to the ISRC.

I see what you mean that a § applies to the recording and not release, and follow you on that 100%. But the ISRC is not recording specific as it is also tied to a release. And yes I do hear that I just talked myself in a sort of circle, but I hope you can see what I am asking.

The mastering and ISRC as similar here, as a recording with ISRC “A” can be on many releases, just as the same recording with mastering by “AB”. In both cases, the recording can have multiple assignments of an ISRC and mastering by, but one is placed at the release level and the other at the recording level.

I can see that point, and I wouldn’t personally be against storing ISRCs on the track level (somehow extended / implied onto the recording) if we could (in general, it would be great to be able to tell from which release a credit originated even for the credits that are 100% recording-level: “this release and this release both say the conductor is Important von Dude”). It’s a huge change I don’t see happening any time soon though, just because we don’t really have any way to store anything on tracks now (and that would require a whole new bunch of UI work too), but definitely not worthless. One option would be to also add them to the annotation when you have them: “this release TOC includes the following ISRCs” or something.


Your statement makes sense as well. I understand that MB has some design “issues” with the database, and I also know that database changes are not small tasks

I could always just create all new recordings for any variations in mastering AND ISRC. LOL! Joking. I am following you with the logic. Just need the clarification on the above portion on how to proceed properly and all is set.

@reosarevok - Could you have a look at the questions from a few days back? I think they just got missed. Just wanting to make sure given the data that I will enter them correctly.

I’d like to see it as an organization (which is usually a label) but since we don’t have that option, I would add it as an artist… or add a mastering relationship for labels, which I can also do if we think it makes sense.

I’d just add the annotation on the release level, saying which ones apply to which specific tracks. That way if we become able to move them to tracks, we’ll have all needed info :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thanks for the info. I still do not like adding as an artist, but I will do so if you ask. I could also see it as a place using “mastered at”, but I also don;t like that as it is not really a place as it is a service provider/company. If you would add as a label, we would need a proper relationship descriptor as none currently there really fit. Also, would it make sense to add an annotation field on relationships, so there can be notes added per relationship, like the specific tracks mastered by specific label/company/artist/etc added in the relationship?

I know that discusses changes, so just let me know how to proceed. I also do not need to add the mastering noted here at this time should changes be put into WIP.

Yeah, but I have magic relationship adding powers, so I could just add that relationship type :slight_smile:

There kinda is - it’s the edit note :wink: Having it there and in the release annotation just makes it easier to find though :slight_smile:

1 Like

Are you saying you want to add in the relationship? I can get you all needed info if so.

I’m saying if we think labels should be linkable to releases as “mastered by”, I can make that a possibility. I’m hoping for a few other users’ comments on whether this makes sense (but I get the feeling it does).


I probably would’ve just entered Calyx Mastering as a place entity with type ‘studio’, then used the place-release mastering relationship. I worry it might complicate things too much to have a studio represented by both a place entity and a label entity at the same time, which I think is what’s being proposed.

Place is/was one of my first thoughts. However, this presented me with the following issue. To say “mastered at” here could be incorrect, we do not know. It is “mastered by”. The “at” could be at the recording studio for example, and they were there to perform the mastering portions.

I added more on that above, but those concerns/issues are why I asked for help on this. To me, it seems this would more resemble an artist of type group, although it is a company vs a group and it could very well be only a single person, which is one of the issues of entering it as artist. I just cannot find a perfect fit.

I also agree that using label is also not perfect, but it does allow me to say “mastered by” and use a company.

On checking the database I see Calyx Mastering already exists as a Place.

Possible, I suppose you could always try e-mailing the parties involved if you wanted to be certain of the location. But to me it’s implicit that the mastering was done by Calyx Mastering at Calyx Mastering.

1 Like

That is also a possibility. The only place I disagree is that it is implicit. There are many mastering people/companies/services that operate from a room only. Meaning it could be a rented office space or a bedroom in a house. It really all depends on exactly what was done, how it was done, etc. I hate to make any assumptions. But I suppose you could always consider it a mobile office too, where “at Calyx Mastering” could mean where ever that person/company has performed the work.

For this example, we know they have an actual location. What I do not know is which employee performed the work and if it was actually done at their location. The information I have is “mastering by Calyx Mastering”. I guess I agree with comments made on a copyrights thread recently where it is best not to assume, but to enter what you know.

1 Like

In my opinion, we should leave Calyx Mastering (the studio) as a place and add Calyx Mastering (the company) as an artist. There’s precedents for having a company as an artist, mostly design companies like Hipgnosis or the various photographic archives organizations.


What about multi-disk compilations where various CDs are taken from different original releases? In such case all recordings on a particular CD may have the same “mastering” link, but different CDs differs. If we put information about 50+ CDs in a release annotation, it will become unmanageable.

In particular I am talking about compilations of works of classical composers, like this one:


Related to:

And more generally to:

1 Like