I think the tracklist is enough for us to show what the artist intents to do with digital silence. There does not have to be a different recording for every artist who uses it. The artistic view is shown on the tracklist. The tracklist can have a title or an artist for that silence. The tracklist also (of course) has the lenght that you want it to have. The artists view is shown right there.
No I don’t. Silence is very important for me. It just is not a recording.
It could be argued that all direct to digital instruments are not recordings either.
Or we could count digital silence as a similar sort of recording.
With direct to digital instrument recordings do you count the digital silence between sound representing bytes as part of the recording?
Silence can be art, but art is expressed on MB in the form of works not recordings.
According to the guidelines the following examples count as different recordings:
Digital silence is still the same in stereo and mono, edits with just more or less silence in the end or beginning of the track don’t count as a new recording on MB, you can’t remix digital silence*, different sources of the same performed digital silence will obviously be different, but they won’t be digital silence anymore and the same goes for different performances.
*PS: Yes, of course you can put digital silence on a disc and scratch it on your DJ deck. The result will be a new (boring) recording, but you won’t have to clear a sample of someone else’s recording of digital silence, but can just use an empty disc. There can’t be a phonographic copyright on digital silence, because it’s not a recording.
I think you are talking about vinyl scratching. There really cannot be digital silence on a vinyl disc or any other analog format. The source recording may be digital silence, but the analog formats cannot reproduce it.
I was going to argue that an artist denoting a track as separate and distinct makes it a different performance
But then I thought of a CD with 20 repititions of indistinguishable recordings and think that argument fails.
Then trying out “indistinguishable” for changes in track length, date created, instrument and artist.
These do seem distinguishable.
That will cause Picard problems when trying to identify a CD. I’m not a Picard expert, but I thought the AcousticIDs of the tracks on a release are used to identify it. So it will be important to keep the AcousticIDs for each release separated.
Again - I don’t understand this rush to throw this data away.
This doesn’t make sense. CDs and LPs are different releases in MB. Yes, they are in the same Release Group, but are listed as the separate entities that they are.
I was saying it should not have AcoustIDs, because digitally silent audio files do not generate AcoustIDs, see my lengthy earlier post. Therefore, we would not be throwing away legit AcoustIDs.
Also, if an AcoustID was taken from a vinyl rip of a silent track, it would just be an AcoustID for random noise. It could only be used to match that exact same rip. Different rip of the same vinyl would lead to a different AcoustID. Therefore, all AcoustIDs taken from unofficial* vinyl rips would only be useful for identifying pirated vinyl rips.
*By unofficial, I mean that people ripped vinyls on their own or downloaded them illegally. An official vinyl rip released for online distribution would be a digital release.
He was talking about the recording. That is usually the same on vinyl and CD releases.
I would say that if there is artist intent that a track of silence is a bona fide work, then no (example: https://musicbrainz.org/recording/60668439-d600-4f6a-a890-374cefe48dd0)
But if it just stupid CD tricks of silence, then I don’t have a problem merging them all.
I think your argument works. Your CD example doesn’t require 20 different recordings because they are part of the same release. The artist intended the 20 tracks to be the same. This should be expressed in MB as 20 tracks attached to only one recording. Artist intent is not the same across multiple [silent] recordings.
Been sent here from: https://musicbrainz.org/edit/92192611 by @yindesu
I’ve cast my vote.
It’s silence, its the same recording - so long as there’s no other noises/audio in it, then its identical.