Doesn’t it make sense to have mastering artist to be at recording level, as it is possible for an album to have different mastering artist per track, especially “various artist” compilations, and adding mastering relationship with anotation at release/release group relation is just waaay too un needed.
AND if we follow the same reasoning, most the recording level relationship like orchestrator should also be release/group only, soo… why is that not the case??
The deprecation does make for physical esc release but for modern digital media I dont think deprecation is valid.
So why is recording level mastering artist deprecated???
They should not - different orchestrations would be different recordings in MusicBrainz, so having those at the recording level makes sense.
In this case though, different masterings of the same recording should be merged into one MusicBrainz recording. That means if you entered the mastering data at the recording level, we would have a situation where recordings would often have multiple conflicting mastering relationships. There are indeed cases where digital and even physical releases give mastering data per-track with different engineers, but it is relatively rare.
The most ideal data-storage solution would probably involve either a reusable “mastering” level in between recording and track (which would complicate the UI a lot and make beginner editors even more confused so we haven’t implemented it) or a way to add mastering relationships to tracks rather than recordings (which would involve changing a lot of our relationships system since tracks are not relatable at all at the moment).
So yes, we know this is not ideal, but it’s the least bad compromise we could find that mostly works.
℗ {year} {company} is one relationship per copyright and when the copyright is renewed or transferred to another company, a new copyright entry is added to the recording.
Mastering is much more complicated with a mastering location, a mastering engineer and possibly assistants. There is almost never a date given. After several remasters, it would no longer be possible to correctly match people and places. It would be quite a mess.
Sorry, can’t see the problem.
You’re right, remastering is another reason for a new copyright to what’s still the same MB recording. The tracks on the example releases have their own copyright owners and date and can be added to the respective MB recording.
Why do you think conflicting copyright statements is not the same problem as conflicting mastering engineers, when both are properties of different masters?
Copyright statements can vary for the same master as well, that’s not a property of a remaster only. In fact, conflicts are almost inevitable in many cases, since they will happen at least every time a label gets sold. I would expect that is a big part of why this doesn’t feel as problematic to just throw into the same recording - it can be true for the same exact recording and master to begin with.
Additionally, I think people just care about remasters (and being able to tell which release is remastered) more than about whether something has a new ℗.
And finally, different ℗ per track are I feel a lot more common than different mastering engineers, which would add annoyance.
I do agree that having ℗ at the track level would probably be preferable, but right now that seems like an acceptable compromise.
Well, that makes sense, different mastering artist can be conflicting…
But why is it a necessary requirement for different mastering track to be the same recording? Like wouldn’t this problem be easily solved by simply having different recording per different mastering of a song, and a “Has mastered track:” work-to-recording relationship to relate all different mastering in simple intuitive way and also deal with conflicting mastering engineer.
I can see merit to both arguments, but please find a way to solve this issue. Digital releases are becoming the norm and I see with increasing frequency different mastering engineers for each track. Linking all engineers to the record level will make it increasingly difficult to see who did what.
One way would be to allow a special annotation to the relationship indicative of the tracks of the record that were mastered by the artist. In digital releases such an annotation may also come handy for other releationships (like artwork embedded to single tracks but not all).