4 ms·

> The term "master recording" itself refers to the master/slave dichotomy and has been used in the music industry with the explicit knowledge of that. It doesn

> The term "master recording" itself refers to the master/slave dichotomy and has been used in the music industry with the explicit knowledge of that. It doesn't. Audio or video mastering means to create a reference recording that's then down sampled and used as a reference when manufacturing records [0]. It has nothing to do with race. "Remastering" something means to re-release it with a higher audio quality (typically in a different medium) by using the uncompressed source material (the master) and newer sound processing technologies. It's the reason you can watch old movies in HD on Netflix. The idea here is that the "master" would be what would be sent to manufacturing when producing a release. It's also why many SaaS use "master" to mean the exact version of the software that's in production, because it's assumed to be the one sent for distribution. It has nothing to do with race or the idea of owning human beings. > Master recordings have also been used by the music industry as tools to assert control over artists. This practice was recently exposed in popular culture by Pharrell Williams. There's nothing to expose. When signing up with a producer or recording label, it's common practice to exchange a portion of the rights to the master produced in exchange for (advance) payment and promotion from the label. It's just like founders exchanging equity during fundraising. I'm surprised the practice is unknown or even controversial on a board centered around VC and startups. Black owned record labels [1][2] use the exact same deals when signing up artists. Now, Pharrell Williams is notorious on his own. Does he need promotion from a label or an advance check for his music? Probably not. That's why he was able to re-negotiate his contracts to keep ownership of his masters. Same way a bootstrapped founder won't sell part of his equity for funding. It has nothing to do with race (but maybe Pharrell, having a large audience, tried making it about race to get leverage when negotiating...). [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mastering_(audio) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Row_Records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Row_Records [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc-A-Fella_Records https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc-A-Fella_Records

ModernMech 4y ago
> It doesn't. That's not what I've found in my research, which makes very explicit references to a master/slave dichotomy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 If what you say is true, that master recording has no relationship to a master/slave dichotomy, then why is there such a thing as a slave reel? Why do industry insiders refer to the dichotomy with a wink and nudge, as if it's a pun ("get it")? They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality". > There's nothing to expose. I said expose to popular culture. Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  You seem to enjoy quoting yourself. >They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality". You seem to misunderstand there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) and a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold. >Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable. I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too?
  - ModernMech 4y ago
    I’m not quoting myself I’m pointing you to links, which is exactly what you did for me. I just didn’t want to repaste them here. > You seem to misunderstand Had you read the link I provided, you’d have seen I quote a source that says exactly what you’re saying. So no, I am aware there are two usages. However, both refer to the master/slave dichotomy in the recording industry: > there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) Right, and this is the one from which “slave reels” are made. So the “master/slave” dichotomy exists there. If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”. > a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold. Which is also part of a master/slave dichotomy because it is about control. The book I link to explicitly refers to the master/slave dichotomy in that particular context. > I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too? They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation.
    - 908B64B197 4y ago
      > If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”. I've never heard the term "slave reels" and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik. The term is very much about quality; in the analog days it was way harder and sometimes even impossible to make a perfect copy. Hence the importance of the master being the highest quality (and often recorded on a different, much more expensive medium). > They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation. As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup. The record label claims a percentage, or the whole master in exchange for advance payment and promotion. This isn't a race thing.

ModernMech 4y ago

> It doesn't. That's not what I've found in my research, which makes very explicit references to a master/slave dichotomy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26497027 If what you say is true, that master recording has no relationship to a master/slave dichotomy, then why is there such a thing as a slave reel? Why do industry insiders refer to the dichotomy with a wink and nudge, as if it's a pun ("get it")? They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality". > There's nothing to expose. I said expose to popular culture. Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable.

908B64B197 4y ago
You seem to enjoy quoting yourself. >They explicitly talk about the master as representing "control" and not "quality". You seem to misunderstand there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) and a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold. >Many people did not know about this practice, and find it objectionable. I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too?
- ModernMech 4y ago
  I’m not quoting myself I’m pointing you to links, which is exactly what you did for me. I just didn’t want to repaste them here. > You seem to misunderstand Had you read the link I provided, you’d have seen I quote a source that says exactly what you’re saying. So no, I am aware there are two usages. However, both refer to the master/slave dichotomy in the recording industry: > there's a technical term (a recording master, the highest quality and original recording made in a studio) Right, and this is the one from which “slave reels” are made. So the “master/slave” dichotomy exists there. If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”. > a legal term (owning the rights to the master) in which said performance can be sold. Which is also part of a master/slave dichotomy because it is about control. The book I link to explicitly refers to the master/slave dichotomy in that particular context. > I guess they object to owning stocks and shares too? They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation.
  - 908B64B197 4y ago
    > If the name we’re about quality they wouldn’t call the derivatives “slaves”. I've never heard the term "slave reels" and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik. The term is very much about quality; in the analog days it was way harder and sometimes even impossible to make a perfect copy. Hence the importance of the master being the highest quality (and often recorded on a different, much more expensive medium). > They are against the exploitive aspects surrounding the practice. I’m not sure how owning stocks and shares could be considered exploitation. As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup. The record label claims a percentage, or the whole master in exchange for advance payment and promotion. This isn't a race thing.