> 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...).
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.
>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?
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.
> 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.
Well now you have, and I've shown you plenty of evidence that the term has been used even in "the analog days". You may keep insisting that the term is very much about quality, but the sources I've linked suggest the opposite. If you can provide some sources aside from the wiki on "Mastering (audio)" I'm willing to look at them and integrate them into my perspective. Otherwise it's your insistence against the references I've already found.
> and git doesn't have the concept nor the term slave anywhere in the codebase afaik.
That's the whole point of this thread. The original contention was that a "master" branch is a reference to a master/slave dichotomy. The retort is that "no, it actually derives from the term "master recording" in the audio industry, which has nothing to do with a master/slave dichotomy." I've show references that in fact, the "master" in "master recording" is an explicit reference to the master/slave dichotomy.
> As explained, it's the same model as raising funds for a startup.
VC funding is also a pretty dubious imo. But that's neither here nor there.
> This isn't a race thing.
I hear you saying that, but I've also heard others who've shown me evidence that it is. We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm willing to split the difference and accept it can be a little of both, but you can't hide from the term "slave reels". Even if you want to say it's very much about quality, it's clear there is a race component, and maybe you can admit that too? Either way I'll still be defaulting my repos to "main" and teaching my students that way.
When you say "it's clear there is a race component", which race are you referring to?
I am white, and my white great-grandfather died as a slave in a concentration camp at the hands of white Nazi masters as a consequence of white-on-white ethnic persecution.
So do I understand correctly that when you say "it's clear there is a race component", you are referring to white people?
I ignored your comment because it didn't make sense to me. And since I'm flagged in this thread for having a contrary opinion to the groupthink in this thread, I'm rate limited to reply. I can only reply to like 3 posts before HN tells me to take a break, so I only responded to comments that made sense.
I'm sorry for your grandfather, mine died as well at the hands of Nazis.
By "race component" I'm making reference to racial relations in America, which to a large extent, revolve around the fallout from hundreds of years of chattel slavery of Black people. This country was built on the backs of black slaves, and that still has repercussions in society today. This conflict has deep roots, and many aspects of American life that may seem benign have a context in that history. If you don't know the history then you may not feel one way or another about it. If you do know the history, then it colors things differently (depending on who you are).
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)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Row_Records
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roc-A-Fella_Records