History talk:Continuous Mix Style Proposal

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 09:53, 23 September 2010 by BrianFreud (talk | contribs) (Release Event)


"Similarly a whole other set of guidelines exist for Live and Bootleg performances that may or may not have been released through standard means (never released or "fan managed.")"
This seems redundant to the definitions for Bootlegs elsewhere in the database (release status, etc). Additionally, it does not accurately define all potential types of bootlegs according to the way they've been considered (see table at http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/User_talk:BrianSchweitzer/Release_Status_Proposals#Current_Discussion for a summary that's been relatively consistent on defining this concept since ~2007). BrianFreud 01:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not so much redundant as not clarified. The definition of a Continuous Mix and what makes it separate from a Live Bootleg - more details below. -chancey

Release Annotation

"Putting all the track names and artists into the track title would be inappropriate, all this information should be listed in the release annotation. Along with any other general annotation information."
Why? It's entirely consistent with Medley Style, and is far more useful outside of the database than annotation-trapped titles. BrianFreud 01:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I said inappropriate because Continuous Mixes can run up 20 tracks or more with 20 respective artists. So one common track name would be:

Between Heaven and Earth (Jan Martin Remix) / Not Giving Up On Love (Club mix) / Mojito / Run To My Rescue / Left Of The World (Mike Shivers Garden State Dub) / Twilight Tonight (Arty Remode) / Always Look Back (Classic Touch) / Blueberry (Rex Mundi Remix) Heaven (Beltek Remix) / The Emergency [Marcus Schossow remix) (AvB Mash up) / Prelude (Extended Mix) / Crossroads / Believe Me / Till The Sky Falls Down (Arctic Moon Remix) / To The Floor / Default (Dave 202 Remix) / Beautiful Days / Desire (Daniel Kandi’s Classic Mix) / Valente (Juventa Remix) / Blue Line (Original Mix) / Touchstone (Aly & Fila Remix) / Motorcycle - Around You

That may be technically correct Medley Style but it's crazy and not a viable solution, especially since these continous mixes can be as high as 50 tracks. -chancey

Release Event

Date: Is of the original broadcast (not of when it was recorded.) So for bootlegs that are replayed only the original date is to be entered as the release event.
This is counter to the definition of a Release Event, or of the Release Date. Release Events do not store performance, nor broadcast, dates - not any of the broadcast dates. Advanced Relationships do have date fields, and those properly should be used to store this data. Redefining REs for a special-case situation such as this makes that singular meaning of a release event far less useful - esp as these releases are indistinguishable (data-wise) from other releases. Also, this section (and much of the rest of the proposal) pretty much assumes that only bootlegs ever are bootlegs. I know that you say "almost always", not "always", but the rest of the text completely ignores those cases where the release is not a bootleg. BrianFreud 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Release Date: The ReleaseDate is the date in which a release was made available through some sort of distribution mechanism. For example, this may be via a retail store, being published as a free download on a website or distributed to industry insiders (in the case of promotional releases) amongst other mechanisms.

"distribution mechanism" does not qualify if it has to be official. A direct download or even a torrent I understand to be a valid distribution of a product (taking legality out for a moment - separate issue). MusicBrainz draws the line for release dates at the point that its an official product (so a physical CD - yes, a torrent that will never be sold made up by some fan - no.)

To complicate things further i'm going to chuck in "label intent" (the artist intent for labels), the only grey area that I can see is the fact that a given bootleg is not available from the official label (if it were it would be a different story.) But this doesn't exclusively mean that its against the copyright or intension of the label to freely distribute it. They may just want to avoid the bandwidth cost by letting others distribute the content through a different distribution mechanism.

If the official label gives it a catalog number, release date and intends to distribute it through means other than from directly from the label this should be enough to warrant a release event seeing as we have a label, catalog number, date, country and medium type.

A Continuous Mix is almost between a tradition bootleg (whatever that means) and an official release. This creates the grey area of discussion. -chancey

Well, it also has 'What a Release Date is not' 'A Performance Date'. It may not address broadcast dates, but it's really stretching that definition to make them fit in there as valid, due to the omission. As for Label Intent, I don't buy it.  :D The same is true of, for example, the day someone first posts a link to a torrent for a digitally released bootleg. I still wouldn't want to see each of those forum posts being used to justify that as now deserving a RE; it makes sense to me the way we currently have done it for bootlegs - only a RE if there actually was a physical (silver CD / vinyl / etc) release; the rest, in the bootleg world, just gets too crazy and far too cat-cornery, and quickly. BrianFreud 09:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The Problem

...It is clear that audio recorded from radio, TV, etc would be classified as Bootleg and sometimes the releases do fall into the official Live Bootleg Style - if so this should be used."
Live Bootleg Style applies to any bootleg. (There's a few instances of "live" still mixed into the text where they likely shouldn't be, but "This guideline applies to the titling of a bootleg release.", the examples, and the common understanding of the guideline all outweigh that nit.) Therefore, this sentence of the proposal essentially makes the proposal apparently meaningless. It applies to continuous mixes, which are claimed to be almost always bootlegs. It provides no guidance for non-bootleg releases of this type, only bootlegs - but this sentence states that LBS overrules this proposed guideline (and as I read it, entirely overrules it, not only overrules it when there is a LBS/ContMixStyle conflict) - so when would this guideline ever actually come into play? BrianFreud 01:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea of extending or adapting the Live Bootleg Style to fit what are a different type of releases. I don't agree with the generalisation of "My dog has 4 legs, your cat has 4 legs, therefore your cat is a dog." A well known radio show that has a dedicated label, official catalog numbers and is closer to a free download should not be generalised with a a guy recording a Bob Dylan concert with a tape player in this pocket just because both of these ends of the scale happen to both fall into the realm of "Live Bootleg". -chancey