Talk:Style/Specific types of releases/Live bootlegs

From MusicBrainz Wiki
< Talk:Style‎ | Specific types of releases
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Use with studio sessions

I don't think the [Pachyderm Studio studio session] has a place here. IMO, this styleguide covers *live* bootleg style (and this is a studio dates). If people want, in some very specific cases, to use this styleguide for a specific studio set, fair enough. But I'm radically opposed to making this the rule for all bootlegs - and the impact on the database would be completely different. See below for similar considerations about dates range. Please DeleteWhenCooked. -- dmppanda 12:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know that I see a negative impact on the database for this. Though it mostly applies to studio sessions, I can think of certain (rare) examples where a concert might span two dates - say any of the Woodstock revivals, etc, where the concert is 24 hours a day, spanning the course of 2+ days? A given performance could easily begin on one date and end on another. I see this as applying to a very small number of bootlegs, and as I say, thus don't see the major impact you imagine. As this is currently the only bootleg style guide, some thought did go into possibly separating it into a separate class of bootleg, but the field for non-pirate/counterfeit, non-live bootlegs is sufficiently small as to not seem to justify a separate standard, especially as this really is the only distinction required to cover these. Please DeleteWhenCooked. -- BrianFreud
    • Brian, the problem is a terminology question: please see ReleaseStatus for a definition of what is a bootleg in MusicBrainz. I'll try to have this sorted out on the style MailingList. -- dmppanda 09:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
    In my experience, such sessions are currently titled as per this guideline. they are a grey area, really - a 'session' can be effectively a live performance minus an audience (which AFAIK doesn't make it any less 'live') (eg 2004-11-18: Peel Session, Maida Vale Studios, London, UK ), or simply a document of recording sessions of an album (eg Thirty Days: The Ultimate Get Back Sessions Collection (disc 12) ). i think, unless released officially (like live albums), both should fall under this style guideline. -- Gecks
    • Two issues with the Peel Sessions in particular. 1. The "live" sessions are often not broadcast live at all, and may not be broadcast on the radio for weeks or months after the recording date. In which case, which date goes in the title? 2. Many Peel Sessions have been released officially (by Strange Fruit). Do we need to include the title and date of the sessions for these too? -- ArtySmokes
      • On the first, I would suggest the actual recording date, not the broadcast date. (The same is true for others - see Top of the Pops, almost anything MTV or VH1, most MuchMusic/SNL/CBC/etc.) On the second, you answer yourself in the question. It's official, not bootleg, so it wouldn't be covered by this styleguide. (Just as we name official Unplugged releases with the official release title, but bootleg ones with LBS style). -- BrianSchweitzer 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Use with radio station recordings

Radio stations? Some bootleg concerts are rips from radio broadcasts and tend to have the station name in the title. How do these fit in an unnamed bootleg style next to the venue/location info? A brief IRC discussion led to "put the radio station in the annotation instead". I have nothing against that, nor do I have anything against having it in the title since usually there's a radio announcer included in the tracks at some point. I'm thinking we'll need to mention how to handle radio stations above, though. --HairMetalAddict

  • IMO the radio station/show is the 'event', and as with TV shows, or Festivals, it should be the highest priority in the location details. Eg: 'YYYY-MM-DD: Event Name, City, Country' or whatever. --Gecks


How do we deal with releases that are (concert) registrations from one concert, but with a bonus track from another concert on another date? e.g. 2002-05-02: Ahoy, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (disc 2) --Zout

  • I'd suggest exactly as it is done in this example. As with every kind of "bonus" stuff on a release, those don't influence the main properties of the release. In case, it is a mixture of a lot of unrelated live tracks from different concerts, then this guideline shouldn't be applied at all. Any objections? I added this as an explanation to the text above. --Fuchs
    • This is fine. But we need examples for all cases described. I've provided 4, others please add some more ;) --Zout What about multiple-disc bootleg releases that have a well-known title, but different discs are from different dates and venues, such as I Like Candy (disc 1) and I Like Candy (disc 2)? It was "recorded live at the Philipshalle, Dusseldorf, Germany on the 19th December 1998 [- the Rockpalast Christmas Special]. Disc 2 tracks 3-11 recorded live at the Leverkussener Jazztage with Candy Dulfer's Funky Stuff, The Forum, Leverkussen, Germany on the 18th October 1996." (link). --chickenmcnoodle
      • This has been answered in the first sentence under Additional Notes. --Fuchs
        • What about, though, such sets where each disc(s) are released as separate entities, but with consecutive disc numbers? I can think of at least one such example. Ought these to be treated as separate entities (as they are sold), or as a single set (as it is numbered)? -- BrianFreud

My only issue with this all is regarding the "release date" field. I realise that the recording date is in the title, so the information exists in the database. However, for those who wish to tag using these data, having the "year" field blank is frustrating. I'm not certain what is the best way to handle this, as I understand the distinction between a proper "release date" and the date of a bootleg's recording. --leebier

  • But that's the reason for this proposal. Before we had no way (except the annotation) to store the date on named live bootlegs, now we have it in the title field, so in the tags as well. It's not that hard to fix the tags yourself later, when you want the recording year in the release date field. --Fuchs
    • Fair enough. Again, the rationale here makes sense, and I understand my issue is unrelated to the style change. Was just figuing it was a good time to mention the issue as I have run across a few people who are also frustrated by this, and since the style is open for discussion, why not also throw it into the pot. No biggie. --leebier

I agree with leebier, that some information is better than none... I'm not suggesting this, but one alternative would be to have an MB "release date" and an MB "performance date" and have the TAG YEAR default to the latter of the two. I realize this would require probably a new VIEW and definitelty an entirely new field, however I'm just waxing possibilities, and I think that this would address his issue... Also (and I haven't really thought this out) providing a "performance date" field would allow for different sorting, at least of "Live" and could possibly be even sorted into the method of naming and entering Live Bootlegs, such that MB requests the date, the "title" and the venue and concatenates it's own title based on such, but only after the date has also been indexed into its own field... Just musing at midnight.... CC --Chuck__Carmody

I think this page should be more specific in saying that the performance date should NOT be used in the release date field. Release dates are for the organised distribtion of a release, not the point where it was commited to tape. It would be nice to have this in writing somewhere on the wiki. --Gecks

  • Agreed. I'm often confusing newly-added bootlegs with official albums because people use the date field for the recording date. If people didn't constantly add release events to unpressed bootlegs, I'd be able to avoid them a lot more easily. ;) --ArtySmokes
    • I think it's pretty well understood that that is incorrect by editors who've been around even a short while - it seems to be new editors who mostly make that mistake. However, the "This leads to wrong data." could perhaps be clarified to actually state that this is incorrect, rather than just implying it. -- BrianSchweitzer 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel that [State, ] should be optional. What's the reasoning behind that? --BrianG

  • People in most countries do not mention states, because the country is so small it's clear what city is meant ;) --Zout
    • True but it says State/Province is to further distinguish cities with identical names (such as Pasadena, TX in Texas vs Pasadena, CA in California) - IMO state should be required for all USA locations, to keep things consistant. --Gecks Ah ok, I was thinking [State, ]USA. and I agree with Gecks, it should be required for all USA locations via the abbreviations. --BrianG
      • There's one snag to the this; it breaks AbbreviationStyle which should be followed (or modified slightly) for the same arguements that went into creating it. Not everyone will know what the abbreviations means. -- WolfSong 11:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
        • well theres only 50, and they're used every day by millions of people all over the world since who knows how long. I don't see how it breaks AbbreviationStyle, which doesn't even mention anything about locations or state abbreviations --BrianG
          • But it does say "Abbreviations should generally be expanded, particularly in ExtraTitleInformation." and that's what we're talking about. -- WolfSong 19:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I don't see anything in ExtraTitleInformationStyle regarding locations, LiveBootlegStyle, UntitledBootlegStyle. ExtraTitleInformationStyle is written in reference to the information in parenthesis after a song or album title. example: --BrianG
              • That's not what it's saying. It's not referring to the document itself, it refers to any information that would be considered extra title information. -- WolfSong 21:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
                • Sure it is. The first line of the article say "Additional information on a Release or Track that is not part of its MainTitle (but required to make it distinguishable from different releases or tracks with the same MainTitle) must be entered in parentheses after the MainTitle." and all examples and references are regarding the information in parentheses. Also I'd like to point out that that article is marked as being unclear. The page marked as clarification also makes only reference to the data in parenthesis as Extra Title Information. We're discussing state abbreviations in LiveBootlegStyle not state abbreviations in Extra Title Information. --BrianG
                  • I agree completely that states ought to be abbreviated. I would suggest, however, that Canada also be added to the USA mention by Gecks above. It's just as normal to see "ON" as to see "NY" - and would be just as redundant to expand, say, "BC" to "British Columbia" as it would be to expand "ND" into "North Dakota". -- BrianSchweitzer 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

How should releases which were performed on the same date and venue, but at different times of the day, be distinguished? For example, the Van der Graaf Generator performance and bootleg for this and this. --Nasir

BrianFreud suggested: "If the bootleg covers a range of continuous dates and a single date cannot be specified, such as a recording session spanning several consecutive dates, the date must be formated as YYY1-M1-D1 to YYY2-M2-D2"

  • I have multiple issues here: * this styleguide shouldn't apply to just all bootlegs in the database, and this is what the previous sentence implies * I fail to see the point in adding recording dates to non-live bootlegs, especially if they were recorded over a period of time. Just as for legit records, the ReleaseAnnotation is fine for that... * I question the legitimacy of "digital-only" live bootlegs covering several dates (IMO, they are likely to be scenes compilations of different complete live bootlegs) -- dmppanda 12:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
    • dmppanda, try to think of it this way - you get a band who rents a studio for 5 days. They go in, record, record, record, repeatedly go back and tape over themselves so they don't have to keep buying new reels (1 reel in 1989 = ~$50 USD, kinda pricy for a lot of bands once you also add in studio fees), and essentially, you get eventual stuio sessions where even the band can't say when something was recorded. They may remember doing song X first, and song Y last, but have no clue themselves as to the middle. Or perhaps (more the Beatles example) a studio reel is "released", and day by day is known, but the boot is untitled and covers the span of several days of recording, with track annotations giving the particular day/time for each recording. -- BrianFreud 2007-04-23T12:22:03EST
      • This is still a very specific case(s) you're describing here. I think you should think of bootlegs in a "larger" way than just 2007-intarweb-leaked-flac-reel. My point was and is: I don't want such a style to be applied to *all* bootlegs (which is what seemed implied by your note) (a lot of them just don't match your scenario(s): unofficial releases of otherwise legit records, unofficial compilations, with or without unissued takes - and these shouldn't be covered by that IMHO). So, I'm not inherently opposed to your suggestion, but it needs to be clearly delimited. Maybe it will look like I'm nitpicking, but IMO guidelines have to be clearly formulated. Your initial wording (read it again above) is IMHO not acceptable as it... Sorry to be so anal about this :-). -- dmppanda 16:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I tried to specify that most of the examples you cite wouldn't be covered by using the word "consecutive". Please let me know if you can think of a better way to describe it. -- BrianFreud
          • As stated above, problem is in the definition of what a bootleg is: see ReleaseStatus. We need to either change that or clearly delimitate what this styleguide applies to. -- dmppanda 09:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
            • Agreed - currently, the definition you linked you specifies "unofficial live recordings"; this then leaves unsanctioned recordings of rehearsal recordings, studio demos, and soundcheck recordings in an undefined state. -- BrianFreud

    I share dmpanda's issues here. I don't want multiple recording dates added to all bootlegs. We don't list multiple dates for the recording of official studio albums, except in annotations when it seems useful/interesting, so why complicate things here? --ArtySmokes

    • Because official releases only typically have a single album with a specific name. (Multiple self-titled releases aside...). (We list *no* recording dates for official releases, btw.) On the other hand, it is very possible to have one band record in the same location multiple times. The different bootlegs of those studio sessions then becomes impossible to distinguish if you don't include the date to identify the session. I really, though, don't see how a bootleg of a studio session is more comparable to an official release than a bootlegged show, so I consider the "complicating things" argument rather moot. -- BrianSchweitzer 06:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

We ought to add something here for different sets/shows played on the same date. It's a problem I ran in to with Nirvana. I see it also with the Grateful Dead - I like the solution that seems to be in use there. (Disc #; Set #) -- BrianSchweitzer 04:58, 01 June 2007 (UTC)

For anyone interested in LiveBootlegStyle, I've set up a new page for tracking official "bootlegs" - please take a look and help add to the list at OfficialConcertStyle. -- BrianSchweitzer 04:58, 01 June 2007 (UTC)

It says above that "The title of live bootleg that already has a distinct name can be extended with date etc." (Note the emphasis). If this guideline is to become a stronger rule, can this sentence be changed to say "should" rather than "can"? Currently the expansion of titled bootlegs seems optional, which has led to confusion and arguments about semantics in some edits. Either the title should be expanded, or should not be expanded. (My personal taste is to include full details of venues, countries etc in the annotation rather than the title, but the consensus seems to be shifting away from this). Clarification or comments would help here. -- ArtySmokes

  • I would agree, regarding this entire style, as well as LiveTrackStyle, I know I'm more hoping that LocationProposal can be accomplished, thus essentially making these two styles unneeded. LocationProposal just seems such a cleaner way to accomplish this, without some of the issues with this style, such as the mixed title/info you mention. Somehow, though, I don't think anything anyone does could ever get LBS or LTS past a veto in an RFC... Just far too many people who dislike this style. -- BrianSchweitzer 11:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We should mention what happens with multiple-disc bootlegs. Some users seem to be confused about them. Examples of current usage: -- BogdanB

  • "1994-01-01: The First Concert: Nowhere, USA (disc 1)" and "1994-01-01: The First Concert: Nowhere, USA (disc 2)"
  • "1994-02-01: The Second Concert: Somewhere, USA (disc 1: Morning)" and "1994-02-01: The Second Concert: Somewhere, USA (disc 1: Evening & Encore)"
  • "The First Festival: Elsewhere, USA (disc 1: 1994-02-01: Day One)" and "The First Festival: Elsewhere, USA (disc 2: 1994-03-02: Day Two)"
  • "The First Tour (disc 1: 1994-04-01: Beginnings: Somewhere, USA)" and "The First Tour (disc 2: 1994-04-02: Endings: Somewhere Else, USA)"
  • No one rule can cover such cases, but I think they fall into 3 different situations, each an interpretation of Disc Number style and other official styles, mixing in LBS. I think it was Gecks who had originally suggested these solutions while we discussed it (at length) in the Nirvana situations. * Most common: both discs are for the same date & show. I'd suggest using the: ** "1994-01-01: The First Concert: Nowhere, USA (disc 1)" ** "1994-01-01: The First Concert: Nowhere, USA (disc 2)" ** ie: standard LiveBootlegStyle, with the (disc #) appended, just as with any normal 2+ disc set. * Multi-disc sets with multiple shows in the set. (These almost universally have a set title; any solution for untitled sets that have multiple dates?) ** The First Festival: Elsewhere, USA (disc 1: 1994-02-01: Day One) ** The First Festival: Elsewhere, USA (disc 2: 1994-03-02: Day Two) ** or ** The First Festival (disc 1: 1994-02-01: Day One: Elsewhere, USA) ** The First Festival (disc 2: 1994-03-02: Day Two: Somewhere, Canada) ** ie: Set title, then location, using LBS, if common to all discs, then DiscNumberStyle and DiscTitleStyle, moving the location into the DiscTitleStyle (using LBS) if it is not common to all discs. * The last case would be multi-disc sets which pull tracks from a variety of shows. This would involve the same judgement call as normal single disc bootlegs, either including or excluding the info just as would be done when considering if a single disc bootleg included one show plus filler, or was entirely what could be called a live compilation bootleg, using either of the above two styles in the former case, and using only the bootleg set's title in the latter case. -- BrianSchweitzer 16:12, 08 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat unique but with rise of music related cruises, something should be mentioned about those. I have added a bunch over the years and it would seem not exactly as has been suggested here. Using previously preference under Use with radio station recordings, I would recommend a format of YYYY-MM-DD: [Event], Venue, Vessel, e.g. 2008-01-21: The Rock Boat VIII, Dynasty Lounge, Carnival Imagination for this-- jdc0730

  • There are going to instances as well where the show is "named", like "Finale", "Alumni Show, "Songwriter's Panel", etc. Perhaps YYYY-MM-DD: [Event/Festival], [Show Name], Venue, Vessel -- jdc0730