Adding entries as bootleg releases? has been adding a ton of releases from as bootlegs. I’m not sure if the files that are being linked are from another release source or not. Is it cool to link to bootleg files from MB or not? Not sure if the add date there is the release date or if release date should be left blank. The editor keeps adding the concert date as the release date, which I know is wrong. Is there already some sort of precedence for this type of add?

1 Like

My input :slight_smile:

  • I think these kinds of live bootleg recordings are great data.
  • If the link is definitely a pirate link/illegal source it’s a no (based on MB guidelines, not my preference). Great to have the true source link in the edit note though imo.
  • Concert date is not the release date - it can be the original date the bootleg/file/tape is shared but that information is usually lost.

“Concert date is not the release date - it can be the original date the bootleg/file/tape is shared but that information is usually lost.”

Any lost information is a waste. The “release date” of a bootleg is virtually irrelevant and it is worth having the concert date as the release date so at least there is some amount of date information associated with the bootleg for Picard.

@tigerman: I have not been adding releases from I have been adding Grateful Dead bootlegs that are in the public domain per the Dead’s taping policy, i.e., ones that can actually be downloaded from e.g., Lossless Legs (which only allows for trading of permitted bootlegs same as only allowing downloads of permitted bootlegs). It does not appear that either of you really have any idea how Grateful Dead bootlegs actually work so it seems that you should look into how e.g., the etree number is actually a relevant and useful number to have in MB DB rather than just rejecting it out of hand.

And if the etree number isn’t a relevant catalog number then why is etree a listed option?

We already have a huge number of bootlegs and there is a standard way of doing things.

Some bootlegs have names, and the name is used instead of the date and location in the Release title.

Use the disambiguration on the recordings for the concert date. Put in something like (live, 1974-03-15: Location) as seen on those examples.

(There are scripts to speed that up if you don’t already have one)

Adding the concert date as a release date will just lead to it being removed by a different editor. I do kinda agree with you that there needs to be somewhere better to record this in the database, but Release Date isn’t the place. (Probably a ticket somewhere on it)

I am not a Grateful Dead collector, so can’t really comment on etree, but am a big bootleg collector\editor. At the very least etree is Annotation data. I can see the logic of it being in Release annotation, but some of this needs to be kinda regulated to fit in with the many other different bootlegs already here.

A quick look at what etree is and I can’t really see the harm in it being used as a catalogue number as that is kinda what it is. Just not an official Label so fails on that side. I don’t set the rules so can see why the Guideline writers will probably go against it.

1 Like

Well,“standard way of doing things” in the sense of “See LiveBootlegStyle for an attempt to structure the capture of this information with the current MusicBrainz database structure.” In other words, in my “attempt to structure the capture of this information with the current MusicBrainz database structure” I found etree as an issuer of catalog numbers and tagged the releases that way.


Frankly, not using the etree number as a taxonomic/catalog number in this fashion is throwing away useful information as to which bootleg is being entered…and any other effort to categorize Dead shows would be reinventing the etree wheel.

1 Like

Ah, I thought it was just a kind of sharing site. I don’t see a problem with using them as a label. The other option would be a series (as an aside).

Every release date that Picard provides is a release date, not a recording or a concert date. Putting a different number in just to fill that gap is worse than an empty space. It’s not expected data from the system. I’m not saying that I don’t understand your point and why you would tag like this, but it doesn’t fit the database. I assume it’s partly why the bootleg naming format was decided to have the date at the start of the title?

For stuff like Grateful Dead I don’t think this applies fyi :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

The question in my mind is whether etree functions more like a label, or like a store. An Amazon ASIN is also useful information, but we add it as a secondary link; it’s not a primary identifier of a release. Adding an etree URL to the external links section (as a discographic entry? Or else get it whitelisted for the “other databases” section?) would capture that information also.


Because any editor can create a label. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s best practice (or even correct).


The way I understand it, the etree sorting number is a key piece of information that some people would want to browse releases by? Label or series would let people do that.

I don’t really care personally… I have other MB hills that I die on :innocent:

If we want to be ‘correct’ my question is, did etree ‘release’ these or are they just attaching a sorting system? If it’s the second then a series would be great. It would also allow for multiple sorting systems (if ever applicable) to be attached to the same release/bootleg.

@iconoclasthero, you’re doing the work so that’s key… we’re just discussing how it best can fit into the schema. Better to chat now rather than 10k releases in :slight_smile:

1 Like
  1. I like that you are adding these releases. That is not the issue.
  2. Release dates are not concert dates. You added digital medium as being released in 1970.
  3. There maybe a script to pull the date from the name for Picard if that’s what you want. I’m not great a Picard scripting beyond the basics.
  4. The label you add is a share site. To me, that’d be no different than adding iTunes as the label and the Apple ID as the cat #, which is also not allowed.

Oh, and I meant to add that etree and number definitely should be added in the annotation. No issue with that whatsoever.

BTW, I started this topic, not as a discouragement to you. But to figure out the best way to do it. You’re not the first person to link to for bootlegs. Etree, seems to be the main place, so I can see why you’d want that information. What is etree? Is it only for Grateful Dead music or any bootlegs?

1 Like

The concert dates and the etree numbers are editor curated data.
If such data has to be moved from fields in the database then it would be a very good idea for it to be moved to Annotation with a standardised header. This would facilitate use of the valuable data.

What happened previously to editor curated data in the case of WP section links was that the data was deleted AIUI.
If this is what did happen then it demonstrated a serious failing in MusicBrainz’s understanding of both the value of editor curated data and also of what is necessary to maintain involvement by editors over long periods.

1 Like

The performance date, if known, can and should at minimum be set on the performance and (if the venue is known) recorded at relations for bootleg recordings.

I was trying not to confuse the original points by going into tangents about editing recording dates and locations.