I’m unsure if this has been discussed/have a definitive answer: where there are multiple unofficial/bootleg releases of a live recording, should all these releases be in a single release group?
I purchased a copy of Bowie’s 1990 Tokyo performance, and have just added it but I didn’t know if this vinyl release should be a separate release group, or added to an existing release group (which is what I did as it made sense to me) and I then have merged any other releases of the same performance into a single group.
Also, what should that release group be called - I went with calling the release group according to the style guide for bootleg recordings - e.g. 1990‐05‐15: Tokyo Dome, Tokyo, Japan.
Does this need to be considered as part of Style Guidelines? It’s easy when there is an official release at some point - name the release group according to the earliest release of the recording(s); but when there have only been bootlegs is there anything else which would offer consistency?
Then separately there is a question of if different bootleg releases should have the same recordings/tracks? But that’s definitely a controversial subject.
1 Like
Yes, generally all bootlegs of the same gig go in the same Release Group. This also includes “official” releases.
Many bootlegs are reissues of other bootlegs, so recordings are often common.
Titles of the RG seem to vary. Sometimes a “well known” or “first” release gets the title. Or it uses the old bootleg style “1990‐05‐15: Tokyo Dome, Tokyo, Japan.”
(I work on a LOT of bootlegs - especially Pink Floyd)
5 Likes
What’s controversial? The guideline seems pretty clear: if it’s from the same audio source it can be the same recording (barring other editing), if not it needs a new recording. Of course, figuring out if it’s the same source might be challenging, which I’ve sometimes experienced.
2 Likes
I think the only controversy I have seen is how much crowd noise can be ignored.
My own personal view\guideline on Recording merges:
-
If a band member is talking at the end of the track, but on a different bootleg that chat is moved to the start of the following track. Then I’d treat them as different recordings.
-
If it is moving the audience noise around then I am more likely to merge as the same recording. (though can depend on what the audience are doing)
-
Speed adjusted - that is mastering, so would be merged.
-
Different sources usually end up with different lengths.
-
If different audience sources, I’ll keep them apart (but same Release Group)
-
If it is different sources to someone recording a radio gig (i.e. Peel Sessions) - then I’ll merge them as it is the same Radio source.
-
Similar if a radio presenter is on one recording, but not on another then I treat them as separate recordings.
-
If there is a doubt, and any major length difference, I will not merge it.
5 Likes
Audience noise and radio sources are both ones I’ve encountered and would agree. On the Tom Lehrer recordings, sometimes just edits to the clapping and some silence on either end could make up to 30 seconds difference. If there was any change to the speed as well it was subtle.
1 Like
[quote="psychoadept, post:3, topic:734617”]
What’s controversial?
[/quote]
Okay maybe less controversial…