is there a way to note that this release group is associated with this series? right now the relationship seems to be:
Box set release group --> Box set release --> Individual show release groups -> Individual show release series,
i’m unsure as to how the data model would work, but, as a user of the web interface, it’d make me happy if there was a link to the release series on the box set release group page
somewhat related: i fear i may have added too much cover art to the box set release, considering it seems to match the box art on the individual show releases
i guess i’m still unclear as to best practices/style guidelines regarding box sets, thanks for your patience with me as i learn the ropes
1 Like
Are you trying to add the Boxset to that RG series? Personally I just add it as another item in the series, then number it 72. That seems a neat solution to me. It still fits the description of the RG series contents.
Why 72? well, I have a sense of humour and like finding relevant numbers. 
And you can never have too much art. Especially on a big boxset like this. Nice work there. 
2 Likes
Ivan’s suggestion re. adding it and numbering is what I would do also.
If you really would prefer a new release group > series relationship/s (which doesn’t sound unreasonable?) you can make a ticket for it here: https://tickets.metabrainz.org/secure/Dashboard.jspa
As Ivan said - no such thing as too much art! Great job.
In this particular case it seems that the scans are the same source for the individual releases as for the box set? I wonder if there really is no difference between the packaging on the two.
@briaguya Please be certain to check this. I am in the process of cleaning up a historic mess with the Ozric Tentacles where someone used the art from individual CDs inside a boxset and failed to notice the barcodes were very different. I also have a HHGTTG boxset where the only difference between the contents of the box and the individually sold disks is a single line of text on the rears, but this is enough to make sure separate artwork is required. Remember - artwork is about identifying which product one has in hand.
1 Like
i added some raw/unedited box shots (including some showing the cd cases in the box) to the box set
i’m quite confident the images came from the box set, however, i think the images for the individual releases may have come from the box set as well
a bit of poking around the archived dead.net store leads me to believe the packaging is the same, as they continued to sell the entire series as the all the music edition after selling out of the fancy boxes, and the spines appear to be the same there, but i cannot confirm without going back in time and ordering an individual show from dead.net
1 Like
I took one release as an example: https://musicbrainz.org/release/1aa59646-7844-4dbd-acc6-6edb4603eb3d A Empire Pool gig.
Looking at Discogs they have barcodes for the separate releases. So the images can’t be the same as the separate release currently has images that are clearly “borrowed” from the boxset as they have no barcodes. Can’t even be certain of the booklets as boxsets and stand-alone releases often have many differences.
I’d be concerned about many of those separate ones. I have only looked at one Wembley Pool gig so far, but would not be surprised if the error is spread throughout the set.
1 Like
found an old ebay listing for that gig
it appears to have a barcode sticker over the shrinkwrap
1 Like
Now that is handy. Nice searching. Worth adding a note to some of the releases that the barcodes were on stickers to stop someone else deleting the legitimate artwork. (If it was me I’d add that Ebay image as proof).
I’m mainly thinking about an editor in a few years time finding these…
Edit: Have added a small note to the Empire Pool gig about where the barcode stickers are.
looks like the ebay seller has good sealed pics w/ the barcode for most/all? of them. i’m going to add them to all the individual releases as raw/unedited with a comment about the barcode being a sticker
2 Likes
Excellent idea. I noticed the Empire Gig didn’t have the barcode number at all, so that one has been added after comparing the image and Discogs. Looks like you are like me and like a bit of neat completeness. 
1 Like
alright, so i’ve got all the stickers in there, didn’t go through and type in all the barcodes though
when looking at the RG series, i noticed some of the RGs have 1972 instead of 2011 as their date. this is because of this soundboard entry that references an internet archive page for a soundboard recording (definitely not the dead.net version), and this other soundboard bootleg that does the same
i don’t think those should be part of the release group series, which brings me back to events
i’m thinking if every release group from the series is tied to a concert from the series, then the soundboards could just link to that same show, but not be part of the RG and mess up the RG series
1 Like
If the actual media was released in 2011, then that should be the dates of the releases. A lot of editors who don’t understand MB put in 1972 dates. Which is impossible for CDs.
Ah - I see what you mean for the source of the 1972 dates. Yeah, again that should not be happening and really the dates become blanks as we don’t know what date they were released. Certainly not on “digital media” in 1972. The MB hierarchy don’t even allow the argument “but my mate put it onto a cassette the next day”…
All of the recordings can get the dates of the concerts as we know they were recorded on that day.
Errr… wow! I just looked at the Live release groups of the Grateful Dead. I am amazed that they have got away with so many of those dates!!! I have had some very aggressive AEs lecture me about not doing that in Pink Floyd.
Don’t know how the Compliance Squad have never seen all that rule breaking in The Grateful Dead! 
so i think the plan is:
make events for each concert using the untitled live bootleg naming scheme
YYYY-MM-DD: Venue, City, State/Province, Country
create a tour for “Europe '72” that contains all the concert events
connect the box set to the tour, and each RG in the RG series to the individual shows
create bootleg release groups for the unknown/bootleg 1972 releases following the untitled live bootleg naming
1972-05-07: Bickershaw Festival, Wigan, England
bulk update the bootleg recordings to have “recorded at” for the venue and event
as for release dates on the bootlegs (all of the box set ones will be 2011 at this point), we have the internet archive page to work from. the addeddate is 2004, but that’s specific to the internet archive, the file had to exist before it was uploaded there.
did some digging, found a text file that says Set 2 Conversion and Editing 6/12/03, so we now know
date of recording: 1972-04-06
date of file creation: 2003-06-12
date added to internet archive: 2004-04-12
i think for digital bootlegs the date of file creation seems like the move, but i could be convinced otherwise
this is long and ended up becoming mostly a todo list for myself
1 Like
Events - haha… good luck with that. Worst side effect of that will be that AEs will delete the Places from the recordings. 
With the dates on the Releases - I would quietly leave those as they are. IMHO they are better than nothing. For now the Compliance Police haven’t seen them. And you can’t use the Internet Archive dates as they are clearly wrong as all those recordings are much older than that.
Keeping to the Empire Pool thread, this is the kind of thing I do to stay compliant to the guidelines: https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/2e4fb3a5-3e47-3e2a-bdd4-888944793e7c
Recordings get the real dates of the performance, and dates of the Releases are kept for when that version of that media appeared with dates cross referenced to other databases… With this example I could probably sneak in a Radio Broadcast to get an earlier date.
i’m suggesting the file creation date from the text file of notes that came with the .shn files that were uploaded to the internet archive
the IA “release” is just those files in streaming form, and those files were made 2003-06-12
but, if this release is meant to include all bootleg masters of the release, i think i’ll just remove the IA link and leave it as a placeholder without a release date.
then i’ll make another bootleg release that specifically refers to the files from the IA link, with a release date of file creation, under the same bootleg RG as the other
i do feel like live bootleg RGs should have the date of the performance as the earliest date though, maybe i’ll put the “my buddy got it all on tape and we listened to it on the drive to the next show” argument to the test and make some “unlabeled cassette” releases
They can be pretty strict around here with the guidelines. The Recording can get an exact date, but not the Release. Unless you can show some kind of proof - bit like Wikipedia’s rules. As this is all pre-internet it gets hard to prove.
You won’t get away with “it was a mates cassette”. I’ve tried that argument before
I like your logic of using the proof in the IA download notes. As I edit Pink Floyd live gigs they never appear on somewhere like that due to copyright. Meaning I end up with notes from torrent sites that I can’t link to, or dubious download sites. Instead I rely on the numerous fan created websites for dates. Along with official books.
This is why I focus on getting the dates into the recordings and comments.
Picard is getting edits to allow dates to be copied out from the recordings, which helps some choices when tagging.
1 Like
i decided to look at the baker’s dozen to try to get a sense of how best to handle this (date issues are less of a problem with day-of releases/livestreams) before getting into making Europe '72 events.
there is a box set RG that i linked to the tour using “tour in support of,” which doesn’t feel quite right but was the only RG <–> Event Series connection available
there is an RG series using the untitled live bootleg naming, which includes all the livephish releases
i haven’t found a way to link RG series <–> event series
also, under the first 5 nights of the RG series, there are charlie miller recordings
a lot of the recordings are linked to the event, but the only way to link an RG to an event is using performance of, which doesn’t really fit for live albums
the schema leaves a lot to be desired when dealing with live recordings, when i think “baker’s dozen” i’m not thinking about the sampler album, i’m not thinking about the box set, i’m thinking about the 13 night run
i think i’m gonna scribble out what i wish the schema was
Remember to make a ticket for what you want: Loading...
When people post at length on the forum but don’t make a ticket it really is wasted effort - it happens too often!
taking night 3 of the baker’s dozen as an example
when looking at the event page, the only way to tell that there are 3 releases out there of that show is to look at the “recording location for” list and see duplicates. The tracks then need lengthy disambiguations as these edits [1, 2, 3] show, and with more releases it could easily become a gigantic ambiguous list (like recordings on the artist page)
if we could connect more things, we could get
it looks like a lot of connections, but after thinking about it event pages growing to have releases/recordings tabs like artist pages do could be great
(haven’t made a ticket yet)
1 Like
