Concert video recordings, bootlegs, and rips, oh my

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007fe325330c60>

It is common for concerts to get recorded on video (often unauthorized: bootlegs) and the video to be put up on e.g. YouTube.

Assume for simplicity there is no DVD or anything like that, the uploaded video is the only thing there is. How should such a thing be represented on MusicBrainz?

1a) Stand-alone recording? What about the title of such a recording? Should we apply multi-title-style and list the entire setlist in the title (“Song A / Song B / Song C …”)?
1b) A release with a digital medium with one track?
1c) A release with a digital medium with one track for each song performed?
1d) It should not be added to MusicBrainz?

Next, let’s say someone rips the audio from such a video, quite probably splits it into multiple tracks, and distributes it on file sharing networks, blogs, or such. What should we do with such a thing?

2a) Add a release (bootleg) with a digital medium with one track per file.
2b) It should not be added to MusicBrainz?

Personally I’m leaning to 1a (if only because that seems to be the majority opinion when looking through the forums and it’s good if people do the same), and 2b (if we know the primary source, we do not need to add a simple bootleg rip separately. With sensible exceptions if the rip is somehow very “release-like” (re-edited, remastered, has “bonus tracks”, has artwork…).
But I’m still wondering what would be the best practice for naming a stand-alone recording that is a whole concert.

Earlier discussions:




1 Like

I think an SAR is appropriate for a youtube video like this.

We have a relevant style guideline for how the titles of bootleg recordings of concerts should be entered. It should apply in this case.

You can enter the concert itself and the concert setlist as an event and link that to the recording via the video shot at relationship, as well as linking the recording to all relevant works with the appropriate ordering.

I think a bootleg release could be added for this.

The split-out recordings should be linked to the full-length video recording, but I’m not sure if we really have an appropriate relationship type for this. “Compilation” is close but the wording suggests that the compilation recording was created by taking individual recordings and combining them, not the other way around. And while the description of the “edit” relationship appears literally correct it does not seem like it is really meant for this case.

5 Likes

I am sure I have seen this around. And you seem to have the right kind of solutions. I edit a lot of bootlegs and gigs and would do something like the following based on my understanding of the guidelines.

The initial gig is a “Live” “Bootleg” “Release” “Single track”. It could then get linked to all the “works” you hear performed, but this can be pretty tricky to listen to and recognise all the tracks. Bonus points for going into the Recording and then setting these in the correct order.

I would likely name the track as the gig itself as putting all the different recordings into the track name would be a bit to messy to handle.

Then the bootleg that has been split and uploaded to the torrents is a “live” “bootleg” “Multiple Tracks” “Release”. It can sit in the same Release Group without troubles. This time the tracks get named fully.

It would not be a compilation as all gigs are collections of previous tracks, but these will be a “new” performance.

It would make sense to use a “part of” relationship between the multiple track Recordings and the full gig Recording. (Or am I just the kind of mad completest who does things like that? :crazy_face: )

In both cases the Annotation is very handy for leaving details to explain what these are.

1 Like

It certainly would, except there is no such thing as a “part of” recording-recording relationship (full list of such relations).

I get my database relationships tangled when typing from top of my head. :upside_down_face:

I think I got myself confused between “Edit of Recording” and listing multiple Works in order for a single recording.

(I thought I had found a better way before to say that Recording “A” is made of Recording “B” + Recording “C”… if I find what I did, I’ll come back and add it to this post)

The “compilation” relation is closest but the description of this relationship strongly suggests the longer recording is made up by combining shorter “original” recordings.

In the absense of a better fit I’d probably still use this relationship for the case where the shorter recordings were made by slicing up a longer “original”, noting this discrepency in the annotation. If you don’t have prior knowledge of the provenance of each recording in many cases it may be impossible to know the difference.

@draconx please don’t use “compilation” for live concerts. Unless the release is a compilation of previously released concert recordings it goes against the general meaning of “compilation” as per guidelines.

https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group/Type#Compilation

A compilation, for the purposes of the MusicBrainz database, covers the following types of releases:

* a collection of recordings from various old sources (not necessarily released) combined together. For example a “best of”, retrospective or rarities type release.

  • a various artists song collection, usually based on a general theme (“Songs for Lovers”), a particular time period (“Hits of 1998”), or some other kind of grouping (“Songs From the Movies”, the “Café del Mar” series, etc).

edit: Please ignore my confusion :confused:

The compilation @draconx is taking about is different from the compilation release type. Follow the link and you will see.

1 Like

Sorry, I get lost in database language as I live with the music too much. I now kinda see what is on that page. Sorry for the confusion @draconx

1 Like

A better name for it wouldn’t hurt, to avoid confusion and clarify the directionality. I haven’t come up with a good one yet, though.