Replying to this section of your moved post here since it’s about this guideline specifically. As I said, I want to see what problems this causes or does not cause first. If we find out it’s actually problematic in more ways than “a bunch of existing data needs correcting”, then I’ll happily open a second discussion to amend this further. For what it is worth, this guideline has seen more discussion than many (a lot of relatively small changes, and this is a relatively small change, are mostly done as “someone proposes it, @reosarevok says that seems sensible, guideline gets changed”).
Having bootlegs look like legitimate artist releases, or cluttering up artist discography pages, has never sat right with me. It’s also abusable by artists (getting attention via artists with big audiences).
That search for remix bootlegs as currently credited is a great example. I want to pick some examples, but the thought of any of them being on the OG artist pages irks me
It’s cool that, for instance, someone did something cool with a Daft Punk recording, but what’s Daft Punk got to do with the release?
Note: I use a userscript to display all releases, including promo and bootlegs, which is very useful for me. I just don’t think these qualify even if hidden by default.
One thing I realised is potentially missing from the current guideline is how to credit bootleg remix compilations/albums/EPs, with multiple remixers? Credit to ‘various artists’?
I don’t believe the guideline says to set bootleg releases to ‘official’?
Not explicitly, but Secret Chiefs 3: The Kid MarsCat Remixes is linked as an example and is set to official despite being described as unauthorized in the guideline. I do agree that this should also be stated more clearly.
Some (like you) think it’s clutter, and some people would like to find unauthorized remixes of an artist they like. It’s probably technically doable to modify your userscript to hide bootlegs with the secondary type for remixes but show the rest, in case you want to see live bootlegs or whatever.
According to their Bandcamp, that release is a grey area. They call it “semi-official”. I think ‘unsanctioned’ is probably the right term, as used in the guidelines. But maybe the example should be swapped out for one that’s more clearly a bootleg? Or maybe it’s a good example exactly because it’s kinda sanctioned, but the release still has nothing to do with the original artist? @derat might have thoughts
Apart from that the guideline says “Remixes and mashups should generally follow the normal guidelines, with the below exceptions.” Since there’s no exceptions stated re. bootleg status I think it should be clear? (apart from that example being tricky)
If it’s indeed correct to credit the release to Kid MarsCat, then “official” seems like the appropriate status. She released it herself on Bandcamp and it’s included in her discography at kidmarscat.bandcamp.com. That feels official to me.
I interpret the “semi-official” in her album text as referring to the remixes themselves rather than to the release. The original artist praised the remixes in a Facebook post, so they clearly think they’re cool, but I wouldn’t say that makes the release “semi-official” (regardless of to whom it’s credited).
I’d be very supportive of a simpler example. This one seems overly confusing, since both Kid MarsCat and Secret Chiefs 3 use multiple aliases when releasing music.
My problem with distinguishing between “official” and “unofficial” remixes is that you generally can’t tell if something is authorized, leading to basically 99% of remix tracks getting marked as “bootleg” and hidden from discography pages.
Official remixes are usually released by the same record label as the original artist or released by the remixed artist themselves. It can be a bit tricky to figure out with internet based releases, but usually, this shouldn’t be that hard.
I also don’t really like the idea of differentiating between unofficial remixes and official remixes with the Bootleg status. there’s a fair amount of gray area (especially in the areas I’ve worked in), and it would hide all unofficial remixes from both the remixed and remixers page. as someone said above, the worst of both worlds.
also, if it were simply a matter of “there’s a lot to fix now”, that would be the case whichever way we go. many of the remix albums I’ve been adding and seeing added by others would have to be checked and updated. granted, I may have missed some unofficial remixes listed as bootlegs, since they’re pretty well hidden sometimes…
Right, I think I’ve gotten the semantics mixed up here. I made it confusing by using the word ‘bootleg’, which has been avoided nicely in the guidelines (“…without any participation from the credited artist…”
My issue was with seeing releases without participation from the credited artist in that artists main discography.
I do think that someone releasing their own remix probably isn’t really a ‘bootleg’… we don’t set releases with unauthorized samples etc to bootleg do we?
But I’m not very active in this area so I will leave it to the rest of you to hash out if the guidelines need clarification in this respect. Just wanted to apologise for the confusion