Disambiguation for live DJ-mixes

MusicBrainz Style
, ,
1

For live recordings the guidelines say to use the following disambiguation format:

live, YYYY-MM-DD: Venue, City, State/Province, Country

For DJ-mixes I couldn’t find a guideline, but the convention is to use:

part of “Release-name” DJ-mix

What should we use for live DJ-mixes?

On the one hand I believe just using the (complete) live disambiguation is sufficient to distinguish the recording from others as it’s unlikely that a DJ-mixer and the original artist both perform the same song at the same venue at the same time, on the other hand just the live disambiguation makes it sound like it’s the original artist’s live performance.

So I guess a combination would be better, like:

live DJ-mix, YYYY-MM-DD: Venue, City, State/Province, Country

or

part of live “Release-name” DJ-mix

or

part of “Release-name” live DJ-mix

or

part of live DJ-mix, YYYY-MM-DD: Venue, City, State/Province, Country

I have also seen:

live, YYYY-MM-DD: Release-name, Venue, City, State/Province, Country

or even

part of “Release name” DJ-mix, live, YYYY-MM-DD: Venue, City, State/Province, Country

What do you think? Or am I overthinking this? Apparently this is only relevant for about 8.800 recordings anyway.

1 Like
2

Personally I think the second or third is the neatest. Assuming most of these DJ Mixes have a title it is cleaner with less text. It seems silly to me when a title or disambiguation goes on and on and on attempting to match a cookie cutter pattern.

I assume this is to help the recordings stand out and stop being merged with “normal” versions of the track.

Dates and Places should end up in the Recording Relationship. I am a fan of “everything in its right place”. As this is a database then a computer should be able to process the data in a clear way. Disambiguation fields are for humans only.

2 Likes
3

Just be aware that some DJ-mixes have looong titles, so one of the other options might actually be shorter in reality.

But I also lean towards option 2.

1 Like
4

Long titles? Well, if that is what they have called it, then that is the name they should be given. :slight_smile:

It makes more sense to use the Given Name that the Artist came up with than some artificial construct made up by a database geek. The Musician needs to find the music. The Fan needs to find the music. The Noobie attempting to add their first Release to the database needs to find it.

These people are more likely going be armed with the titles than the dates and locations.

Seems to me more logical to have the data that is available to the user.

And it isn’t a “long” title until it gets close to this one: Release group “The Boy Bands Have Won” by Chumbawamba - MusicBrainz

1 Like
5

BTW - why don’t you just make your list of choices a POLL? Then you’ll get more replies from those people who don’t like talking

1 Like
6

But nobody is looking up music by searching for the release name in the disambiguation field.

I was just referring to your “cleaner with less text” comment, saying that your chosen option might not usually be the one with the least text.

Too many too similar options - I might make one once we rule some out.

Or maybe let’s start with:

Should a live DJ-mix recording’s disambiguation follow:

  • the live disambiguations guideline
  • the live disambiguations guideline + add “Dj-mix” in there somewhere
  • the DJ-mix disambiguation convention
  • the DJ-mix disambiguation convention + add “live” in there somewhere
0 voters
7

I am thinking about when I am adding a Release. After putting in the track names I then have to associate to the actual recordings already in the database. This is when I’d find a verbose disambiguation the most useful.

Your poll has confused me so I can’t vote as I don’t know what the guidelines or conventions are. The list of examples made sense to me. But I only have a few dozen of these releases so am probably not the best person to be responding

8

I mentioned them in the first post:

1 Like