How a name of this release should be added?

[Libra]

Video link

Is it:

• “Les Miserable”
• “One Man Les Miserable”
• “One Man Les Miserable LIVE STREAM”
• “One Man Les Miserable LIVE STREAM: FULL SHOW”

Which one and why?

[IvanDobsky]

@Libra

• “One Man Les Miserable LIVE STREAM: FULL SHOW”

Cos that is the name on the video… It is what the artist has chosen to title the recording. But I don’t add many YouTube vids.

He needs a bigger hat. If I watched that video I’d be waiting for that tiny hat to fall off. Ah-HA - now I click on the vid I see he is a man of many hats, and wigs. That is a proper performance. You have to get your wigs right for something like this.

[Libra]

I always add full original video names as aliases and even started to mark this my practice with appropriate tag:

Sign in - MetaBrainz Foundation

@IvanDobsky

Cos that is the name on the video… It is what the artist has chosen to title the recording. But I don’t add many YouTube vids.

I agree but I always have problems with this part of documentation:

On MusicBrainz, additional information on a release or track name that is not part of its main title, but intended to distinguish it from different releases or tracks with the same main title (such as versions, remix names or live recording information), is referred to as extra title information (ETI) and should be entered after the main title, preceded by a single space and wrapped in parentheses (). Featured artists should not be entered in this manner, but rather as part of the artist credits; for more information, see the featured artists style guidelines.

…

Instances of additional information that is neither part of the title or intended to distinguish the track from others like it should be removed whenever encountered. Common presentations of this are:

• Song (bonus track) or Song (new song) , both of which should just be Song
• Song (The Beatles cover) , which should also be just Song but also with a “recording of” relationship added (using the “cover” attribute) linking the recording to the appropriate The Beatles work.

So, in theory, main title is just “Les Miserable”, because it is the name of work, and other information as ‘one man’ and ‘live stream’ is just additional information and according to these guidelines should be deleted. It can be distinguished even without it, because for this performer there is only one couple “performer name - les miserables”.

But there many problems with cleaning according to this format:

• It is hard to clean video names according to it, because video names on YT don’t have any structure at all. They are formatted different at all.
• It needs too much efforts for editing them according to these guidelines. And for every entity type I need to do it separately (release name, track name, work name).

But in this specific case I’m just totally unsure, if there is what is called “extra information” part in its name.

[IvanDobsky]

I do not see how that is ETI. The title is what the person has written as the title. You have just focused on the work and ignored what was actually written. None of this is like that example as this is not some bonus track on an album. And you seem to also be quoting Track guidelines for a Release title.

I’ll let other people add opinions.

[Libra]

If you think it is OK not to clean them and not to format titles according to this format, then I’ll start to store full original YT titles. It will save me huge amounts of time. Thanks for your opinion

Also I have added this release: Recording “One Man Les Miserable LIVE STREAM: FULL SHOW” by Sugimation - MusicBrainz

[liftarn]

Isn’t that a standalone recording and not a release?

[Libra]

It is not strictly defined. It was like that earlier AFAIK, but now there are users (include me) who try and believe it is better to add video as releases as well such as @UltimateRiff , @RustyNova (Youtube Import as release script) and some others.

Also:

STYLE-2428: Step by step video (releases) guidelines thread

Hi! There seems to be a ton of different views on how MusicBrainz should do video releases. This thread is meant as a very slow but methodical way of working through all the different parts of the topic we need to decide until we have an accepted way of doing video that annoys everyone a little bit but hopefully we can all live with. This first post is where parts we actually agree on (or I make a final call on) will live: THE VIDEO GUIDELINES Releases of music in video form, such as music vi…

Is there any way or [special purpose artist] to add listeners/viewers as authors?

besides the “video” flag, some good reasons for seperate recordings is that videos will almost always have different relationships than the audio recordings, such as video producers, editors, directors, etc. and songs can have multiple music videos too (official or not), which are often distinct enough from each other to also warrant different relationships also, whether a recording on a release is a video or not is an important distinction, at least in more traditional releases, like this Enh…

[UltimateRiff]

I’ve also recently started adding the full YouTube video title (not including artist names, of course) as the recording/release title, even going as far as keeping “(official music video)” and the like

[RustyNova]

Looking at the release you inserted, it’s what I’d do… Except the missing “video” flag. Made an edit to add it :)

[Libra]

I did. The problem is I can’t add video flag while adding the release and only can do that manually after finishing adding process in separate set of edits on recording level. And changing of type to video should be approved, so it is just in “Open edits” section right, waits for upvotes or expiring the time