Hi everybody,
I’m adding missing information to https://musicbrainz.org/release/55061e82-49fb-42ba-85f7-197f050584de and I came across this
There are already two live venues and I’m addin another one, is this ok? I know for Phonographic rights, we can add them, but I don’t know in the case of recording studios or venues.
The gudelines say:
Live recordings
For live recordings, enter the recording title as described in the recording title guideline, and use “live” as the recording disambiguation comment. If the date and/or location is known, this should also be added to the disambiguation comment following the same format as used on live bootlegs."
I’m having a hard time understanding these things sometimes because if I delete something it would delete it from other releases.
Here we have an orchestral version of the song that was recorded on a different studio than the regular one:
In this case should I create a new work?
thanks for the help and the patience 
1 Like
The orchestral version should be the same work but a different recording. As such, there shouldn’t be a case where both recording locations are shared by the same recording.
Sometimes a recording is recorded in multiple places (for example, the vocals and the orchestra can be recorded separately) in which case it’s fine to have two places though, and you can potentially indicate what was recorded where as well with relationship attributes.
2 Likes
so in this case I should correct all the information that is wrong, according to the booklet, right?
You should edit the release to link it to a new recording first 
(since I assume this is right for wherever else this recording is linked to?).
For the live version, I’m not sure immediately if it’s the same recording or not between the two release groups: the Japan recording relationships come from an album where it is a bonus track, and I think the recording locations are only given for the entire album, not track-by-track (hence there being two). It’s definitely possible that the bonus track was not recorded in Japan at all, but I don’t have that edition of Tokyo Tales to check whether or not it’s really the same recording as on Forgotten Tales, and the edit history doesn’t make this clear to me either.
in this case the credits are given track by track since it’s a “collectioon” of bonus tracks.
My scanner is broken but here’s a picture from my cell phone
note that in some cases the tracks even have the year they were recorded in. The only thing that is consistent through all the tracks is the band.
I think maybe the error is assuming that the bonus tracks were recorded at the time the main album was and have the same personnel.
Sometimes there are no clear indication of the credits for the bonus, until a compilation like this appears.
And if the first person who uploaded the album with the bonus checked “batch add relationships” then the error carries on.
But I don’t want to start deleting and messing with the database, and I think it’s better to ask people whith more experience
1 Like
I have two editions of The Forgotten Tales and two of Tokyo Tales.
The tracks are the same.
The Bard´s Song is a bonus track in Tokyo Tales, there’s no information of the recording.
Maybe it was assumed it was recorded in Japan but the information on The Forgotten Tales is the right one?
1 Like
It’s definitely easy to make mistakes with the batch editor, especially when release booklets don’t clearly mark when some information doesn’t apply to bonus tracks: I think you have more than enough evidence that the correct info is as stated on Forgotten Tales and can make the edit (maybe refer to this thread in the note).
