Inappropriate releases in the database

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f75710beb20> #<Tag:0x00007f75710be878> #<Tag:0x00007f75710be468> #<Tag:0x00007f75710be1e8>

Are compilations of files (generally ripped from singles and vinyl albums) from someone’s collection, provided with home-made virtual covers, releases for inclusion in the database?
Please look at so-called “label” HMC Records:


This so-called “label” HMC means in fact “Home-made covers”.
All these releases were added exclusively by user Alfg.
His sole edit note for addition of each of these so-called releases was always “see covers”.
No one of these so-called “releases” has link to Discogs, 45worlds, AllMusic or another discographic site. Naturally, they never appeared on Amazon.
No one of these so-called “releases” was sold even as bootleg (except maybe some cases of a clear fraud).
And finally: I know the names of these two Frenchmen who made these compilations exclusively for friends. One of them (who is no longer with us) made rips and compositions, the other drew covers. Naturally, I can’t divulge these names, but the cover designer was very surprised to learn that someone had included their hobby in a discographic database.
In my humble opinion, all these so-called “releases” should be removed from the database.

6 Likes

IMHO this should be

pseudo-release(s)

An alternate version of a release where the titles have been changed. These don’t correspond to any real release and should be linked to the original release using the transl(iter)ation relationship.

I don’t think that “missing links” or “never sold” prevents an entry on MB.
Other oppinions?

1 Like

Do you want I will add a thousands of similar “entries” in the database? I can…

Certainly not pseudo-releases, bootleg seems right.

More generally: If these were made available in such a way that someone not directly connected to the original user could get all the data to upload it, I can’t see a reason why they wouldn’t belong in MB, if correctly marked as bootlegs.

3 Likes

The reason is: this activity is not legal.
And there are not a bootlegs.

  1. Bootlegs are made for profit, sets of rips from their collection are made exclusively for friends.
  2. Please give another example of bootleg “Digital media” (not vinyl, not CD).

Not pseudo release, because:

[Pseudo-release] should be linked to the [matching] original release…

Pseudo-releases are made to provide an alternate set of titles for the same tracklist.
Here, I think these are homemade compilations, thus not simply a copy of an original. They have their own tracklist.
They should be (and probably already are) Bootlegs.

But should we keep them in DB?
I don’t think we should keep our own homemade compilations/mixtapes.

5 Likes

I agree, and if the person who added these made these, then we should remove them. But that doesn’t seem to be the case.

3 Likes

But it’s just a digital, as @RocknRollArchivist mentionned (I didn’t notice prior), so if we accept this, any junk files from torrents can be created here.

6 Likes

As @jesus2099 picks up on, it is common to see “releases” like these appear from Torrent packs.

There are people who make their own compilations and upload them to the various release sites. They then appear available for download to anyone. Totally unofficial.

These are also just “glorified home mix tapes”, but released to a larger market. Should these also get included as they are “released” and “available”?

It is a grey area. Personally I think it should be “no” as they are neither official or a bootleg. BUT the problem is they are so common and so popular that it is hard to keep removing them. Digital Media leads to all kinds of variations.

4 Likes

Homemade stuff should not be in MB. IMHO. It leads to confusion to a newbie and just adds slop to the data base. I agree with RnRArchivist. As hard as MB editors strive for perfection, extraneous material should be excluded “as these are neither official or bootleg”.

6 Likes

3 posts were split to a new topic: About the word “mixtape”

In my opinion these releases should belong to MB, because they are partly spread in the internet and can be found by research, but no longer from the original publisher. At least in the blogspot scene and five at Last.fm


https://grandpastockorecords.blogspot.com/





3 Likes

Wikipedia says about bootleg recording:

“A bootleg recording is an audio or video recording of a performance not officially released by the artist or under other legal authority.”

But each of these collector’s sets includes just only officially released recordings! All these recordings were ripped from official singles or vinyl albums. Then on what basis should they be added as “bootleg” type?

I you want to include in the database this type of “releases”, this type like “A set of recordings compiled and ripped by someone from official releases” should be provided by database guideline.

2 Likes

The MusicBrainz definition of bootleg.

5 Likes

Firstly, the MusicBrainz definition of release:

A MusicBrainz release represents the unique release (i.e. issuing) of a product on a specific date with specific release information such as the country, label, barcode and packaging. If you walk into a store and purchase an album or single, they are each represented in MusicBrainz as one release.

So you encourage the database to be littered with a lot unknown compilations from official releases? I can add to Musicbrainz for your pleasure a thousands of such “releases”.

The second sentence is an example and obviously outdated. Otherwise we would have to reject all digital releases if you were to interpret it literally.

If you walk into a store and purchase an album or single, they are each represented in MusicBrainz as one release.

1 Like

And what about first sentence?

Thé last FM links you showed have only zero, eleven, four, zero and zero listeners, respectively, worldwide.

1 Like

What does the person who added a release matter for the release status in the database?

Someone else adding them shows the releases were available to the public to some degree. If I put together some files for myself and never put them online, that obviously doesn’t make sense in MB.

If they have special covers, catalog numbers and whatnot, sure, why not.

1 Like