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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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/
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.
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”.
And what about first sentence?
Thé last FM links you showed have only zero, eleven, four, zero and zero listeners, respectively, worldwide.
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.
We have in database a lot of official releases without covers, so the presence of covers is not mandatory in MB. As for the catalog numbers and whatnot, there is room for imagination of individuals is unlimited.
So it is obvious that they are released worldwide, regardless of the number of listeners of these rare recordings.
And the releases were not entered by me in last.fm. I just noticed this when I did some research after these releases
And another one.
Yes exactly that is the crux, these “official” releases have no front/back cover and no other referencece
I think this is one thing that should lift these above the torrent style\home compilations. If this is hard to get hold of music being exchanged between various people and passed on and passed on - then it seems worthwhile of documenting.
There are bootlegs that can only be picked up on fan websites. (I am thinking Pink Floyd, Zappa, etc) These are often filled with rare concerts and other unreleased music. That fits the bootleg tag and is documented here.
If this was just a list of tracks available easily elsewhere (like the torrent compilations) then there are too many to add and it would be a mess.
The problem with this modern digital world is it is now very easy to repackage and release something to the masses. This will become a growing problem.
When a user adds a release to the database, he must select one of the four statuses:
Then, what status should he choose for this release?
I suggest to add the option “False release” or “Homemade”… That would be at least true.
I can’t imagine including such a release in a more or less serious discography.
Due to support for such releases, MB loses its well-deserved reputation as a source of accurate discographic information. Do we really need this?
This would be good to see. It would then stop them being confused with Real bootlegs.
“A Homemade Compilation of officially released tracks” is an accurate description