Inappropriate releases in the database

The MusicBrainz definition of bootleg.


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.

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

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 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:

  • Official
  • Promotion
  • Bootleg
  • Pseudo-Release

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


Exactly. Why do bootlegs always have such value? Because they include unreleased recordings. For this, connoisseurs forgive them for their illegitimacy, because there is no other way to get these unique recordings. And what is the value of these self-made compilations if everything included in them was published earlier? So calling these compilations bootlegs is too much of an honor for them.


Yep. And many artists actually encourage and allow bootlegs as long as they don’t use material already released. They know that the true fans love that kinda stuff. I know I already have a heap of bootlegs ready to add to MB database when time allows.

These Homemade compilations need their own box. When looking at an Artist page it will get annoying to find these all scattered in with the more interesting bootlegs.


In my opinion a release should be released. Something made up and mixed by someone and used by one or some persons more is not a release to me. A torrent that spreads and has a homemade cover is a bootleg release for me. I don’t understand why a bootleg release from a popular website should be any worse than a pirated cd sold at the black market

I still would like to see proof that something has been released in the first place


I should have been less implicit.
0 listeners, or 3 in this case, for a worldwide release, means that there is hardly only the person who made it and their best friend.

1 Like

I agree that a new selection should be added, if (big IF here) they are allowed. I would never add my personal compilations, sorry @jesus2099, I never called them mixtapes or mixCDs. I would make collections of current popular tunes or ‘best of’ sets for artists with big catalogs (i.e. Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, or Van Halen.) I made a lot of these comps for use in vehicles back in the 1980’s to the early 2000’s, but I don’t have them in my music collection DB and I find it absurd to think they should be in a global DB, like MB. My ultimate answer would be to remove them all from MB, since they are neither officially released items, digitally or physically nor a bootleg. Just my opinion, of course.


Most of my cassettes had hands drawn covers, most of my CD compilations had computer made covers, back covers. And both had catalogue numbers.
But I never thought I would add them to MB, it’s irrelevant. Even if I distributed my CDs among friends and family.


Here are about a dozen of my car tapes from the 80’s, that I had out for nostalgia. Now the NIN EP is definitely in the my DB, lol. I made these and the CDs mainly for thief protection, so the originals were safe at home. The comps were never intended as rare, one of a kind items. They were just copies to be used up or lost in the car, period.


Oh, and if the creators (and that’s a bit of a stretch) actually marketed and sold these compilations, I definitely say take them down. Illegal copies are just illegal copies, right? But hey, I’m just an old user, newer commenter, eh? :wink: