Live bootleg and live official: one recording or two?

recording
bootleg
live
Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f2a00c1a2b0> #<Tag:0x00007f2a00c1a0a8> #<Tag:0x00007f2a00c19f18>

#1

Hello out there.

A question to the community.

Should an official and bootleg recordings of one same live performance have own recording entities?

I guess they should because, according to the official definition, a recording is ‘distinct audio that has been used to produce at least one released track’ ‘after any editing or mixing’. That is, a recording is not the sound emitted by the band on the stage, but the sound captured and processed by engineers and bootleggers.

Am I right?


#2

When they eventually officially release a bootleg concert with no track cut changes nor different mix, then they naturally share recordings, yes.

But when they change the cuts, the mix or when they are other recordings (not from that guy’s recorder but from the console itself for instance).
Then they should not share recordings, obviously.

Same for bootlegs that come from distinct recorders.

Actually I have just understood that it is what you meant. :joy:


#3

Hehe. Either the subject is esoteric or I was unable to make myself plain. :slight_smile:

When they are other recordings (not from that guy’s recorder but from the console itself for instance). Then they should not share recordings, obviously.

Ouch. I guess I recently botched some merges then. :blush: I merged official and unofficial recordings by Pulp and Morrissey just because they were made at same events. Should have ensured that they share AcoustIDs. Vote me down.


#4

You don’t need to be voted down, you can cancel your own open edits.