I’ve been working with some live bootlegs lately, and I feel the guidelines are a little unclear. On the one hand, the Live bootlegs page states,
For bootlegs with actual titles, just follow the standard titles guideline. For untitled bootlegs, use its date and location information, in the form “YYYY-MM-DD: Venue, City, State/Province, Country”.
This page seems to imply that the RG should follow the same rules, or at least doesn’t state that the RG title should follow a different rule. Nor is they any other guideline I can find on bootleg RG titles. On the other hand, the Release Group page states,
Release groups should be used to group variations of the same release. The following are examples of things which should normally be grouped together in the same release group: […] Different bootleg recordings of the same concert
So, different bootlegs with different release titles, should be grouped in the same RG. This doesn’t answer the question what the RG title should be. It doesn’t really make sense for it to match any one of the release titles. Plus, when you’re adding a new bootleg release, it can be difficult to see if there is an existing RG it should be added to.
I think it would solve several problems if the RG always followed the “untitled bootleg” style while the release followed the actual title vs. untitled rule.
On a related note, I have been coming across a fair number of entries where the title is formatted like this:
YYYY-MM-DD: Release Title: Venue, City, State/Province, Country
Such as this one:
I suppose this is someone’s attempt to solve some of the problems described above. Is there a guideline supporting this format that I haven’t seen?
At the very least for cases with several bootlegs of different names, having the RG be the generic “date: place” makes sense to me. I don’t use bootlegs though so ideally other bootleg people will give their opinions here
Good point. I’d have to find a more recent example.
I agree. See Edit #96752041 and Edit #96751386, created before I started this thread. I would feel better about it if the guidelines were clearer, though.
To my other point, I also recently added this:
Who is ever going to guess that “Concertstück” is a bootleg for the concert in London on 1972-02-05?! I end up looking at artist recordings for the correct date (if the recording comment is there) or finding the work and hoping there is a recording-of AR with the correct date, and then back-tracking to find an RG I should use. That’s why I would support using the date/location form for the RG title from the start.
I know I’ve done this for recording comments, at least, e.g., “live, 2010-06-26: Crossroads Guitar Festival, Toyota Park, Bridgeview, IL, USA”.
I do a ton of Pink Floyd bootleg editing (Scroll to page 4 and onwards for the bootlegs)
I usually use either the oldest bootleg as RG title. Or the best known one.
Though I will often try and keep the date in the front of the RG title. I think the date is the key to most bootlegs. Some editors don’t like this and will AE that detail away.
I do like the idea of trying to use the “date: gig location” format but this then breaks down when you have multiple gigs on one Release.
An annoying and bizarre thing that is happening with Pink Floyd is many famous bootlegs are now being stolen and release as “official” releases. All a bit muddy and weird (and topic for a different thread) but this is leading to new names for old classic bootlegs. And worse there are often date errors showing that an “official release” is not always a best way to label something. This leads to RGs loosing their classic bootleg name and being renamed with something “official”
But you’d have to open it and look at it. You’re not going to figure that out by browsing an artist’s list of releases or RGs, by a search, or a filter. That was my point.
In combination with the date/location, that seems ok. I would bet there are very few editors that would have the knowledge to properly judge the oldest or best-known for any given artist, though.
Right, my suggestion wouldn’t apply to those circumstances. I would hope it’s pretty uncommon for there to be multiple bootleg releases with the same combination of shows. You aren’t saying that a bootleg of show A + show B should be in the same RG as a bootleg for only show A, are you?
I just base it on which ever one I see at the top of the list. Or if I know a label was well known for their bootlegs like Harvested who others then steal from. But true, I am a little more soaked into the PF bootleg scene so spend more time comparing. If I wasn’t sure I’d probably just go date: location as the RG title. Depends on the quality of releases.
It is common, but these are then filed under live+compilation. And is it less likely that that gets cloned with a new name (but not unheard of). So those compilations tend to only get an RG name that matched the Release.
A “show A+B” would always be in a different release group to either show A or show B, but relationships at RG level will allow us to link “Show A” is Included in “Show A+B”.
Some bootlegs can get the CD padded with a couple of extra tracks from a different gig, but if the main title on the cover points at one gig I’ll keep the Release title as that same gig.
If a 2CD release is half one gig, half a mix of other tracks - then it is a compilation.
One thing I always make sure to do is add the Place to the Recordings, with a date when known. REAL handy when looking at a Place to track other gigs played there. Also helps spot stuff that should be in the same RG.
Other tips - check the Discogs Master release for your gig. They also gather “by gig” so you sometimes spot other gigs that may be lost in the MB database. Floyd live RGs spread over many pages, so this can be handy for gathering gigs together in MB.
