A song titled “O But” was first released in 2012 on Encore Series releases. It was told to be unfinished.
In 2014 the developed song was renamed to “Daddy Long Legs”, but still unfinished.
Later that year it was released on the “regular” official live album “Live in London”, probably finished, because on the then upcoming setlists of further concerts it was replaced by another unfinished song.
I made “O But” a live recording of the finished work “Daddy Long Legs”, but I’m not sure about that. Is it it’s different work? Should every recording be it’s own work? I don’t think the last release is a live recording of the first appearance.
I had noticed that edit and was a little curious. How much do the works differ? It is possible to create relationships between works. So “Daddy Long Legs” can be “a later version of” “O But”
Or that could be flipped round to be “O But” “is the basis for” “Daddy Long Legs”
I’d also be tempted to leave something in an annotation about it. That way you can share that bit of history and stop some “correcting” the edit at a later time.
If they are near enough identical except the track title, then the alias method makes sense. But whack that into an annotation either in the release or the recording to let people know why the different name.
I also noticed you had tried to correct some of your typos \ wrong image edits. There is an easier way than putting in a delete. Look up at the top of the page and click on the “My Data” menu. Then select “My Open Edits”. You can then cancel those that you changed your mind on.
I now see what you mean. I was getting confused with those stupid USA dates adding to the confusion.
It is the correction to the earlier rename that was confusing me a bit too much. I looked at it a bit too late at night.
And you already have someone complaining about the O But \ Daddy Long Legs name. So either put in the link or add an annotation to keep him happy. I think if the are identical to your ear I’d just set it as a alias and add an annotation to the Work.
I don’t think changing the title is enough to call it a different work really. If he had added a verse, changed some words or tune, then it would be a different work.
No direct answer really. Toss a coin. You are the fan, and know how you would name it.
If you think it is too different, then “O But” “is the basis for” “Daddy Long Legs” seems logical to me. Or “is an earlier version of” (Click the Change Direction button to get the relationship in the right order)
Whatever you decide, whack in lots of notes to stop it being renamed by a non-fan “correcting” it. Its the little snippets of extra data about where a track came from that make databases like this interesting.
Until now, I haven’t noticed it either. And before shortly I didn’t add related works at all. (thanks for helping!)
Another question appeared: Would you group the Back to Front Tour Concerts in one or more series? Maybe for each year? 2014 is split in a summer and winter tour, but there are only few changes on the set lists and no changes regarding concept and decoration between 2012 and 2014. I think, it’s one tour which lasted for three years. So it should be “Back to Front Tour” as the series title (?). Or “Peter Gabriel - Back to Front Tour”? Some series titles include the artist name.
And there’s something else troubling me. Back to Front 2013: 16.10.13 Düsseldorf, Germany is only one release with 2xCD + Digital Media. That’s not wrong as the download wasn’t sold separately. But if I merge them, I would lose my “brighter front cover image for TV screens” as “front” should probably be the CD cover. (although there’s only the downloaded Folder.jpg added for Düsseldorf)
Or is it possible to have two “front” images for one release?
I first found “related works” due to wanting to link up a track like “O But” where it was similar not not quite the same. There are all kinds of extra optional bits that can make this more interesting.
If it is a three year tour, then it makes sense to keep them together. I was mainly making the series based on the CD releases being identical and having a common pattern to the titles. While creating them I was thinking about the tours and making it clear that these are set of official releases for those tours.
If Back To Front went on for three years, then make it as one series. Do the releases still basically look the same through those three years? Or was there as “Summer” boxset released?
You, as the fan, know best how these are linked. Not everyone sets up series like that, but before I waded in the PG live section was in a horrendous state. In some ways those series were a quick way of being able to gather together the tours to make it easier to clean up.
With the 2CD + Digital Media thing. Technically that image is the downloaded front cover, so it would stay as a front cover. Just add the note to the actual image saying it is from the digital download. So yes, you can have two “fronts” as there are two parts of the package. And no one would shoot you if you then shuffle the cleanest better quality image up to first.
If a package is 2CD + DVD then the DVD covers get uploaded too.
Good discussion. This is subjective and you guys try to do what is best for the Peter Gabriel community. It’s good to give everything full attention, but also important to link an evolving song clearly. There should be plenty of experts to help out.
I’ve changed my mind. There has to be 4 Back to Front Tours. Not only because they were sold as separate box sets, but printed on the inside of each cover is a list of shows for the respective sub-tour only. And there was a gap between these tours. So there should be:
Back to Front – 2012
Back to Front – 2013
Back to Front – Spring 2014
Back to Front – Winter 2014
Winter 2014 will only consist of one concert, but I’ll add it nevertheless. Someone might add another one.
The digital download is not really a third part of the release. It’s more an optional feature. And if I merge them, most people will have incomplete releases, because nobody will keep both versions. I only use the higher quality download. (although I can’t hear anything different between 41kHz and 96kHz, at least on my equipment)
Thanks, I’ll do my best. And, yes, there might be help needed. I don’t know where to start relating all “O But/Daddy Long Legs” tracks to one original work. My preference would be to remove all relationships and start a new, but I don’t know, if that would be mostly appreciated.
Regarding direction, I think, London should be the original work, because we do not have the first performance of the song in the database. So there could appear an earlier version at any time.
Of course there could be a future release with the finished work as well.
Even more complicated is the song following Daddy Long Legs (Winter 2014). There’s no major release featuring the song and we have only one show from this tour, exactly in the middle
I have bought the first and the second last show, but it will take several weeks until I get them.
I thought about buying the whole box set, but apart from spending £400 on, really, I wouldn’t want it.
At least I’ve 2 shows for the Winter 2014 series.
Looking good. And I agree with your thoughts on the way the series should be broken up. As I said earlier, it is you the fan that knows best how they relate.
I get what you mean with the digital download. Maybe just leave a note in the annotation about them. Have seen it done like that before.
You are correct with your thoughts. But you don’t need to “merge to London version” as this is a Work. It is a separate entity to the Recording.
I see it more like the sheet of paper where the words and music are written. So you’ll have the same Work for all versions of “O But” and from there the relationship to “Daddy Long Legs” will take people to the later version if they are interested.
Each Recording will stay as a separate thing. And with each of these you are just correcting a relationship between that Recording and the new Work “O But”.
You’ll notice I have had a look over a few more of the releases you added for the missing bits. Clicked a few missing (live) buttons, added loads of dates. And found the German Work for “Here Comes the Flood” as there are a few of these other language works already exist.
I also keep adding Disambiguration texts to all the recordings with concert date and location in. Makes things a bit clearer when trying to find a specific recording from a list of recordings.
I’ve kept the previous release(group) title as Disambiguation text, but that’s not really standardized.
I don’t think, I have fully understood.
There is a table for “song” obviously. And probably a new record is added if I “add a new work”. So what’s related to this new work (its primary key)? Only name and writing credits? If you select an existing title you get a list of artists who have recordings relating to it…
At first I thought of something different, but as I write, I think, I slowly start to understand…
Please explain, if I’ve got it wrong!
[Is the data model of MB published?] found it
The way you see the dates and locations as (live, 2012-06-18: Wembley, London, UK) all the say down the Release page attached to each Recordings is a standard way. I’ll see if I can find the guideline for it. The idea is that if each recording has disambiguration text attached it is then easier to spot when you are looking at a list of Recordings.
This is not about copying how the title is written. This is about clearing out the confusions of different country date layouts and standardising it. That means (live, date: location). Date is always ISO Standard YYYY-MM-DD. As can be seen in the following list of all the recordings of Biko.
Look at this page which is the Work for “Biko”. Notice work is in the URL here.
Now look at that list. It is a list of performances or “Recordings” of this “Work” that are currently in the database. At the top of the page you see some of the live tracks listed. These have disambugguration fields to make it easier to tell which is which.
(I add the Disambiguration texts using a Script on a Release Page. I’ll dig out a link for that script later. This is handy as it is a fast way of attaching those same gig details to each track of the concert.)
Notice how this same page for the WORK can hold the recordings by other artists, videos, and details linking to other databases, etc. Which leads us neatly into your second question as I can see how you have got confused. There is no “song” table.
So Peter writes a “WORK”. This can have a type of “song” but can also be type “poem” and other choices. I see a WORK as the sheet of paper with the silent description of the words and music on.
He only wrote it once. There is only one WORK.
He then makes separate RECORDINGS of that work. Some in a studio, some live. And later other people will cover that same song and make their own recordings.
In the above image you can see those links coming together. Even better, follow the link to the Biko work and hit EDIT. Don’t change anything, but look at the options. It may start to make a bit more sense.
Now… the Edit Relationships page. This used to confuse me early on.
I see, so I will use a standardised format for Disambiguation. Should I use exact location or only the part from the album title? (‘Waldbühne, Berlin, Germany’ or ‘Berlin, Germany’)
Should sponsors be included? (“Nikon at Jones Beach Theater”)
I tried to add the venue with “recorded at”, but struggled with the location. As it is an “event”, I probably have to add a new one for each concert, but do I really have to add the setlist?
Your explanation is very detailed and very helpful indeed. Thanks!
It’s a complex database and the interface isn’t very intuitive, but I know, that’s not easy to achieve if there are complicated tasks to perform… (I suppose, there are no MB training courses available…)
It will take some time to get familiar with it.