Release cleanup help


Could someone assist on the best way to clean up the following release:

Here is my issue… the track listing appears to be wrong, and in some cases there is the proper name and wrong time even. The issue is in such cases, do I change the name of the recording, or leave the name as it is and make it a new recording? I hate to change the name of things and have the actual recording (minus the name) be improperly changed, like the acoustID for example.

I hope that makes sense, now let me explain where I come from here. This alsum is unreleased, although there is a release from Capitol under status of Promotion, which seems good enough. There is then a 17 track one (the Capitol one is 12) which is the one I am looking at here. I have a copy of this release, thus noting the differences in names, durations, etc. As there are recordings not on the one from Capitol, the facts of a simple mine vs MB gives authority to neither. But when I check the durations of mine to sources like YouTube and other sites containing these recordings, mine seems to match where the one in MB does not.

Based on the above, I suspect mine is either correct, or more correct than what is currently there. So assuming I change the release to match mine, how would I do so, given the issue explained above? I almost want to just wipe the release and create a new one with all new IDs so as to not mixup things like acoustIDs, but am not sure that is the best option either.


A glass of shiraz is between me and complete clarity around the situation you describe.
So please excuse anything either missed or unreasonably injected.

What is the basis for deciding that your 17 track Release is the same Release as the existing one in MB?

If you aren’t confident that they are the same Release then why not just add your Release to the RG?


I agree this is a tricky one. When an album is never “officially” released it then creeps out via various odd routes. Leaks from engineers, staff, fans etc have something out there being passed around at bootleg fairs, etc. These then get digitisted, repackaged and re-released though other routes from random websites or torrents.

So the “unreleased” now gets a “release”. So which is the correct version to add to MB?

How close is your track list to the 17 track version that was added in 2004? And how much do you know about the actual dates etc associated with your copy?

Personally I would think it makes sense to add your release as something separate. And then fill as much info into it as possible. Maybe poking at the original user who put up the 2004 entry and see if they will respond.

I think two different entries side by side make sense as they are different. It also makes it easier to put your version in completely cleanly. it also lets other MB users make a sensible choice between the versions.

If the original 2004 person does respond, then maybe a case for merging will appear.

I know I have a lot of old Pink Floyd bootlegs on cassette and MP3s that are all kind of variations of similar items being repackaged. To me they are all different releases even if most of the content is actually the same.

(Only half a glass of wine has been consumed whilst writing the above… is this the alcohol powered thread? :wine_glass:)


EDIT: FYI- “After the Astronaut” was set to be the eighth studio album by the Butthole Surfers, and it was supposed to be released in 1998. After a release date was set, critics were sent advance copies of the album to listen to. Some thought it was horrible, which caused the album not to be released. Since advance copies were sent to critics and possibly others, the album has been leaked online. Most of the copies found online are said to be sourced from a cassette copy of the album. The bulk of the tracks on the album were re-worked and put on the band’s official eighth album, “Weird Revolution”.

Thank you both for the replies. I will try to address each point in as much detail as I can. First, let me provide you the listing of what I have.

01 - Weird Revolution - 3:40
02 - Intelligent Guy - 3:18
03 - Jet Fighter - 2:40
04 - Imbuya - 2:57
05 - Mexico - 2:44
06 - Venus - 3:59
07 - The Last Astronaut - 4:39
08 - Yentel - 3:24
09 - Junky Jenny in Gaytown - 3:36
10 - They Came In - 4:42
11 - I Don’t Have a Problem - 3:08
12 - Turkey & Dressing - 4:39
13 - Untitled - 6:39
14 - Untitled - 4:45
15 - Whowasinmyroomlastnight (Reznorremix) - 5:36
16 - Where Did Everybody Go - 3:58
17 - Pepper (remix) - 4:07

This is the 17 track bootleg copy of this release. Please note there is a 12 track official version, unreleased, but listed as promotion, so that seems logical. I do not see any issues with that version of the release. This one deals with the 17 track version (or maybe versions). This is clearly bootleg vs promotion.

If you compare what is in MB for the 17 track to what I have, you will see the content be quite same, but a few issues.

I believe this is the same release since the recordings contained are same and the fact that the one in MB has incorrect durations for some of the recordings, leading me to believe that the names, track numbers and durations are mismatched on the listing. In comparison, my version of this release does not have mismatched names and durations. The information used to determine recording name to duration match include primarily other releases the recordings are used on and Google search for the recording, most commonly the YouTube of the recording, so one can see the name, listen to the recording and see the duration, the best way to match it to what is in front of me.

I could very well do this, and would have no issue with that. My concern point here was I believe I would be creating a duplicate as it is my belief that the current one is incorrect in its listing. But that belief is in debate here, so this option is a possibility.

Agree. In this case, I think the promotional version, from the label, is the one with the actual release and date. That is the “official” one. It just never made it to a “real” release vs the promotions. The bootleg one, well, that date is always up for debate. I tend to follow the dates on the files in combination with the dates on the site(s) posting the bootleg. By default, since it is not “official”, there is no “official release date”. I personally am not so worried about the release date associated to the 17 track version, but the content it includes. I honestly had not looked at the release date as of yet, just the contents.
EDIT: I looked into my copy of the release, there is no data useful for indicating the date of release. So I would either trust the date(s) already there, or utilize research to find the date.

Thanks for the ‘look here’ example. I have seen those as well and see many opinions on them, including one where an editor explicitly voted no to a bootleg add because it was not “different enough” to an actual release. Directly responding to you though, I normally agree with what you state here, those are all different releases. In this case, my concern is there is no reference or source for the current listing, and not only that, but it appears to be incorrect, looking at the durations assigned to the recordings. I guess it could be some sort of remix bootleg or something, but again, it is just noted as a release with no additional info or references.

Note that as I just said that statement, I realize there is another thread talking about piracy in MB, and the desire to leave piracy out. I see I have just swung the sword on both sides of that argument. But here, at very least there should be some explanation to this, especially since the durations are not what are considered correct for the recordings… making them either wrong or the recordings are not original type recordings (eg. edits, remixes, etc).

So that is what I have to present here. I hope it helps as it sure made me think more on this. I have a hard time leaving data alone that I believe to be incorrect. I say this as a somewhat discouraged user of the database. So as an editor, I always try to keep my interests as a user in mind… obviously not just focusing on me, but you see what I mean. What I mean is when I scan my release in Picard and get mismatched recordings from acoustIDs, releases matching recordings incorrectly and with different durations, etc, I lose all trust in what I am being provided, and for me, I wish I could use the data here more than I currently do.


Why not leave a comment on the original edit?
In my experience there’s a pretty good chance of getting a reply, even if it’s a very old edit.


My honest answer? Nothing, but I find it too easy to ask and forget. There is nothing in the forefront for such things. So I am one that when I see something, I want to take action on it. Thus posting here.

EDIT: I posted the question to the original editor. I do not have much expectation as the editor has not done anything for 10+ years.


Update… I got a response from the note left on the add edit. As expected unfortunately, the editor has no recollection of where the track listing came from, and stated they do not own the release.


IMHO - advertising a dodgy download site is different to talking about bootlegs. If a bootleg release of something is the only copy out there, then I personally don’t see it as “pirate” or “illegal”. Instead it is something being released in an unofficial manner. And some of us weird collectors want to hear that early version of a track that went out on a promo version or an early gig before it got re-recorded.

I think you have a good reason here to make your copy a separate release. Personally that is what I would do as then you can cleanly connect your AcousticIDs and all the other matching data meaning any run of Picard will keep tagging your copy correctly.

The next person coming along with a 17-track version can then make their own decision as to which their one matches.

It is a pity there is no way to tell how well used a release is in MB. Apart from the person who originally added that 17-track version, how many other times has it been used. This would be useful for this kind of decision.

I can certainly see it being easy to have different packaged versions out there of this release. Format shifting can often do that as it is being swapped from Promo CD to MP3 to another set of CD-Rs being sold on EBay. Some people “clean-up” these kinds of bootlegs before passing them on. Or they shuffle tracks from Side one to Side two to make them fit the media better. Or tag on an extra couple of tracks to “fill the disk”. Oh the fun of confusions.

I think your 17-track version is different enough to the original 17-track version that they should be two separate entries both listed as “bootleg”. I would then add a pile of notes to the annotation about the source of this version.

(To be honest I haven’t yet been brave enough to wade into my Floyd Bootlegs and tagging yet… the heap of cassettes, CDs, MP3s I have in this area will lead to some interesting puzzle for me)


There is a way: collections


Another point:
Some years ago I stumbled about a faulty pressing with split tracks which results in complete different timings:

So it’s always saver to ask the original editor who added the release.


Not what I meant. What I was referring to is some Releases in here will be heavily referenced by people using external tools like Picard. As well as the many apps that use the MB API to look up data. (Third party examples I regularly use are KODI and EAC).

If there was a count of how often something is looked up it would show if data is never used.

“Collections” are only going to be setup by members of the MusicBrainz website. There are far far more people out there using this data than there are members on this website. We always need to remember how data is used in the real world.

I totally agree with your other example - the different timings of your example are the kind of things weirdo collectors like me want to know about. It is a release, a messed up release, but still an official release. :smiley: