STYLE-795 / STYLE-1963: "Recorded at" / "Album from" live tours


STYLE-795 and STYLE-1963 are two fairly similar tickets proposing different approaches to relating event series (mostly tours) to music recorded during them.

I’d like some community feedback on how it seems sensible to deal with this. The tickets and comments bring up three main situations:

  • A recording in an otherwise generic release says “recorded during the 2020 Super-Duper Tour”, without specifying the event.
  • A live album says “recorded during the 2020 Super-Duper Tour”, without specifying the event (but the album is just called “The Band Live” without claiming to represent that specific tour). For example: Mirror Ball – Live & More was recorded during the Sparkle Lounge Tour.
  • A live album is specifically called “The 2020 Super-Duper Tour” or whatnot (and obviously is recorded during it). For example: Taylor Swift’s reputation Stadium Tour (the album) was obviously recorded during Taylor Swift’s reputation Stadium Tour (the tour)

A less common situation similar to the last one would be a release group for the historical highlights of a festival, such as Monterey Jazz Festival: 40 Legendary Years.

It seems to me that there should be a “recorded at” (or during, or whatever the right preposition would be here) recording-series relationship for sure that would cover case 1, but what should we do for cases 2 and 3?

We could have a “recorded at” relationship for release-series mirroring what we do for release-event (although it’s possible that both should have been release group relationships, it’s probably better to keep them consistent). That would probably solve both 2 and 3 in theory, but it seems a bit lacking in meaning for case 3.

We could also additionally have a release group - series relationship that covers case 3 (and the extra festival example). It might seem to kinda duplicate the release-series relationship though, but I’d argue it provides additional info. But what do others think? And if we added that, what could we call the relationship? “Live album for” (as proposed on STYLE-1963) doesn’t seem ideal.

We could have 2 need relationships:

  • release group - event (to cover cases 2 and 3)
  • recording - event (to cover case 1)

But not a release-event relationship, that would not be convenient.
We would have to duplicate it on each release.
And if a release of the release group should not have it, then it would probably mean that this release should not be in this release group.

We would have a trackset-event relationship too, if tracksets exist, one day.


I’d vote for more variations of links. Allow flexibility at all levels. I work on a lot of bootlegs, and a Release Group will often hold multiple copies of the same gig. Sometimes a Release inside that group includes bonus tracks from another gig. Or a gig may just be a single bonus disc added to a deluxe edition of a different Release.

The problem with musicians is they rarely follow the rules.

All the bootlegs I work on I try and add a “recorded at place” relationship to the separate Recordings. This then gives a really rich page to read when looking at the “Place” to see the tracks and concerts performed there.

A Series can be put to good effect to link releases from a tour.

1 Like

I agree with this reasoning, but we already have a release-event one. So it probably would be very confusing to have release-event, but release group - series.

1 Like

Indeed, I see 3 release-event relationships:

  • Available at
    This is really good, for limited editions for sale only at events
  • Launch events
    Why not, but I think it would be better moved to release group
    Because when there are LP+Cassette+CD simultaneous releases, it feels redundant to specify each edition
    IMO it’s the opus that was launched, not this or that specific edition
  • Recorded at
    As I said, all non-packaging non-manufacturing, non-design relationships seem weird to me on release level.

For me, with time, I have seen release group level relationships they are related to packaging, edition, manufacturing, etc.
And relationships related to the content, should link to recordings (or tracksets) and release groups (if it’s on release level, they would be repeated).

Except sometimes you have a release party or what not for “20 Year Anniversary” or similar type Releases that are still the same Recordings and track listing and thus Release Group. This is not really applicable for the Series “recorded during” case though. :slight_smile:

1 Like

In this case, the proposed Release/Release Group level relationships here probably don’t make sense to begin with. Just link the individual Recordings to their Events(/Series as per case 1 in this proposal).


i did a bit of thinking/diagramming about a similar thing in

I don’t fully understand the diagram but it seems that there are redundant relationships:

On the bottom left part:

  • Official release linked to release group
  • Release group linked to event
  • Official release also linked to (same?) event would be redundant

on the centre:

  • Official release linked to release group
  • Release group linked to event
  • Official release linked to (same?) event would be redundant
  • Event linked to event series
  • Release group linked to release group series
  • Release group series linked to (same?) event series would be redundant

Maybe same issue with upper right part.

We should not make redundant relationships.
The MBS system should allow show you things without redundant relationships.

Just like when you look at an area, you see artists this area, as well as from all its sub-areas. Without linking Artists to an area and its sub area(s).

I agree with this. I don’t see any cases where a Release would be linked to an Event (or Event Series) where this wouldn’t also apply for the Release Group… in which case it’s better to do it on the RG level instead of duplicating it on all contained Releases. And I haven’t seen anyone else present such a case either.

I don’t think it would. The RG Series could have a “Best of Baker’s Dozen” which would not be a Release Group for any specific event but still belong to the The Baker’s Dozen RG Series. I’m also not sure which of those links you would remove.

If you remove the RG Series :left_right_arrow: Event Series link, you won’t have a reasonable way to go from RG Series to the Event Series, unless you go down to the individual Release Groups, look for Events, and traverse back up to see if those Events are in a Series.

If you remove the Event :left_right_arrow: Event Series or RG :left_right_arrow: RG Series, well, then the Series entities won’t have a full lists of the Events/RGs without doing a lot of travelling through its own Series down to the entities and then back up. That gets extremely convoluted.

If you remove RG :left_right_arrow: Event, then you lose precision as to which Event the RG is actually from.

I don’t see any good way of removing any of these without sacrificing precision/clarity.


Maybe don’t keep Release recorded at Event:

But on the other hand, we should keep the two following release-event relationships:

Keep Release available at Event:

Keep Release launch event Event:

1 Like

I agree for most cases, but if we want to change that, we need to move 6000 event-release “recorded at” relationships first. That said, I can imagine that a release would have a few bonus tracks that say “bonus tracks recorded at concerts X, Y and Z” but without specifying which track was recorded at which event.

A bonus track set maybe could be used for this case. To focus the relationship to the minimal scope, not including main tracks, where we know the relationship does not apply.
Tracksets don’t exist, but it could be another use for them.

Added a recording-series, release group-series and series-series relationship for this.