If there’s a single existing recording which one user possesses or has access to, it’s enough to add it as a release. I don’t think you should add recordable media to the database other than digital media which is vague and fits edge cases.
It’s not just an event set list since there’s an audio recording of it available and there’s virtually no difference between organizing these and organizing bootlegs not associated with a physical item of a live band. If you don’t care about them or don’t think they’re important, don’t touch that part of the database.
I feel like we’re getting closer to some sort of answer on all of this now
So given what @jesus2099 has said and I think what others on the thread have commented, my opinion is that:
- There should be releases for them because there are digital copies (and physical copies). I believe there’s enough people who’ll have a recording of them for it to exist in MB. I think we can ignore the fact that copies maybe slightly different lengths or quality though.
- Given that the broadcast is an Event, it would make sense for an event to exist for each show with a set list.
- The Recording should therefore probably be marked as a Bootleg and Digital Media for simplicity, since the MB Event is the “Official” part.
Which I guess means @finalsummer is the winner since that’s what they were proposing all along I know some people will probably disagree with the whole Bootleg/Digital Media piece is still, but for my purposes it feels like the right things now.
Events hardly even work for concerts. They need a lot of work from the devs before they are really usable. Events need to be taken out of beta before they can be used for something like this. They don’t really fit.
Events are for multiple bands doing multiple track lists. This is a single show. And as noted above does then sometimes end up on CDs. This is why I could see a relation to podcasts and old 1950s radio shows that also appear as Releases.
I see Podcasts being added, YouTube recordings being added, I don’t see why a radio show is worse than those.
If you do it this way you must not use a release date. If you are going to document when Pedro made a recording then you don’t know when they “released” their recording to a friend.
If you treat the Radio show like a podcast then it can have a date.
But surely Pedro MADE his recording on the date the show aired? I think it’d be fair to argue that if that’s the case it was also released from his tape deck around the same time and would make it available to his friend as soon as possible? Personally I used to record overnight and share it with my friend the following day. If I could’ve shared it with him at exactly 4am after the show finished I would’ve, he just couldn’t physically collect it from me.
I assume you just mean change “Bootleg” to “Official”? But I think that then comes back to is it Digital Media or not? They are all available online now, but are they official releases? I think given what I’ve heard about the database structure and semantics so far, those digital releases aren’t official. A podcast on the other hand is an official digital release. I feel more comfortable keeping them as Bootleg given what’s been discussed and the history of how they were recorded and shared.
I’m also going to add the release date too, as I feel like it’s not an unreasonable thing to do add given the nature of the recordings and how they’re shared. Otherwise the option would be for me to take the date of a soundcloud upload as the release date… and then for completeness add the Mixcloud, Youtube and… it just sounds like unnecessary noise with no benefit in that case.
The editor is little bit special but they allow to not create imaginary recordings.
On that point for events, if I were to add them there doesn’t seem an appropriate Type value. If I was to file a JIRA for something to be added to support it, what would you suggest it be? I’m mainly thinking of the mixes that were done by a DJ at home/studio before being sent to the station for broadcast. Given the event is at the point of broadcast, should we have a Type called Broadcast?
Please consider me inapt to find a solution to your problem.
But I with an “event type” ticket search I found this one:
There is some discussion also inside it.
Maybe you are right to use releases for that, it was just my gut feeling, not something I am really thinking about.
Maybe I should have abstained.
"MusicBrainz aims to be:
- The ultimate source of music information by allowing anyone to contribute and releasing the data under open licenses."
Although some editors think so, maybe out of habit, there is no preference given to physical media in MB’s mission afaik.
I wouldn’t settle for the barebones Events category for something like this personally. Even though ‘Release’ might not be the best term for it, that’s the only place where the data becomes useful/can be entered correctly w. relationships etc.
I agree with your theory, but already that is not allowed in MB rules. Bootlegs of concerts are made on the day of the concert, but it is the RELEASE date only that is allowed to be documented. And tyhen only if there is a linkable proof. Many concert bootlegs sit without dates for this reason. An MB policy, but I agree it is a disappointing one.
This is why you have the date in the Release Group name. That is following a style of live gig naming.
There are thousands of important concert bootlegs in the database already and it is a very old policy. If a radio show was added as a release with Broadcast as the type then you are documenting the actual broadcast radio show and not when a secondary copy was made by Pedro.
Can you point to where that’s stated in the official style guidelines?
I had a quick look at Broadcasts which says to use the official date, live bootlegs don’t really say what date to use or not to use. I couldn’t find anything else about in the docs either.
Never mind, found it here: https://wiki.musicbrainz.org/Release/Date
I guess this is just the grey area with broadcasts right now until there’s a cleaner solution to represent them.
Until there’s some agreement on how best to represent them I still think Bootleg, digital & official broadcast date is best. Happy to be persuaded otherwise.
I was just trying to warn you of bootleg guidelines. Someone will come along and delete the dates of your releases if you are documenting the person doing the recording as you cannot know when they did their release. But you can be sure as to when the official show was broadcast.
Hope you get away with it though as it makes sense and no one official seems to read these forums much anyway. I’ve never known such a comical place for getting a decision.
My main concern is not wanting to see someone suddenly decide “All Radio must be Bootlegs”
Got it! Thanks for the heads up. At least if someone does that I can point them here and hopefully they’ll chime in with their opinion on the correct way!
Just posting for my own satisfaction and in case others were interested in the progress. All 1404 essential mixes are now in MB. Thanks everyone for all the feedback on the guidelines… please don’t ask me to change all of them if you disagree now! Celebrating my small achievement with a whisky and looking for the next chunk of music in my collection to add/update!
I should also post a little link to the userscript I created to help with this: https://github.com/mattgoldspink/musicbrainz-userscripts/raw/mgoldspink/feature_mixesdb/mixesdb_essential_mix_importer.user.js
It’s based on taking the data from mixesdb.com and adding them. Then there’s the manual step of finding the link to the real show notes on the bbc website - for example this is the latest one: https://www.bbc.co.uk/search?q=essential+mix+Luke+Vibert&page=1
Finally - after you insert the release, go to the Edit Relationships tab and click the “Add Essential Mix ARs” button and it should add the artist(s) as DJ-Mixer and add it to the Essential mix RG Series.
Hello @mattgoldspink and the other experts in tags for musical mixes, it would be good to hear your thoughts on this new thread as I think this is right in the same ball park.
Are Get_iPlayer rips not considered WEB-DL or official though?
When I grab Essential Mix and other BBC shows, they are already tagged pretty well and have copyright British Broadcasting Corporation tags embedded so…
I thought Get_iPlayer is doing the tagging of those downloads. I think they only add the copyright to be polite.
LMAO! You may have a point.
It’s kinda ironic that of all the formatting I do to radio shows, the BBC Essential Mixes are usually already uniform enough to me that I can leave them following Get_iPlayer’s mappings even if it doesn’t fall in a folder timeline like the others.
Get_iPlayer is built by geeks for geeks. Not a surprise they get Quality Tags in place.