This release group series is not worthy of MusicBrainz: "One Hundred Albums You Should Remove from Your Collection Immediately"

EDIT - I cancelled this disambiguation edit, and I apologize this was not the proper way to go about voicing my opinion on these particular lists. In my edit note there I’ve referenced this thread for further conversation

If this is allowed, may I make my own blog (and disregard the fact whether I keep it online or not, as this is based off an internet archive link) with a bunch of lists of what I like and don’t like and then group releases accordingly?

What’s the justification for allowing this?

Meh. There’s likely always been lists like this. :person_shrugging:t4: I think VH1 used to have a whole hour long segment devoted to something along the lines of “worst bands no one should like”.

At best, it’s likely just someone’s version of humor. At worst, the existing tags of “edgy” and “eye-roll emoji” I think would sum it up if the creator was being earnest lol.

Either way, it’s not materially hurting anyone by existing and is a (small) part of the release’s history, regardless of one’s feelings around the author’s legitimacy. I’m not sure a disambiguation of personal opinion is really needed here. (It’s also not the purpose of this field.)

Referenced edit:


Ok. VH1 is different from “Jaguaro” though – do you consider these two sources as having same level of validity (or perhaps, in Wikipedia speak, “notability”)?

Given your position, I’m curious to know your response to my question, which I’ll restate here again:

“If this is allowed, may I make my own blog (and disregard the fact whether I keep it online or not, as this is based off an internet archive link) with a bunch of lists of what I like and don’t like and then group releases accordingly?”

It would not “materially hurt anyone” to do so, would it? So where does the line get drawn? It’s not my disambiguation that’s not really needed, it’s the list itself.

I would also state that “someone’s version of humor” is not justification for an entry into MusicBrainz. If this is a database to be taken seriously, it should be based upon data and reliable sources. Plenty of humor available to you in other music communities; such as RateYourMusic

Hmm, there may be a misunderstanding of what was. If I’m reading correctly, it seems you feel that this was a one-person, personal site (which is still valid in my eyes - a reviewer is a reviewer, regardless of their audience size).

In contrast, looking at the About page, there appears to have been 8 staff volunteers for this e-zine, with established editorial guidelines.

That being said, to answer your question - if you were to run a similar operation, I don’t see why it wouldn’t be allowed. :slight_smile:

1 Like

I appreciate your measured response – but if anyone can just buy a domain and build a consortium/blog (whether it’s ‘notable’ or not) – which you have admitted in your response; how is that a a tenable policy for building a ‘semi-professional’ database, which I believe MB is?

I’ve read through the “About” page you’ve referenced – but the mere presence of multiple contributors (as opposed to a singular individual) is not part of the argument I’m making.

The fact that there is more than one contributor speaks nothing to the credibility of their ‘organization’, or their list-- particularly when contributors have biographies on the site you referenced like:

“Andrew” - 'llves in London with his wife, three daughters and chocolate labrador, Harley"

There is no credibility/notability here – and if a “reviewer is a reviewer” – what is the litmus test between a ‘reviewer’ and a ‘user’? One could make the argument that anyone that tags anything, or attributes a rating, is a ‘reviewer’ in a sense.

If all it requires is a domain and some quick bios like (i.e. “Andrew - lives in London with his dog and loves coffee”), that’s not an appropriate precedent to set IMO. What makes their group/opinion special?

This is like someone’s (and their friend’s) playlist of songs they don’t like – and it’s been allowed to be associated with famous albums across diverse artists and genres. It clutters the pages of these releases and makes a mockery of what I imagined the intention of MusicBrainz to be.

1 Like

Look at this from another angle. This policy means everyone is equal and yes you and your blog read by three people is just as interesting as some big music magazine. In fact more interesting as that music magazine will probably shout “copyright” about their list and get it removed.

These are harmless and can be ignored. In fact, by bringing it to people’s attention you have now done exactly what they wanted and driven traffic to their site. Just ignore it.

Personally I find these lists kinda funny. When you look at them and see a large chunk of your own collection on it, then you can mine it for other decent music to try out. It just tells you the compiler of the list has no taste. :grin:


IMO series are official stuff.
This kind of list should be a user collection or tag.


Yeah. Setting aside the “silly”-ness and the “notability” issues, I wouldn’t have thought third-party lists were allowed to be entered as Release-Group Series. Is/was there ever a policy decision about this?

While I don’t feel strongly that lists like this one shouldn’t be anywhere in Musicbrainz, I feel like they should be clearly distinguished from “official” (i.e. created by the author or label, or at least acknowledged by author/label) Series.


I agree with Jesus2099 and bsammon. If such a list has any place on MB, it should be a user collection. The list doesn’t really conform to the idea of a “series.”


And yet other blogs make up playlists and add them as Releases… to me that is more of a mess than this is.

Notoriety is a difficult thing to gauge. What is “official”?

(I am just asking a question, not trying to make an argument. I also don’t really care if these are around or not as they cause little harm.)

1 Like

By official, I meant label series, visible on packaging, such as NEXUS MASTER PIECE 1500 or JVC WORLD SOUNDS BEST 100, not magazine lists.

But I don’t know, maybe it should…

I think lists like these do belong in MusicBrainz, whether it’s The Rolling Stone or Andrew and friends

perhaps a new series type* might be in order? once that’s in place, as could likely show these lists differently than other series, like NIN’s Halo catalogue or other official series like @jesus2099 linked above

*or maybe a few, for release groups, artists, and recordings


Any line drawn between ‘Rolling Stones top 100 albums’ and ‘my personal top 100 albums’ blog posts would be very arbitrary. If you allow some of it, chances are that pretty soon you’ll get all of it.

I personally quite like these types of lists. They remind me of Letterboxd, which is full of (silly) movie-lists created by users. They’re great for discovering new things, so I’d appreciate it if they got a place somewhere. Letterboxd is a social networking service focused on film, it makes sense to have these lists there, but does it make any sense on MB? MB is a encyclopedia, and a encyclopedia shouldn’t be concerned with my or anyones personal taste. Aren’t release group series supposed to be lists of release groups that were released as a series? These release groups weren’t released as a series, they were just grouped together by any particular person. Those are not the same things.

Aren’t these types of lists more relevant to either LB or CB?


I largely agree with @jesus2099 .

The style guide defines a series as

A series is a sequence of separate release groups, releases, recordings, works, artists or events with a common theme. The theme is usually prominent in the branding of the entities in the series and the individual entities will often have been given a number indicating the position in the series.

My emphasis on the word sequence.

Series such as Now that’s what I call music clearly have a sequence. I struggle to see the sequence in many of the series stored in MB such as Rolling Stones top something. They would be better called a list. The order of the entries is determined by the author(s) rating etc, not a sequence such as chronological order of issue. They simply document lists published elsewhere. There’s no list data type in MB, Collections are close, but no numbering. I think we need a new construct called Lists.

Anyone should be able to create a public or private list as long as it is not racist, sexist etc or against anyone of the guidelines.


I am not bothered by the sequence of the series.
I never set numbers, I let entities order in whatever default order (more or less release date).

I don’t think we need a sequence-free series.
The current series is already sequence-free. :wink:

series are defined to have a sequence.

Rolling stone things and others don’t have a sequence and therefore do not comply with the definition per the style guide.They aren’t series. They exist as series in mb because no one challenged them. They don’t fit.

It’s strange because I feel the opposite:

The label series I linked have no sequence (except their natural order by catalogue number or release date).

But the magazine top 100 dospecifically have a sequence, from 100 to 1.

1 Like

That meets the definition of a sequence.

It’s not really a sequence, more of an ordered list.

Here’s another example

No order or sequence. Just a group of 40 albums. Should not be stored on MB as it does not comply with the style guide.

ListenBrainz or CritiqueBrainz probably aren’t good fits, as both have the implication that anything created by the user is made, generated, or otherwise owned by the user (playlists and listen history or reviews, respectively)

for clarity, you linked to the documentation on series, the style guide is here: Style / Series - MusicBrainz

that’s just the thing, series can be ordered or unordered, just like these lists. I don’t think we need a new entity type, but perhaps better handling of series in some cases?

I’m of the opinion that these lists should be welcomed in MusicBrainz in one way or another. series seems to be the best fit at the moment, as collections don’t have ordering (at least not yet) and also imply the list was created by the user (but I suppose could be noted), and there’s no other way to add lists like these to the database

(I also find these lists quite interesting~)