Titles of bootleg albums and disambiguation (RG)

MusicBrainz Style
1

“For bootlegs with actual titles, just follow the standard titles guideline.”

…but what does this mean for different bootleg albums with the same title? There’s no additional info on the release. This rarely happens with official albums.¹ I’ve added a generic title to Disambiguation, but I feel it should probably be distinguished more prominently in the title. The disambiguation is also a bit unwieldy because one of the albums is made up of two concert recordings.

Would it be better like Light My Fire (Phoenix + Westport Festival 1996) and Light My Fire (Roskilde Festival 1996)?

The bootleg album I mentioned recently, when I tried to merge recordings, has such a title: Royal Attack (live at the Royal Albert Hall 1998) although there’s no need of disambiguation and the main title belongs to a release that isn’t even on MB at the moment… :crazy_face:

Should I change the title as I suggested above or use a shorter disambiguation comment or should I leave it the way I just did it?

¹) except Peter Gabriel, but there is only a disambiguation comment

2 Likes
2

I guess for me it’s important to not change release titles from their intent (including for bootleggers) just so they display nicely in MB.

Without knowing all the ins and outs of the situation, if there is no indication that the release is actually called something like ‘Light My Fire (Roskilde Festival 1996)’ then I wouldn’t change it. It might seem like a good idea to me, but other people might not like it/want it in their tags.

I think the disambiguation you’ve added does a good job actually - but if it really bugs you on the artist page I guess you can cheat and change the release group title (not the release), and see if anyone votes no :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes
3

My problem is more about the RG title. The included releases are a separate thing. I think a generic disambiguation comment will do perfectly.

Both albums have so far inhabited the same RG¹. I’ve created one of them. But I appreciate every comment on my edits.

¹) the RGs should be protected from future merging

EDIT: I added “RG” to the thread title - that’s the problem when I’m working on this subject, it’s a clear to me anyway :upside_down_face:

1 Like
4

Even if it’s the release group title, I think it’s already good as you did.
Keep the printed title, and put the specific but not printed information in the disambiguation comment.

2 Likes
5

I edit lots of bootlegs. And it can be common for the reused names to pop-up. A gig date and description in the disambiguration is usually enough to tell them apart. Like in your examples.

Bootleggers are not always that imaginative.

Having a clear date and location in the disambig usually a big plus when trying to sort things out.

Have to split them as they are clearly different gigs.

You’re gonna end up with all the same gigs together anyway. This is where you get a different puzzle as to which one you them pick to title the RG from. (Random Example: Release group “The Dark Side of the Moon Live 1974” by Pink Floyd - MusicBrainz)

An older MB standard used to put gig date and location in as part of the RG name - but that seems to have now lapsed. To me that is a much clearer way of keeping track of concerts when multiple releases come out.

2 Likes
6

I’m pretty sure they both thought they picked a great, unique title :laughing:

I can imagine that Dark Side of the Moon is not a unique title :joy:

I hope you’re right and the RGs …or the included recordings don’t fall victim to merging. I was about to merge them when I noticed the error. Almost same length, same AcoustIDs, everything fine!

7

More that the problem is when a good concert recording of DSotM appeared on the Radio, every bootlegger got a copy to exchange… and then edited their tape in a different way when converting to MP3 years later… :laughing:

This is a classic problem. Not everyone is careful when using Picard. This is why a nice big disambig helps. Recordings and RGs. Especially when confusion appears like this.

I expect there reason the AcoustIDs are the same is someone has previously made the error of linking up the wrong concerts when submitting AcoustIDs. You get used to spotting it happen.

8

In fact that happened to the other bootleg I mentioned. But probably on another scale… :grin:

Yes, and now that they have disambiguation comments, that probably won’t happen again, even with shared AcoustIDs. Maybe I’ll try to clean those up too.
But I already understand why wrong AcoustIDs were uploaded. I couldn’t tell the recordings apart right away, too.

2 Likes
9

This is why what we do as obsessive fans is so helpful. :grinning:

When on an editing blitz I have sometimes come across one set of recordings that is attached to half a dozen different concerts. Can get kinda weird. Its why I know a bit too much about AcoustIDs now and stalk the AcoustID corridors with flame thrower in hand… :fire: :fire: :fire:

2 Likes
10

I’ll be more careful, but in the case of Massive Attack it will be very easy to clean up because they have decided to make all their music available for free. This includes most of their bootleg recordings through their fan site. I can check every single AcoustID on their “official” fan site: Bootlegs — MASSIVEATTACK.IE
Half of the shows are also available on Soundcloud. :slight_smile:

1 Like
11

Haha - and meanwhile Pink Floyd PLC is jumping on the 50 year copyright lapses of various bootlegs and whacking them onto Spotify \ iTunes \ etc to sell them…

Well done Massive Attack for looking after the fans and not trying to gouge them for cash constantly.

2 Likes