A Bootleg that is new recordings from concert, OK, or a pirate version of albums, well ok also, I think.
But here is like a home made compilation of random existing studio tracks.
It still sounds as playlist (series or collection?) to me.
I didn’t add my homemade compilations to MB. Even if I shared some of them with friends and family.
I made an online payable best playlist also, long time ago (with a tool called radio.blog.club).
My playlist content almost never changed (which is main problem of digital compilations), but I would not add it as a MusicBrainz release. I would feel like adding unnecessary noise.
I didn’t think in terms of difference in what I add to MB compared to… you or to that release adder?
I don’t know if there is a difference.
The only difference I could imagine maybe is that I mostly edit physical release, is that what you meant?
I was not trying to judge the style in any way, I didn’t really have a look at the content, yet.
I know understood it is about a festival setlist.
So rather than release, series or collection, it could have been just an MB event.
But far from me the idea of removing that release!
If nobody stops me, the following edit will be applied in 3 days. It is about the merging of a later instrumental arrangement with the original song: Edit #99692784 - MusicBrainz
(In fact, I will cancel the edit if I don’t get some approval)
Removing huge “collection” of Ariana Grande bootlegs that were added just based on zip files on an obscure website. Based on my understanding, songs that leaked online are not releases.
Requesting more opinions about whether instrumental versions of hip-hop albums should be in the same release groups as the originals or get their own RGs: Edit #100144696 - MusicBrainz
(Personally, I care about consistency more than this particular question. If there’s actually consensus about this now, I’m happy to try to update the guidelines to state it.)
I have made some release edits which the original submitter has voted against and I would appreciate some thoughts from the wider community. In my opinion the label has submitted very poor quality metadata, resulting in confusing/inaccurate artist credits on every digital store and streaming site.
I included a reasonably detailed justification in my note for edit #100286847, which is essentially that the release blurb (see Traxsource / Beatport / Special Requests) is a more accurate source for the artist credits than the metadata submitted with the release. I’m not a digital metadata “literalist” and would prefer that the releases in MB are accurate (on the balance of probabilities) rather than just replicating errors from other sources, however I know this not a view shared by everyone.
@hpwg - you can MOVE a DiscID without the seven day wait. If you add the correct release with correct track order, you can then just move this DiscID straight over to it.
You know when you are adding a heap of singles… adding lots of credits… lots of browser tabs open. And then you realise you have just put all the credits for Release A onto Release B because you had the swapped back to the wrong tab? Yeah… I just did that. Doh!
A pile of votes to wipe this out will be nice thanks:
Edited to add: Thanks… lets see if it now goes away a bit quicker.
Just realized that you got 5 yes-votes already, thus mine would be obsolete. Now you’ll have to wait for 48 hours only
PS: hope you checked the recordings
Edit: Sorry, should have checked your profile before giving superfluous advices.
Can you guys vote for these edits? I’ve been using ROpdebee’s work code tools to batch-add work codes, but my dumbass forgot to remove all the invalid codes, which I’m doing now.
