So, I’m editing my first bootleg release, and I’ve run into a couple issues I’ve never had to deal with.
The release in question:
On both sites I’ve found the release on, one of the songs (track 15, Fahrenheit) has the wrong title. I’m gonna link it to the right work, but should the title be corrected in the database? Either on the release, the recording, or both?
Also, I don’t know if I should link the places were I found downloads. I know we shouldn’t link to illegal downloads, but this show (as far as I can tell) wasn’t recorded or released officially by the artist. The websites in question are TheLyricArchive and MP3Million, (the latter has previews of the tracks, which is how I found that it was the wrong song).
One last question, some of the tracks are not songs, they’re stuff like soundchecks, banter between songs, and so-on… Should those be put into brackets to denote they (presumably) are [untitled], either on the recordings and/or the release?
If it’s wrong-wrong, as in they’ve accidentally called it the title of a different track (as opposed to the bootleg compiler has given it a completely new name), I would just fix it. And make a note about it in the annotation, as you already have.
Technically, no? But as I’m not an employee of MB or the RIAA or a cop I would say:
Follow your heart and do what you want * anime pose *
Don’t expect them to stick around, they might if it’s an obscure release. At the least broadly mention what ‘kind’ of site (torrent, TheLyricArchive, etc) it came from in the edit notes, as an editor I find that helpful later on when trying to figure out cranky data.
I don’t think anyone would be too bothered if you left them as you found them in the bootleg, but yes! The edits you’ve put in are great imo.
Note that your changes to the recordings are still open. Don’t forget this one too
Actually, funny thing is I was browsing one of the “questionable” sites briefly, and found another bootleg release that had the opposite wrong track name… I guess that’s what they get for naming back-to-back tracks “Fahrenheit” and “Four-Fifty-One” and singing “Fahrenheit” in both…
I upload and edit lots of bootlegs. Agree with @aerozol about naming tracks correctly, fixing speling errors too. Annotation is the key. Fill that with details of your corrections as well as details of the bootleg. “By Ear” edits are always of the best quality. Sometimes I have pasted whole readme files into the annotation.
I also agree about soundcheck and interview titles. “Artist intent” should apply to using the track lists of the release to keep those details. Far more interesting and useful to keep it as in intended on the cover.
Bootlegs of concerts are often in a legal loophole of being acceptable. If the site looks official, then add a link. As long as nothing on the bootleg is available from a commercial source then it is usually acceptable by many bands. I’ve often left yeeshkul or guitars101 links as their forums are patrolled by people slapping away copyright violations. If the site is covered with dodgy adverts and seems shady, I won’t leave a visible link. Though I have often seen this in the edit notes as a “verifiable source to check the track list”
Personally I would not link any site that will also let me download full albums or insists on payment. If the site doesn’t care about copyright, I can’t be certain about the copyright of the bootleg. On Yeeshkul you would never find an official album, so I put it into the MB “Available from this site to download”. But the links you show are to sites that also put out whole albums and I would not leave their links visible.