Clarification and cosolidation of live/compilation/bootleg type precedence

[Vivek Kushwaha]

I always find it nagging that some of live compilation releases/RGs have their type as live while others have compilation. We should follow a clear cut filter like model decide which category a release should belong to.

Same is true for live bootlegs. Bar a few artists where bootlegs are really abundant e.g. Grateful Dead, live bootlegs go to live type releases. I think selection procedure should be chalked out and included in guidelines. My take would be as follows.

For Releases.
1. If a release is first official issue of a studio album/single/EP, subsequent official reissue with or without extra bonus tracks (previously unreleased or otherwise), it will have a type "album". Two-fer releases are of type 'album'.
2. If a studio release is later remixed to changed the theme of album as a whole it's remix
3. Live EP is EP; Live Single is a single. (I've never seen these but I'm sure the world is really weird, they must be existing somewhere). Soundtrack is Soundtrack, Spokenwords are spokenwords, audio book is audiobook, interview is interview. (I think this part never overlaps and is easiest to deal with.)

*the rest below is a real jabberwocky, but I am trying to be descrete*
4. If a release is live, official, bootleg or otherwise (like release from labels but without permission there by actually illegal and unofficial); from a single show or compilation from various live shows (like most Live at the BBC), various artist live compilations like Live at Monterey Pop, etc. it will have release type of "live."
5. If a official release is retrospective collection of studio works from multiple sessions, with or without some live tracks, it belongs to compilation.
6. A bootleg compilation with tracks from various sessions is a compilation.
7. A bootleg with tracks from a single set of sessions  is *duh!* I think this is where we should select "Other" and not for anything from the first 6 categories (points 1-6 above)
8. If something filters out right though 1-7 above is of type Others.

Now we have some even more complicated cases in RGs (as they are defined now)

RGs genereally club together reissues of same album or multi-disc compilation, so all the above rules are applicable. Now here is the bummer.
What about Led Zeppelin "The Complete Studio Collections" box set? Here is what I think should be done with these.
RGs should be of type "Compilation" as most of them on MB are listed right now; but the individual discs, like "The Complete Studio Recordings (disc 3: Led Zeppelin III)" release as we call it, why should this be listed as 'compilation'? Since we have type data separately stored for RGs and Releases, why do we need to have the same value on both even when it doesn't sound right!

I think it would be best to put individual disc where they would have belonged had they been individually released, and put RG for box set in compilation.

Comments/Improvement/even disagreement are welcomed and if I'm repeating something(s) from previous inconclusive discussion, ignore my ignorance but help the cause.

[Brian Schweitzer]

There's several things here I don't really agree with.  The main problem, is that is essentially would not simply establishs an order of precidence for cat-corners, but really re-defines the definition of every single type, and even then, not just for live, comp, and bootleg.  Those redefinitions are, imho, painted with a really overbroad brush.  Even more problematic, that redefinition still doesn't really solve the cat corner cases; it leads to a lot of situations where the expected type would not be the correct type.  At the same time, it takes away just about any room for editors and voters to decide on a per-case basis for the real cat corners - and most problematic, for the types where an order of precidence might actually help (ie, 2+ of the "most specific level of types" - live, spoken word, soundtrack, interview, etc - all being present), those remain unaddressed here.

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 2:25 AM, yoursvivek <yoursvivek@...> wrote:


    I always find it nagging that some of live compilation releases/RGs have
    their type as live while others have compilation. We should follow a clear
    cut filter like model decide which category a release should belong to.


I would agree to this point.

    Same is true for live bootlegs. Bar a few artists where bootlegs are really

    abundant e.g. Grateful Dead, live bootlegs go to live type releases. I think


"Live" is live, no matter the artist; I don't follow the GD reference - yes, they have a lot of bootlegs, but those are still "live", not something else just because they're GD live... (confused)
 

    selection procedure should be chalked out and included in guidelines. My
    take would be as follows.

    For Releases.
    1. If a release is first official issue of a studio album/single/EP,
    subsequent official reissue with or without extra bonus tracks (previously
    unreleased or otherwise), it will have a type "album". Two-fer releases are
    of type 'album'.
    2. If a studio release is later remixed to changed the theme of album as a
    whole it's remix


I don't follow how the above two have anything to do with the order of type precedence, with regards to bootlegs.
 

    3. Live EP is EP; Live Single is a single. (I've never seen these but I'm
    sure the world is really weird, they must be existing somewhere). Soundtrack
    is Soundtrack, Spokenwords are spokenwords, audio book is audiobook,
    interview is interview. (I think this part never overlaps and is easiest to
    deal with.)


Why?  Live type is defined as "A release that was recorded live." ( http://wiki.musicbrainz.org/ReleaseType#List_of_possible_Release_Types ); it makes no distinction based on the length of the release, nor should it, imho.  Your definition here seems oddly contradictory; an interview, soundtrack, audiobook, or spoken word is that type, no matter the length, but a live release is not?

If you really wanted to get confusing, I'd suggest the order of precedence only really is up for grabs here when you'd be dealing with a live spoken word bootleg - perhaps a bootleg of a comic? - To my mind, this would be the type of confusing cat-corner where an order of precidence *might* make some sense; however, even the rules here leave it unaddressed.

And yes, I've not only seen, but have, and have entered, bootleg EPs and singles; you find lots of bootleg EPs on 7" vinyl, esp from the mid 80's and mid 90's for grunge, and even more so for punk (ie, California vinyl bootleg companies).
 

    *the rest below is a real jabberwocky, but I am trying to be descrete*
    4. If a release is live, official, bootleg or otherwise (like release from
    labels but without permission there by actually illegal and unofficial);
    from a single show or compilation from various live shows (like most Live at
    the BBC), various artist live compilations like Live at Monterey Pop, etc.
    it will have release type of "live."


Why would release status have anything to do with release type?  The "A release that was recorded live." definition would seem to already define the above, without bringing in any confusion re: release status.
 

    5. If a official release is retrospective collection of studio works from
    multiple sessions, with or without some live tracks, it belongs to
    compilation.


First, why the additional requirement that the studio recordings be from multiple sessions?  Second, why only official releases?  Imho, if the logic here makes sense, it should make sense for any release status, not only official status releases.

Sticking to the simple case, without the additional confusion of those two (imho extraneous) requirements, let's say you had a release which had tracks from a studio session (let's say tracks from album X), plus tracks from a live concert (or multiple live performances):

By your definition of the various permutations of this type of release, I think we get far more releases with "huh?" types, rather than additional clarity.  Let's say it's a re-release of an album, but with two additional, live, bonus tracks.  The above defintion would make this now a compilation, rather than an album.  Next, perhaps it's an album, where the artist recorded approx. half the tracks in studio, and approx. half live; here, I think it's best left to a judgement call for the voters, not a guideline - this release likely should either be album or live - compilation, as would be defined by the above, makes no sense to me; first, because it's a album with some live tracks, not a compilation, and second, because we traditionally have not considered a release a compilation if it contains only newly released tracks - this would break the anthology definition of a compilation (and the alt. VA definition doesn't apply here).  Last, most of those tracks are from 1+ live performance(s), but a couple of studio recordings are included as bonus tracks (essentially the inverse of the first case I mentioned); this would pretty clearly be a live release, irregardless of the studio tracks, yet your defintion would define it as compilation.  I fail, in fact, to see the case where the #5 definition actually ever would assign the expected release type to a release.

 

    6. A bootleg compilation with tracks from various sessions is a compilation.


Why?  We use "live" for live releases, and "other" for studio session bootlegs.  While I have seen some argue for compilation status for bootlegs wherein each track is from a different show, those arguments have not typically convinced me.  Specifically for studio sessions, on silver bootlegs (ie, bootlegs printed on "silver CDs" by bootleg companies, rather than trading circle bootlegs), those almost always include tracks from multiple studio sessions, rather than just a single session.  This definition again would seem to be typically assigning the least-expected type to such releases, rather than the most reasonable type.  (And again, the cat corners would seem better left to voters, not a broad-brush guideline).
 

    7. A bootleg with tracks from a single set of sessions  is *duh!* I think
    this is where we should select "Other" and not for anything from the first 6
    categories (points 1-6 above)


Depends on your definition of "session" - I assume you mean studio sessions?  If so, then this one I could agree with, as it's what most of us who enter bootlegs have been doing with studio session bootlegs anyhow (though I would suggest that there's now far more than enough studio session bootlegs in the db such that we might want to consider a non-catchall "other" status to be used for these...)
 

    8. If something filters out right though 1-7 above is of type Others.


Again, I find this overbroad; it's rather rare that we have cases where the correct status is disputed or confusing; I think these are best handled on a per-case basis by the editor and voters, not our simply requiring the cat-corners of the above rules (which I think would be rather plentiful, given the broad nature and broad exclusions of those rules) to all go into "other", even when other types make far more sense...
 

    Now we have some even more complicated cases in RGs (as they are defined
    now)

    RGs genereally club together reissues of same album or multi-disc
    compilation, so all the above rules are applicable. Now here is the bummer.
    What about Led Zeppelin "The Complete Studio Collections" box set? Here is
    what I think should be done with these.
    RGs should be of type "Compilation" as most of them on MB are listed right
    now; but the individual discs, like "The Complete Studio Recordings (disc 3:
    Led Zeppelin III)" release as we call it, why should this be listed as
    'compilation'? Since we have type data separately stored for RGs and
    Releases, why do we need to have the same value on both even when it doesn't
    sound right!


Why not instead add a "box set" status for RGs, or something along those lines, rather than add another definition to what is considered a compilation?
 


    I think it would be best to put individual disc where they would have
    belonged had they been individually released, and put RG for box set in
    compilation.


I don't follow what you mean here.  Are you saying that every box set disc should also be entered as a separate non-box release, even if there never was such a non-box set release for that disc?  (Only way I can parse the above...) If so, I'd disagree, simply on the grounds that you'd be entering non-existent (by definiton) releases.
 


    Comments/Improvement/even disagreement are welcomed and if I'm repeating
    something(s) from previous inconclusive discussion, ignore my ignorance but
    help the cause.
    --
    View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Clarification-and-cosolidation-of-live-compilation-bootleg-type-precedence-tp26160010p26160010.html
    Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


    _______________________________________________
    Musicbrainz-style mailing list
    Musicbrainz-style@...
    http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style



_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

[Gecks]

solution seems simple to me - we need to be able to add multiple
attributes to releases, not either/or for live/EP/album/etc. i'm sure
this has been suggested before.

isn't this going to be part of NGS?

2009/11/3 yoursvivek <yoursvivek@...>:

>
> I always find it nagging that some of live compilation releases/RGs have
> their type as live while others have compilation. We should follow a clear
> cut filter like model decide which category a release should belong to.
>
> Same is true for live bootlegs. Bar a few artists where bootlegs are really
> abundant e.g. Grateful Dead, live bootlegs go to live type releases. I think
> selection procedure should be chalked out and included in guidelines. My
> take would be as follows.
>
> For Releases.
> 1. If a release is first official issue of a studio album/single/EP,
> subsequent official reissue with or without extra bonus tracks (previously
> unreleased or otherwise), it will have a type "album". Two-fer releases are
> of type 'album'.
> 2. If a studio release is later remixed to changed the theme of album as a
> whole it's remix
> 3. Live EP is EP; Live Single is a single. (I've never seen these but I'm
> sure the world is really weird, they must be existing somewhere). Soundtrack
> is Soundtrack, Spokenwords are spokenwords, audio book is audiobook,
> interview is interview. (I think this part never overlaps and is easiest to
> deal with.)
>
> *the rest below is a real jabberwocky, but I am trying to be descrete*
> 4. If a release is live, official, bootleg or otherwise (like release from
> labels but without permission there by actually illegal and unofficial);
> from a single show or compilation from various live shows (like most Live at
> the BBC), various artist live compilations like Live at Monterey Pop, etc.
> it will have release type of "live."
> 5. If a official release is retrospective collection of studio works from
> multiple sessions, with or without some live tracks, it belongs to
> compilation.
> 6. A bootleg compilation with tracks from various sessions is a compilation.
> 7. A bootleg with tracks from a single set of sessions  is *duh!* I think
> this is where we should select "Other" and not for anything from the first 6
> categories (points 1-6 above)
> 8. If something filters out right though 1-7 above is of type Others.
>
> Now we have some even more complicated cases in RGs (as they are defined
> now)
>
> RGs genereally club together reissues of same album or multi-disc
> compilation, so all the above rules are applicable. Now here is the bummer.
> What about Led Zeppelin "The Complete Studio Collections" box set? Here is
> what I think should be done with these.
> RGs should be of type "Compilation" as most of them on MB are listed right
> now; but the individual discs, like "The Complete Studio Recordings (disc 3:
> Led Zeppelin III)" release as we call it, why should this be listed as
> 'compilation'? Since we have type data separately stored for RGs and
> Releases, why do we need to have the same value on both even when it doesn't
> sound right!
>
> I think it would be best to put individual disc where they would have
> belonged had they been individually released, and put RG for box set in
> compilation.
>
> Comments/Improvement/even disagreement are welcomed and if I'm repeating
> something(s) from previous inconclusive discussion, ignore my ignorance but
> help the cause.
> --
> View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Clarification-and-cosolidation-of-live-compilation-bootleg-type-precedence-tp26160010p26160010.html
> Sent from the Musicbrainz - Style mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style