#musicbrainz

when will they ever get fixed?

take the collab of the month...

the only time I "fix" is when I get a subscription email saying someone made an edit

when the UI makes it easy. :)

then I go look and get annoyed and fix stuff

we're doing 2 months on DS

seems it'd make more sense to choose a bunch of 1 release artists,

and make THAT the collab of the month

and I do mean month, not 2 or 3

if we choose 50 1 releasers each month,

and everyone does One of them

then the small timers get the attention they need

yup

all DS really needs is a die hard DS fan, like me with Nirvana

The Beatles was a special case

but, I think that might be displacing our efforts in a place that doesn't need as much attention/effort

maybe the Grateful Dead, Beatles, Pearl Jam, and Classical need that kind of attention

but Dire Straits???

and 2 whole months?

are people still working on DS?

I thought the hype died down so no one updated the Wiki

I started, but I got discouraged

was trying to clean up the bootlegs

there are 24 in there

10 of them currently use bootlegstyleguide naming,

14 don't

I started correcting the 14 to BSG

ppl were voting against the fixes,

saying "BSG is only a proposal now, voting no til it's an official style"

so instead we stay with inconsistancy

lame

lol

most new people would just quit.

I think BSG is solid enough

What is the process for finally getting the damn thing made official?

as far as I'm concerned it's official

if anyone disagrees with it, point them at Nirvana

you can see, looking at Nirvana, how clean it is, using BSG and the extra Nirvana-specific rules for categorization

(which I wrote) lol

extra rules, btw, being: Live" refers to any album which contains only one concert or demo session, or which contains one concert/demo session plus a small number of filler tracks from other sources.

Live" refers to any album which contains only one concert or demo session, or which contains one concert/demo session plus a small number of filler tracks from other sources.

Studio bootlegs will be listed under the "Other" category.

makes it clear what category each type of boot goes into

and the display looks REALLY clean

cool

I've been tempted to add those defs into the BSG, actually

just haven't gotten enough comments on them yet

i disagree with listing 2 live shows together as "compilation"

that should be live

I think so to... but I'd be open to hearing your argument, BrianFreud

well,

the way I've been doing it,

no one CD can ever hold 2 full shows

if there are 2 on one CD,

if all the tracks are live then the type is live

either you've got a SNL type show plus a real show,

it's still live though

or they left out some

oh, I agree,

but right now, we have overloaded that category

they are Live AND Compilations

but take Outcesticide as an example

It's 24/25 tracks, depending on the release

every single one live

every single one from a different concert

to me, when I have to choose one of the two, that's a compilation, not a live

I think of "live" as a concert

"compilation" I think of as a mix of different *sources*, be they live, demo, studio, official, etc

same, but even official live releases can be made up of different performances

if the release was "official" it would be classified as live....I don't think there's anything in the manner of bootlegs which would make that fact change

like I say, this is a hack, since right now we force people to choose one or the other

when it really is both

this definition at least makes a clean distinction

but I think primarily it is a live release

in that every song is live

well, ok, but take an example where you have 20 tracks

if you set it as a compilation you're going to have (live) in every track title

15 are live, from different concerts, and 5 are studio, of the 5 studio, 4 are demo, one was a b-side

What is it?

compilation

why?

(obviously?_

so, who's done a plugin to pipe missing tracks into gnutella? :)

yes, it seems obvious, but just for the point of argument, spell it out a sec :)

why? because it is a compilation of seemingly random tracks, live, demos, studio, etc

try this brian...search for releases called "Greatest Hits Live"...see how many are live..how many are compilation

no, I know

I think Live >> Compilation like drsaunde is saying... because you can have compilations, bootlegs, etc all that are live

Well, think of it this way

You're saying that an album that is 75% live is still a compilation.

so yes, we should maybe have sub-categories for live releases, but we don;t

What if we make it 19 out of 20 are live, and the 1 that's not is marked (bonus track)

You know, having a separate server for recent submissions then just copying them into the main database might make sense.

is it still a compilation?

unless it was originally released as a 15-track live album

and they tagged that other stuff on the end for bonus

then I'd say it's live

ajh: you're describing the uk server

so what is it about 15/5 vs 19/1 that makes the first a comp and the 2nd live?

If it's really this loaded then perhaps having something highly available would make sense.

if not HA/GeoDiverse.

like I say, it's all grey, cause we're making 1 field cover 2 different categories

if the only non-live track is a bonus track, then sure, call it live

that's why I put in a hard and fast rule

it may not be perfect

but it's clear and makes some sense

but if there are random tracks and random types of tracks, compilation

well, I cover that in there too

if you have 1 full concert, plus 5 bonus tracks from a different concert, the def treats that as Live

how is that different from two live concerts together?

if you have 2+ partial concerts, the def treats that as compilation

full vs partial

makes no sense to me

and I've been using the Uk server, but it still sends me to the other one on "lookup"

2 full live shows would be live

yes

agreed

I've only run into one of those

just like two albums on one disc are still categorized as an album

and I hope in that full +5 situation you aren't using the show date of the full show in the title

and I'm still debating how to cover it

drsaude: luckily in every such case, the bootleg labels the +5 as bonus, so I can do it

as per BSG

(every such case *so far*)

is that in the guide? I don't remember that and I would remove dates from the titles in those instances

let me find it...

looks like it's been taken out again

there was a section that described ignoring bonus tracks when it came to date naming

probably because it didn't make sense

I don't agree...

I can see the argument

I've been collecting bootlegs for 15+ years

if a show/recording date is in the bootleg title...all the tracks should be from that show

in the bootleg world,

in the bootleg world,

okay time out

lol

:)

I think that the date should only be used for shows or some sort of live recording that took place on that date. we all agree there I'm pretty sure

if a bootleg recording of that show was released... we would label it YYYY-MM-DD: TItle

The entire concept of albums is going to shift away soon anyway.

Typically, in the bootleg world, it is expected that a disc be FULL. So if a concert ran shorter than a disc can hold, you get bonus tracks. But the disk will still normally advertise, in title, or on the cover, using the date for the main concert on the disk.

but then if (somehow) it was re-released with bonus material (perhaps the band's warmup from the day before) then I think it only makes sense to label it the same way like we do with albums

It's like a recording of Mozart's requiem which also happens to have a single sonnet or something on it

well we do signify that in classical titles sometimes

Requiem / Overtures