#musicbrainz

There is a process at setlist.fm whereby for a live performance to be added to the database the artist must exist in MusicBrainz.  I have noticed that an auto-editor, Salo.rock, has systematically gone in after me and deleted the relationships I have included with new artists which subsequently cause the artist to be deleted automatically deleted

from the database.  This seems counterintuitive to the cooperative nature of the community.  The database at MusicBrainz has become so much more inclusive since 2020 and especially in how the industry has changed.  To depend on the physical publication of an artist's material as the sole qualifier is outdated.  May I have input as to whether I

am in the wrong in this and whether the artists should exist in the database if they perform the material in a manner shared with the public.  Thank

xmcd: are you adding one-off collaborations? If so, yes, these do not belong in MusicBrainz and setlist.fm being unable to deal with them properly is not our fault

It's not about them having releases - if there's existing bands that perform live, those qualify - but I'd be surprised if salo.rock is removing things for no good reason

No.  For example Nate Jackson is a long time Washington State comedian who travels throughout North America.  Well established with a heavy social media presence.  He was deleted.

Is he a musician?

Comedians are barely in scope for MusicBrainz if they release CDs, and that's because we kinda-sorta allow all audio CDs, but we're not going to store every standup comedian in our music database

It's not that they're not valid artists, they're just not what we're for :)

No.  A stand-up comedian without an audio CD.

The followup then is setlist.fm is not really using MusicBrainz correctly?

Then that does not seem in scope. I didn't know it was in scope for setlist either, but I haven't read their guidelines :)

What's the point of a setlists page for comedy anyway?

Moderators had a discussion on this topic a couple of years ago, and the general consensus was that it's fine and does no harm. It might look odd to have a comedian with a blank “setlist” on this website, but it is still a great way to archive performance dates and locations (and add them to your own attended shows).

Well, there might at some point be a similar discussion in MusicBrainz but so far it hasn't really been requested (and the community seems to rather want to remove non-musical comedy stuff when they have anything to say about it, in my experience)

Last thought then is that MusicBrainz includes lecturers (like Richard Dawkins) who have published audiobooks.  Is that still within the realm of the community?

Audiobooks are

Thank you for your thoughts.  Cheers.

Lecturers without any audiobooks should be at BookBrainz

That said, I re-read the forums discussions that mentioned comedy a bit and it seems the recent view of it is more accepting than it used to be

But I think that's still mostly about releases, I don't think there's been a proposal before to add comedians unless they release

Thank you for the insight.

test #2

ah it works now

I, somehow, was on the wrong #musicbrainz channel

I have an editing question if anyone knows the answer. I am currently trying to make the MB entries for I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue (a UK BBC Radio 4 Comedy Panel show that has been going for c. 50 years!!) both complete and consistent. There are some CD releases which are easy to edit, but there are also recorded versions of the radio broadcasts which are effectively 80 releases for the 80 series.

My question is whether a recorded version of a broadcast is "Official" or "Bootleg". The broadcast itself was official, but the editing guidelines are not clear enough for me to know whether these recordings (which are very very widely shared amongst aficionados) should be "Official" or "Bootleg".

Thx/

s///./

I kinda get the feeling it should be bootleg? But maybe someone who actually edits broadcasts can chime in

"Bootleg should be used for pirated/counterfeit/unofficial releases, but not every unofficial release should be added as a MusicBrainz bootleg. An exact digital rip of an official physical release does not qualify for a separate bootleg release, even if no official digital release exists." https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release

aerozol, kellnerd: do you have an opinion on this? It kinda feels like https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Specific_type... should mention status

It does have "If you don't know how or if it was distributed, only that it was aired, leave the format blank (as well as the release date)." which suggests there could be an official release for the original broadcast somehow? But not quite 100% on this

So good I am here twice :-) Once as Sophist-UK via IRC and once as protopia[m] via Matrix bridge.

Oh, it's you :) Hi!

I know exactly the date of each broadcast (each track of each release) - it is effectively a catalogue of broadcast episodes from 1972 to 2024 and onwards.

And each track is (ideally) the complete recording of the episode as broadcast. So on-the-whole I think it should be official. But some of the episodes were recorded by listeners whilst some may have been shared from the BBC original tapes (but I have no idea how many or which ones).

Here are my original Matrix posts (so those on IRC can see them):

"I have an editing question if anyone knows the answer. I am currently trying to make the MB entries for I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue (a UK BBC Radio 4 Comedy Panel show that has been going for c. 50 years!!) both complete and consistent. There are some CD releases which are easy to edit, but there are also recorded versions of the radio broadcasts which are effectively 80 releases for the

80 series."

"My question is whether a recorded version of a broadcast is "Official" or "Bootleg". The broadcast itself was official, but the editing guidelines are not clear enough for me to know whether these recordings (which are very very widely shared amongst aficionados) should be "Official" or "Bootleg"."

"Bootleg should be used for pirated/counterfeit/unofficial releases, but not every unofficial release should be added as a MusicBrainz bootleg. An exact digital rip of an official physical release does not qualify for a separate bootleg release, even if no official digital release exists." https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release

reosarevok also pointed us to https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Specific_type...

there is quite a bit of similarity between a home recording of a live broadcast and a bootleg recording of a live concert, imo

Yes - which is why I am dithering. Except that there is perhaps also a difference between a live concert listened to only by those who have purchased a ticket (license) and a live concert which was broadcast to the public domain.

release group type broadcast, release status bootleg makes sense to me.

nothing says a bootleg can't be made of a free/unticketed live concert :)

So (playing Devil's Advocate) I might argue that recording a live concert that is NOT broadcast is a bootleg, but that a broadcast is similar to a CD release, and so recording a broadcast is similar to a digital copy of an official CD (which is "official" according to the guidelines).

Which is why I am asking for opinions, because it is not clear to me.

(And most MB releases for thesr recorded broadcasts have a blank status, but a few have "official" and a few have "bootleg".)

a live broadcast is a performance, not a release.

official would make sense for any, well, official release of a recording made available after the live show

Fair point.