headers
Aaron Cooper | 2 Dec 2006 02:51
Picon
Gravatar

Concert Recordings & Release Dates

Hey everyone,

Some fukker (hehe) got me thinking about concert recordings and how we
date them here on MB.  You may be aware that Metallica has been
recording their concerts for a few years now and releasing them on
www.livemetallica.com for purchase to download.  Several other artists
are doing this same thing (... ummm ... Pearl Jam! They record their
shows and give out CD copies after the show) and I bet this practice
will only become more common as it becomes easier to deliver concert
recordings to fans.

What I want to propose is that we use the concert's Performance Date
as the release date ONLY for official concert recordings that the band
sells/gives out on a regular basis.  The term "regular basis" isn't
hashed out very well at all, so maybe that's something we can discuss.
 I think, in cases such as Metallica's and Pearl Jam's, it is
reasonable to use the performance date as the release date.

Any thoughts?

--

-- 
-Aaron
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Thomas Tholén | 2 Dec 2006 11:49
Picon

Re: Concert Recordings & Release Dates

I don't see the point in  messing up the fields by using them for anything else than what they're meant for. They should only keep the date of the concert if it's in fact available on the date of the concert (which I believe is quite unlikely? Or did I get your Pearl Jam example wrong?).

//[bnw]

On 12/2/06, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
Hey everyone,

Some fukker (hehe) got me thinking about concert recordings and how we
date them here on MB.  You may be aware that Metallica has been
recording their concerts for a few years now and releasing them on
www.livemetallica.com for purchase to download.  Several other artists
are doing this same thing (... ummm ... Pearl Jam! They record their
shows and give out CD copies after the show) and I bet this practice
will only become more common as it becomes easier to deliver concert
recordings to fans.

What I want to propose is that we use the concert's Performance Date
as the release date ONLY for official concert recordings that the band
sells/gives out on a regular basis.  The term "regular basis" isn't
hashed out very well at all, so maybe that's something we can discuss.
I think, in cases such as Metallica's and Pearl Jam's, it is
reasonable to use the performance date as the release date.

Any thoughts?

--
-Aaron

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style-VWJlPdIPk9unah5wVhspdpv38IJrVKKD@public.gmane.org
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style

_______________________________________________
Musicbrainz-style mailing list
Musicbrainz-style@...
http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Andrew Conkling | 3 Dec 2006 23:36
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Cantata and movement names names: where ?

On 11/29/06, Ludovic d'Anchald <ldanchald@...> wrote:
> so that to be exhaustive the track's name could be
>
> 'Cantata, BWV 147 "Herz und Mund und Tat und Leben": X. Choral "Jesus
> bleibet meine Freude"'
>
> My point is, CSG is precise about the first part (says 'Piano Sonata No. 23
> in F minor, Op. 57 "Appassionata"') but we should provide one more example
> like the one I just gave. One better example would be a complex one with a
> name and an italian tempo marking, so feel free to suggest.

Have we reached any consensus on this? I'm getting a bit confused
rereading this thread, but I'm on a Bach rampage and am looking to
clean up a few cantata releases.

Cheers,
Andrew
Permalink | Reply | 14 comments |
headers
Aaron Cooper | 4 Dec 2006 04:29
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Concert Recordings & Release Dates

On 12/2/06, Thomas Tholén <badnewsbnw@...> wrote:
> I don't see the point in  messing up the fields by using them for anything
> else than what they're meant for. They should only keep the date of the
> concert if it's in fact available on the date of the concert (which I
> believe is quite unlikely? Or did I get your Pearl Jam example wrong?).
>
> //[bnw]
>
>
> On 12/2/06, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...> wrote:
> >
> > Hey everyone,
> >
> > Some fukker (hehe) got me thinking about concert recordings and how we
> > date them here on MB.  You may be aware that Metallica has been
> > recording their concerts for a few years now and releasing them on
> > www.livemetallica.com for purchase to download.  Several other artists
> > are doing this same thing (... ummm ... Pearl Jam! They record their
> > shows and give out CD copies after the show) and I bet this practice
> > will only become more common as it becomes easier to deliver concert
> > recordings to fans.
> >
> > What I want to propose is that we use the concert's Performance Date
> > as the release date ONLY for official concert recordings that the band
> > sells/gives out on a regular basis.  The term "regular basis" isn't
> > hashed out very well at all, so maybe that's something we can discuss.
> > I think, in cases such as Metallica's and Pearl Jam's, it is
> > reasonable to use the performance date as the release date.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > --
> > -Aaron
>

The hard part of this is that we cannot always be 100% sure when these
are available - there's no way to confirm it really.  I think in the
Pearl Jam case you pick up your CDs while you're still at the concert
so I think it's safe to say they are released same day as performance
date.  Unfortunately, in Metallica's case, they often upload several
shows from a leg of a tour at the same time and this date isn't
officially documented.

I guess what I'm thinking is that in cases where an artist releases
their concert recordings regularly and doesn't publish specifc release
dates, we should just use the recording date.  The problem with
"guessing" when the recordings were made available is that we can't be
sure.  What if the show was performed on December 26, 2005... was it
released in 2005-12 or was it released 2006-01?  I think it would save
us a lot of headaches to just say that it was released on December 26,
2005 - OR just not set release dates for ANY of these concert
recordings.  I don't have a preference either way, but I don't think
we should be able to say "this was released in 2004" for one show
because it was recorded in July, and not be able to say that for other
shows that were released near the end of a year.  The same is true for
which month they were released in.

--

-- 
-Aaron
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Frederic Da Vitoria | 4 Dec 2006 10:44
Picon

Re: CSG for Opera

2006/11/30, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...>:
> On 11/30/06, Cadalach <cadalach@...> wrote:
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > This evening I was ripping a couple of opera CDs and discovered that
> > there seems to be next to no consistency in how people have entered
> > operas into MB. So I think we ought to try to get something written
> > into the CSG about this. There has been a little bit of debate on this
> > at
> >
> > http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuideDiscussion#head-6f242ed7573de4db5ae90cf0e53e26395303aab3
> >
> > but so far nothing has appeared in the CSG.
> >
> > Here's the recommendation I prefer...
> >
> > TitleOfOpera, Act X, Scene Y: TitleOfTrack
> >
> > Perhaps using Roman numerals for X and Arabic for Y, or perhaps just
> > Arabic for both (which, from a brief look, seems quite common
> > already)?
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > Don
> >
>
> Sounds about what I would expect.  Using commas to separate acts and
> scenes seems to follow "PartNumberStyle".
>
> --
> -Aaron

TitleOfTrack actually can (should?) be made of sub parts: type, first
verse, part(s)... So I suggest we specify the order which should be
used if the editor includes them.
- Recitativo accompagnato e duetto: "Ma qual mai s'offre, oh Dei"
(Donna Anna, Don Ottavio)
- Recitativo accompagnato e duetto (Donna Anna, Don Ottavio): "Ma qual
mai s'offre, oh Dei"
- (Donna Anna, Don Ottavio) Recitativo accompagnato e duetto: "Ma qual
mai s'offre, oh Dei"

I put the parts in brackets, but this does not mean I recommend it,
although I have a feeling it is common usage.

--

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
Permalink | Reply | 11 comments |
headers
Chris Bransden | 4 Dec 2006 11:13

Re: Concert Recordings & Release Dates

On 04/12/06, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...> wrote:
> On 12/2/06, Thomas Tholén <badnewsbnw@...> wrote:
> > I don't see the point in  messing up the fields by using them for anything
> > else than what they're meant for. They should only keep the date of the
> > concert if it's in fact available on the date of the concert (which I
> > believe is quite unlikely? Or did I get your Pearl Jam example wrong?).
> >
> > //[bnw]
> >
> >
> > On 12/2/06, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey everyone,
> > >
> > > Some fukker (hehe) got me thinking about concert recordings and how we
> > > date them here on MB.  You may be aware that Metallica has been
> > > recording their concerts for a few years now and releasing them on
> > > www.livemetallica.com for purchase to download.  Several other artists
> > > are doing this same thing (... ummm ... Pearl Jam! They record their
> > > shows and give out CD copies after the show) and I bet this practice
> > > will only become more common as it becomes easier to deliver concert
> > > recordings to fans.
> > >
> > > What I want to propose is that we use the concert's Performance Date
> > > as the release date ONLY for official concert recordings that the band
> > > sells/gives out on a regular basis.  The term "regular basis" isn't
> > > hashed out very well at all, so maybe that's something we can discuss.
> > > I think, in cases such as Metallica's and Pearl Jam's, it is
> > > reasonable to use the performance date as the release date.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > --
> > > -Aaron
> >
>
> The hard part of this is that we cannot always be 100% sure when these
> are available - there's no way to confirm it really.  I think in the
> Pearl Jam case you pick up your CDs while you're still at the concert
> so I think it's safe to say they are released same day as performance
> date.  Unfortunately, in Metallica's case, they often upload several
> shows from a leg of a tour at the same time and this date isn't
> officially documented.
>
> I guess what I'm thinking is that in cases where an artist releases
> their concert recordings regularly and doesn't publish specifc release
> dates, we should just use the recording date.  The problem with
> "guessing" when the recordings were made available is that we can't be
> sure.  What if the show was performed on December 26, 2005... was it
> released in 2005-12 or was it released 2006-01?  I think it would save
> us a lot of headaches to just say that it was released on December 26,
> 2005 - OR just not set release dates for ANY of these concert
> recordings.  I don't have a preference either way, but I don't think
> we should be able to say "this was released in 2004" for one show
> because it was recorded in July, and not be able to say that for other
> shows that were released near the end of a year.  The same is true for
> which month they were released in.

IMO only give them a release date if there was a specific release
event. the pixies put out live CDs of a similar nature which i *think*
were released at the same night of the shows (they used this
'disclive' technology that could press the discs straight away), so
there's a release date to go on.

if they don't have this, or you're not sure, i say leave it blank.
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Aaron Cooper | 4 Dec 2006 13:22
Picon
Gravatar

Re: CSG for Opera

On 12/4/06, Frederic Da Vitoria <davitofrg@...> wrote:
> 2006/11/30, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...>:
> > On 11/30/06, Cadalach <cadalach@...> wrote:
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > > This evening I was ripping a couple of opera CDs and discovered that
> > > there seems to be next to no consistency in how people have entered
> > > operas into MB. So I think we ought to try to get something written
> > > into the CSG about this. There has been a little bit of debate on this
> > > at
> > >
> > > http://musicbrainz.org/doc/ClassicalStyleGuideDiscussion#head-6f242ed7573de4db5ae90cf0e53e26395303aab3
> > >
> > > but so far nothing has appeared in the CSG.
> > >
> > > Here's the recommendation I prefer...
> > >
> > > TitleOfOpera, Act X, Scene Y: TitleOfTrack
> > >
> > > Perhaps using Roman numerals for X and Arabic for Y, or perhaps just
> > > Arabic for both (which, from a brief look, seems quite common
> > > already)?
> > >
> > > Any thoughts?
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Don
> > >
> >
> > Sounds about what I would expect.  Using commas to separate acts and
> > scenes seems to follow "PartNumberStyle".
> >
> > --
> > -Aaron
>
> TitleOfTrack actually can (should?) be made of sub parts: type, first
> verse, part(s)... So I suggest we specify the order which should be
> used if the editor includes them.
> - Recitativo accompagnato e duetto: "Ma qual mai s'offre, oh Dei"
> (Donna Anna, Don Ottavio)
> - Recitativo accompagnato e duetto (Donna Anna, Don Ottavio): "Ma qual
> mai s'offre, oh Dei"
> - (Donna Anna, Don Ottavio) Recitativo accompagnato e duetto: "Ma qual
> mai s'offre, oh Dei"
>
> I put the parts in brackets, but this does not mean I recommend it,
> although I have a feeling it is common usage.
>
> --
> Frederic Da Vitoria
>
> _______________________________________________
> Musicbrainz-style mailing list
> Musicbrainz-style@...
> http://lists.musicbrainz.org/mailman/listinfo/musicbrainz-style
>

Personally, I don't like crowding the track titles with extraneous
information - and to me, the names of the characters is extraneous.
I'm no opera buff (by any stretch of the imagination), but if I want
to understand who's singing what, I'll read the liner notes or a
summary on the internet while listening.  If only a few people are
singing on each track, I would add them as ARs for their particular
performance (ie, SoAndSo performs tenor vocals on
ThisParticularTrack).

Regards,
--

-- 
-Aaron
Permalink | Reply | 10 comments |
headers
Aaron Cooper | 4 Dec 2006 13:31
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Concert Recordings & Release Dates

On 12/4/06, Chris Bransden <chris@...> wrote:
> IMO only give them a release date if there was a specific release
> event. the pixies put out live CDs of a similar nature which i *think*
> were released at the same night of the shows (they used this
> 'disclive' technology that could press the discs straight away), so
> there's a release date to go on.
>
> if they don't have this, or you're not sure, i say leave it blank.
>

Where do we draw the line then?  Is it safe to say that a recording
from July was released in a particular year but a recording from
December is not?  That will severely mess up the order these
recordings are sorted.

The case I'm concerned with is releases like
http://musicbrainz.org/release/d4bf22c9-cd7e-44cf-82ee-5c24fb2f3e99.html
and a few other concerts from April/May.  Can we say that concert
recordings are enough like bootlegs that they shouldn't have an
official release date?  Can we say that they don't explicitly always
have a release date so they should not have one set?  That would be
cool with me.

--

-- 
-Aaron
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Chris Bransden | 4 Dec 2006 13:39

Re: Concert Recordings & Release Dates

On 04/12/06, Aaron Cooper <cooperaa@...> wrote:
> On 12/4/06, Chris Bransden <chris@...> wrote:
> > IMO only give them a release date if there was a specific release
> > event. the pixies put out live CDs of a similar nature which i *think*
> > were released at the same night of the shows (they used this
> > 'disclive' technology that could press the discs straight away), so
> > there's a release date to go on.
> >
> > if they don't have this, or you're not sure, i say leave it blank.
> >
>
> Where do we draw the line then?  Is it safe to say that a recording
> from July was released in a particular year but a recording from
> December is not?

i'd only put the release date in if i was SURE that it released in
that year, or that month/day if you're able to be more specific.

> That will severely mess up the order these
> recordings are sorted.

i'm not too bothered about the sort order - that's more a display
issue and anyway is pretty messed up for most artists already, what
with bootlegs hardly ever having release dates.

>
> The case I'm concerned with is releases like
> http://musicbrainz.org/release/d4bf22c9-cd7e-44cf-82ee-5c24fb2f3e99.html
> and a few other concerts from April/May.  Can we say that concert
> recordings are enough like bootlegs that they shouldn't have an
> official release date?  Can we say that they don't explicitly always
> have a release date so they should not have one set?

nah cos sometimes they do. eg, the pixies releases i had earlier.

if a release has a vague 'availability date' (eg, like a live bootleg
someone uploads to archive.org, then IMO they don't get a release date
(even just a 'year') cos they could have been available to people via
other means (traders...) before that date, and also it's not really a
'release'.  official releases are different because their distribution
is controlled, even if it's a download. there will be a set date at
which the release was available, it's just a matter of finding when it
is :)
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Cadalach | 4 Dec 2006 14:27
Picon

Re: CSG for Opera

I must say that I agree with what Aaron is saying here. If we've
already got the name of the opera, the act and scene info (when
appropriate) then putting in character and "type of song" information
too, as suggested by Frederic, will make the final track title go on
for a week.

Best wishes,
Don

> Personally, I don't like crowding the track titles with extraneous
> information - and to me, the names of the characters is extraneous.
>
> Regards,
> --
> -Aaron
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane