• jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    Video media that does not contain music videos, concert performances or suplimentary audio material are not supposed to be indexed, right? Metalocalypse Seasons 1-3 used to be indexed, but I remember them being removed due to not actually being music.

    The release I am talking about now is this one for the movie "Bohemian Rhapsody."

    https://www.discogs.com/master/view/1509860

    Stuff like this ins't supposed to be on the database, right?
  • hmvh over 2 years ago

    Generally no, but if the media carrier does include full / complete musical performances such as supposedly "the official video of "don't stop me now", then those need to be singled out and the product become eligible.
    mau079 has a disproportionate amount of versions and will surely have watched them all to confirm.
  • mau079 over 2 years ago

    hmvh: yes I've watched all the person I have (and I will have in the future) so I can confirm you what you said. The media carriere also include the live performance of the original band at live aid concert in 1985. The audio is from the original queen, the actors playback on the music; furthermore in the extras is included an extra called "the look and sound of queen" a short documentary on the band....so since is others documentaries, on dvd/blu-ray, are present on discogs (like "days of our lives") this release con be assumed to the queen release catalogue.
  • jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    jackvanamouse edited over 2 years ago
    I just looked at my Blu-Ray copy of the movie, and believe that this release should not be on discogs. The bonus feature "The Complete Live Aid Performance" is a recreation of Live Aid for the movie, and not the actual footage from the real Live Aid concert with the real Queen. Since the footage is a recreation and not the actual concert, that feature should not qualify this release in the database. Furthermore, I checked both the DVD and Blu-Ray, and there is no "Official Don't Stop Me Now" music video on either of them. Lastly, the "The Look And Sound Of Queen" short documentary was made for this release and is made from people involved with the film talking about Queen. These claims can be backed up by this blu-ray.com review and the release page for the home release from Queen's website:

    http://www.queenonline.com/news/press-release-bohemian-rhapsody-digital-dvd-and-blu-ray-release-details

    https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Bohemian-Rhapsody-Blu-ray/220955/

    This release is not a documentary, does not include actual concert footage, and does not contain a dedicated audio medium that should qualify it being on the database. This release, like all other musical biopics, should not be on the database. The original soundtrack should be on the database, but the movie should not.
  • 0bleak over 2 years ago

    jackvanamouse
    Furthermore, I checked both the DVD and Blu-Ray, and there is no "Official Don't Stop Me Now" music video on either of them.


    It plays on split-screen during the end credits.
  • jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    jackvanamouse edited over 2 years ago
    0bleak
    jackvanamouseFurthermore, I checked both the DVD and Blu-Ray, and there is no "Official Don't Stop Me Now" music video on either of them.

    It plays on split-screen during the end credits.


    Does that validate it being on the Database? There's an episode of Family Guy where an entire cut-away joke is the music video for "Dancing in the Streets" by David Bowie and Mick Jagger. It is the entire music video without any overdubbing or editing at all. Should the DVD that the episode that contains that music video be in the database? What about the four seasons of Metalocalypse featuring the band Dethklok? Those DVD's had bonus content that was music videos for the band, yet those releases were pulled from the database? How about the DVD release of "Bowling For Columbine"? That has the music video for "Fight Song" by Marilyn Manson on it, but I don't see that on discogs. Why aren't DVD copies of musicals on here? Why isn't the DVD for The Who's movie "Tommy" on here? Why isn't The BeeGee's movie "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" on here? What makes the non-concert film Bohemian Rhapsody eligible to be on here?

    I'm not trying to be mean here. We should just be consistent about what is and isn't allowed on the database.
  • 0bleak over 2 years ago

    I don't care either way. I'm just saying that the video is actually on there and where to find it.
  • hmvh over 2 years ago

    jackvanamouse
    The bonus feature "The Complete Live Aid Performance" is a recreation of Live Aid for the movie, and not the actual footage from the real Live Aid concert with the real Queen.

    So it includes original music with a bunch of actors miming over it?

    0bleak
    It plays on split-screen during the end credits.

    Part of the movie then.

    Sorry, as much as I'm a fan of the band, this has no business belonging in a database of their recorded output.

    There will always be gray areas. This is on the wrong end of the spectrum.

    File under "Yellow Submarine".
  • seehaas over 2 years ago

  • Mop66 over 2 years ago

    hmvh
    Generally no, but if the media carrier does include full / complete musical performances such as supposedly "the official video of "don't stop me now", then those need to be singled out and the product become eligible.

    Agreed.
    seehaas
    To https://www.filmo.gs/ please

    Not if the above is fulfilled. A bonus music video or ssimilar content that makes sense to listen to without the video content does make the release eligible for Discogs as well. It might need a case by case discussion, but it's not default no go rather a default yes for inclusion.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    Mop66
    Not if the above is fulfilled. A bonus music video or ssimilar content that makes sense to listen to without the video content does make the release eligible for Discogs as well. It might need a case by case discussion, but it's not default no go rather a default yes for inclusion.

    RSG §1.1.3.a:
    1.1.3.a. Video: Only video items that have audio as the main focus are allowed, where "audio" is either one or more complete studio recordings, one or more complete live performances. If the item still makes sense with the picture turned off, it will probably be acceptable Please ask in the Database Forum if you are unsure whether to submit a video or not, especially for borderline cases. There is now Filmogs for films!

    The main feature is a movie with serious differences from real history. This it is not a biography. Without video track the movie does not make much sense and without knowledge of real Queen history it provides misleading information.

    Yes, there is a bonus feature, which is a recording of a concert, but it is a negligible part of the whole distribution.
  • Mop66 over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz
    The main feature is a movie with serious differences from real history.

    The MAIN FEATURE of the bonus is audio as it is '"audio" is either one or more complete studio recordings, one or more complete live performances.' That's what makes the bonus eligible to be added here. The guideline is not talking about the main feature film of the release, it is talking about the main feature of the video item and the item here is the bonus section of the movie DVD/BluRay. Search the forum, there will be older threads where this was discussed and confirmed by the management (going back way longer than you are obviously around here, not blaming you for it, but that's the reason hmvh and I are pointing it out.)
    Compare RSG §12.15.:
    Releases that have eligible audio focused content, but which also include non-audio focused content (for example, videos with interview sections, DVDs with non audio multimedia content) in their tracklisting, can have those non audio sections listed in the tracklisting section. Non-audio content that isn't listed in the tracklisting of a release (for example, text files on a CD-ROM) should be listed in the release notes section.
  • ReadyBeast over 2 years ago

    ReadyBeast edited over 2 years ago
    ..........
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    Mop66, as far as I understand RSG §12.15, you say, that the main content is the Live Aid concert and the movie is a bonus content, which is not true :-)
  • jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    So can we vote to remove it from the database now, please?
  • Mop66 over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz
    Mop66, as far as I understand RSG §12.15, you say, that the main content is the Live Aid concert and the movie is a bonus content, which is not true :-)


    I am not referring to any example above, I am speaking generally. A video of Purple Rain (The Movie) with an additional music video of "When doves cry" is eligible due to the music video for the cause of the music video. It is eligible despite of the movie. It has to be as otherwise you could run into situations where i.e. a music audio only track (even without any video for itself at all) cannot be added even if it is just released as a bonus to a completely spoken word only movie and even if that audio track would not be available in any other form on any other release on any other format.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    Mop66, I understand your reasons, but there is another extreme - you could add a lot of video games to discogs just because they have "eligible content" in form of game music, because here the "audio is either one or more complete studio recordings".

    I agree, that this is a grey area, where artistic forms overlap. My opinion is, that movies don't belong here just because of the bonus content, so I vote NO (if there is a chance to vote ;-) ).
  • Mop66 over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz
    Mop66, I understand your reasons, but there is another extreme - you could add a lot of video games to discogs just because they have "eligible content" in form of game music, because here the "audio is either one or more complete studio recordings".


    ..ah...yes ;-) : Various - wipEout 2097
  • timhorton69 over 2 years ago

    I hate to be difficult, but if it's the complete Don't Stop Me Now video, and you can hear the complete song, regardless of whether there's credits rolling on the other side of the screen, and the video is half the screen, that seems to make the release eligible in the database to me. To me, this is "one or more complete studio recordings...If the item still makes sense with the picture turned off, it will probably be acceptable". I'm not a particular Queen fan (though I acknowledge there are others in this thread who are), but if I were, I'd like to know that this is one place I could get another recording of this song.
  • steve.fletcher over 2 years ago

    steve.fletcher edited over 2 years ago
    If it is a complete stand alone musical track ie: has to be accessed separately (such as bonus video) and not part of the film then it is eligible.
    If it is part of the film even if played over the credits it is part of the overall film and not a stand alone track. Virtually every musical film would be eligible if this was the acceptable criteria as virtually every musical has a song played over the credits.
    In fact the movie Charro has one complete song which is played in full over both the opening and closing credits. So the movie is not eligible in Discogs only in filmogs.

    Invite tsivihcra
  • ReadyBeast over 2 years ago

    Mop66
    pushkin_czMop66, as far as I understand RSG §12.15, you say, that the main content is the Live Aid concert and the movie is a bonus content, which is not true :-)

    I am not referring to any example above, I am speaking generally. A video of Purple Rain (The Movie) with an additional music video of "When doves cry" is eligible due to the music video for the cause of the music video. It is eligible despite of the movie. It has to be as otherwise you could run into situations where i.e. a music audio only track (even without any video for itself at all) cannot be added even if it is just released as a bonus to a completely spoken word only movie and even if that audio track would not be available in any other form on any other release on any other format.

    timhorton69
    I hate to be difficult, but if it's the complete Don't Stop Me Now video, and you can hear the complete song, regardless of whether there's credits rolling on the other side of the screen, and the video is half the screen, that seems to make the release eligible in the database to me. To me, this is "one or more complete studio recordings...If the item still makes sense with the picture turned off, it will probably be acceptable". I'm not a particular Queen fan (though I acknowledge there are others in this thread who are), but if I were, I'd like to know that this is one place I could get another recording of this song.

    Great! I think I am now going to be able to submit a whole bunch of movie DVD's and Blu-ray's that have a single music video as a separate bonus in Discogs database ! I wouldn't know where to start. There are so many...
  • Mop66 over 2 years ago

    ReadyBeast
    Great! I think I am now going to be able to submit a whole bunch of movie DVD's and Blu-ray's that have a single music video as a separate bonus in Discogs database !


    Which is perfectly ok.
  • baldorr over 2 years ago

    I don’t mind one way or the other, but if we’re going to go hog wild and add all kinds of movies now, each one will need to be discussed first, as per this line in the GL:

    Please ask in the Database Forum if you are unsure whether to submit a video or not, especially for borderline cases.

    Especially non-music related movies. I admit there does seem to be holes in some discographies due to the exclusion of band documentaries and whatnot. It does feel like finding a loophole in the system to get them added, but as long as we follow the guideline, ask in the forums first, and explain the inclusion information in the submission history, then go for it.
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    I thought it *was* ok to add movies if they had bolted-on music videos? For example, I know the DVD of "Dude, Where's My Car" has a full Grand Theft Audio video on it. Can anyone point me to the guideline that strictly forbids its inclusion on the database?
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    I agree with baldorr - the main mistake is, that addition of Bohemian Rhapsody was not discussed before entering into database, which should be obligatory in case of movies.

    On the other hand - how to enter movies like these? Who's the artist? Queen? No, because they did not made the main content. What's the name of the work? Bohemian Rhapsody? No, because we are entering this because of Live Aid and Don't Stop Me Now. Or yes?

    I agree, that rarities like these should be stored somewhere, but I think, that this would require diferent style of database than Discogs is.
  • Martin35 over 2 years ago

    True, it should have been discussed before entering but too late for that now. But I am not in favor of removing this one. Especially because it contains the recreated Live Aid concert. Although it has new images the music comes from the complete performance by Queen. That makes it a valid submission for Discogs I believe. Then you have the Don't Stop Me Now discussion plus the fact that the whole movie is stuffed with original Queen tracks... Too much musical connections here not to fit into a Music database.
  • jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    Can we get a count of "yes remove" and "no keep"?

    Yes remove from me.
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    I'm for, if it's a standalone music video, it should be allowed.
  • jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    [quote=Pheenixx][/quote]

    The music video is at the end of the movie in the credits though. You can't independently select it from the movie as another video option.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    In current state of the Discogs database I vote "yes, remove".

    In case we had something like "meta-artists" like "Movie", "Documentary" or "PC Game", which would clearly separate the main content from other audio-focused releases without additional need of definition of the artist, I would vote "no, keep". But, currently I don't see similar option like this.
  • Symphonyz over 2 years ago

    Yes to remove from me. RSG §1.1.3a seems pretty clear on this.

    Pheenixx, thanks for the laugh... I haven't thought of the band Grand Theft Audio in about a decade...
  • auboisdormant over 2 years ago

  • baldorr over 2 years ago

    auboisdormant
    seehaasTo https://www.filmo.gs/ please
    +1


    +1

    This is certainly a borderline case, but to me this really doesn't belong here.
  • timhorton69 over 2 years ago

    Obviously, keep, from me.
  • jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    Current Vote Count:

    Remove:
    hmvh
    seehaas
    steve.fletcher
    jackvanamouse
    pushkin_cz
    Symphonyz
    mirva
    baldorr

    Keep:
    timhorton69
    pheenixx
  • ReadyBeast over 2 years ago

    ReadyBeast edited over 2 years ago
    As the music video is embedded in the movie and as the live performance is not a 100% Queen performance (how can you dissociate the soundtrack from the images here ? They form a whole here - imagine a Queen fan that has no knowledge of the movie and finds out about this release in the database only to find out after purchase that it's just a bunch of actors mimicking his favourite band...), I'd vote for removal too.
  • ReadyBeast over 2 years ago

    ReadyBeast edited over 2 years ago
    If this movie stays in the database, it should not have Queen as main artist name, because it's not a Queen release in the first place. Usually a movie is associated with the name of its director...
    If you can't find a way to sort this out, then maybe it is because Discogs is not designed to include movies at all. And what about the tracklisting ? All submissions that are under the Bohemian Rhapsody MR right now have an unconventional way of displaying the content in the tracklisting with weird track positions too. It needs major changes.
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    Symphonyz
    Pheenixx, thanks for the laugh... I haven't thought of the band Grand Theft Audio in about a decade...

    Sorry, can you clarify? Are you laughing at me for having an opposite opinion to you, or laughing at the band?

    jackvanamouse
    The music video is at the end of the movie in the credits though. You can't independently select it from the movie as another video option.

    Fair enough, I was unaware of that, If it *was* an indepedently-accessible option and therefore, to me, of interest to GTA collectors who could be researching all the obtainable releases by the band, does that still make the DVD forbidden?
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    ReadyBeast
    If this movie stays in the database, it should not have Queen as main artist name, because it's not a Queen release in the frist place. Usually a movie is associated with the name of its director...
    If you can't find a way to sort this out, then maybe it is because Discogs is not designed to include movies at all. And what about the tracklisting ? All submissions that are under the Bohemian Rhapsody MR right now have an unconventional way of displaying the content in the tracklisting with weird track positions too. It needs major changes.


    I agree. Let's develop some better system than we have now. https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/788847
  • Symphonyz over 2 years ago

    Pheenixx
    Sorry, can you clarify? Are you laughing at me for having an opposite opinion to you, or laughing at the band?


    Laughing at the band...
  • Opdiner over 2 years ago

    baldorr
    +1

    This is certainly a borderline case, but to me this really doesn't belong here.


    I don't think it's even borderline. It belongs at Filmogs.
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    Martin35
    True, it should have been discussed before entering but too late for that now. But I am not in favor of removing this one. Especially because it contains the recreated Live Aid concert. Although it has new images the music comes from the complete performance by Queen. That makes it a valid submission for Discogs I believe. Then you have the Don't Stop Me Now discussion plus the fact that the whole movie is stuffed with original Queen tracks... Too much musical connections here not to fit into a Music database.


    Although much might not like it, IMO this one is 100% eligible for inclusion in the datebase.
    Reason is very simple: It contains a bonus feature which is a music video.

    Let's get this straight: Of course the movie itself is not eligible in the databaes, it is a movie not a music performance.
    That the end credits show the music video for 'Don't Stop Me Now' doesn't matter, that is part of the movie and therefore doesn't qualify for inclusion.

    The crux lies in the inclusion of 'The Complete Live Aid Performance' that is added as a bonus.
    That track 2 is the track making this release eligible, not the movie itself. The main focus of track 2 is the music, while for the movie this is different. The music in track 2 is from the actual band Queen.... "it makes sense with the image shut off", as in Discogs guidelines.
    See it as a new 'music video' for these tracks where actors are shown instead of the band itself... happens a lot with actual official music videos too. (close example: Queen - Made In Heaven (The Films))

    RSG §1.1.3.a. "Video: Only video items that have audio as the main focus are allowed, where "audio" is either one or more complete studio recordings, one or more complete live performances. If the item still makes sense with the picture turned off, it will probably be acceptable"

    'One or more (...) complete live performances.' The Live Aid Performance is a complete live performance.
    People tend to misinterpret the term 'Video items'. The guidelines are talking about 'video items' (so one video item on a whole release) , not a 'video release'.

    Now people claim that the main artist should not be Queen. I can come into that, it is a movie after all, not a Queen release.
    I saw someone say "Usually a movie is associated with the name of its director..."
    I'm not sure if it should should be that way in the Discogs also. In a movie database I would agree, but here I tend to go for 'Various' as main artist (or maybe even 'No Artist'?)

    But to go back to the main question: Is this release eligible?
    It's a big yes, like it or not.
    It's the same as a bonus music video added to the DVD of a movie.

    Or to quote:
    Mop66
    ReadyBeast
    Great! I think I am now going to be able to submit a whole bunch of movie DVD's and Blu-ray's that have a single music video as a separate bonus in Discogs database !

    Which is perfectly ok.
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    Actually the topic starter is answering his own question already in the first sentence, I realize now:
    jackvanamouse
    Video media that does not contain music videos, concert performances or suplimentary audio material are not supposed to be indexed, right?

    That is correct. This release however contains a full (standalone) concert performance, and therefore is eligible to the database.
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    And one last post from me concerning this topic.
    It was discussed before in the forums, years before jackvanamouse joined Discogs actually.

    https://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/349870
    https://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/349876

    Here nik gives his opinion: https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/349876#3288713

    And main artist appears it has to be 'No Artist', example No Artist - Be Cool = Sois Cool
  • steve.fletcher over 2 years ago

    Is it a full stand alone concert performance? Or a recreated concert performance using actors as part of the film?

    If the latter then not eligible. That would be the same as the concert footage used in A Star is born, and many other musical movies, Roustabout, King Creole, Jailhouse Rock.

    If the former and using actual live concert performances, containing complete songs (not segments of songs). Then this is eligible.

    There seems to be a major confusion to whether the concert performance in the movie is actual live Aid concert or a recreation using actors.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    JeroenG8, good point! So there is already a solution, so why not apply that?
  • panoptikon over 2 years ago

    steve.fletcher
    Or a recreated concert performance using actors


    This.
  • Martin35 over 2 years ago

    panoptikon
    steve.fletcher
    Or a recreated concert performance using actors

    This.

    But with the important note that they used the music of the original Live Aid performance (it's playbacked by the actors). The music itself comes from Queen.
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    steve.fletcher
    Is it a full stand alone concert performance? Or a recreated concert performance using actors as part of the film?


    Sound is the original official complete uncut stand alone Live Aid performance performed by Queen.
    Image is a recreation of the same performance by the actors from the movie.
    Since Discogs is a music database the music matters, and that is the original official complete uncut stand alone Live Aid performance performed by Queen, so that makes it eligible IMO.

    It also may be of interest to emphasize once more that the bonus feature is the COMPLETE UNCUT Live Aid performance, as opposed to the movie itself where the Live Aid part is cut in places.
  • panoptikon over 2 years ago

    Martin35
    The music itself comes from Queen.


    Yes, I understand that, but its not really a "stand alone performance" by Queen.
    The "offiical" video of this performance has the original video, No?
  • baldorr over 2 years ago

    panoptikon
    Martin35The music itself comes from Queen.

    Yes, I understand that, but its not really a "stand alone performance" by Queen.
    The "offiical" video of this performance has the original video, No?


    Imagine if it was a music video by a band. The visuals for the music video doesn't matter for it being included as a music video.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    baldorr
    Imagine if it was a music video by a band. The visuals for the music video doesn't matter for it being included as a music video.


    Imagine you are watching a documentary with only Smetana's music at the background. Would it be eligible? When you turn off the screen, it's still Smetana's music...
  • panoptikon over 2 years ago

    baldorr
    Imagine if it was a music video by a band


    Yes I get what your saying.
    For me though a music video like that was made to accompany the music.
    Whereas the video here was made by the film makers to get the shots they needed to insert into the film, then the footage from the complete shoot was added as an extra on the disc.
    I'm no database guru, so can't really actively comment on how well it does/doesn't fit the guidelines (so i will shut up now).
    It just doesn't quite sit right to me.
  • steve.fletcher over 2 years ago

    Ok using this logic, then every Elvis Movie that contains a stage performance as part of the movie would be eligible for the database. In virtually every movie there are complete songs performed on a stage. What about A Star is Born? There are full songs sung on stage in a concert setting. So why would the Queen biopic be treated any different?

    This has repeatedly been decided not to be eligible for the database.
    I cannot see how a mocked up stage performance filmed as part of the movie should be eligible for the database.

    I can accept actual footage of a known concert being eligible, but not something mocked up or a concert replicated as part of a movie.

    You cannot make exceptions has to apply equally to every submission.
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz
    Imagine you are watching a documentary with only Smetana's music at the background. Would it be eligible? When you turn off the screen, it's still Smetana's music...


    Well, technically, yes it could be eligible.... but that's also a borderline case, even more than the Bohemian Rhapsody release we are discussing now, because then it would be the movie itself we're talking about. Here we're talking about the bonus feature 'The Complete Live Aid Performance' which was actually added to experience the complete Live Aid performance while seeing the movie characters on screen.

    Actually, some movie DVD's have an option to view the movie with only the music turned on (I personally own one of the 1982 'Annie' movie), so you see the movie but only hear the music.... eligible? Very borderline case, but technically again probably yes.
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    steve.fletcher
    Ok using this logic, then every Elvis Movie that contains a stage performance as part of the movie would be eligible for the database.


    No, because we are not talking about music performances inside the movie.
    We are talking about the official complete uncut stand alone Live Aid performance with sound by the original band, which is added as a bonus feature.

    steve.fletcher
    I cannot see how a mocked up stage performance filmed as part of the movie should be eligible for the database.

    The crux lies within the bolded part of your comment. This performance is NOT part of the movie, but a seperate bonus feature.
  • baldorr over 2 years ago

    panoptikon
    It just doesn't quite sit right to me.


    Nor me. I still think in this case we should remove these.

    I want to make it clear that by allowing or disallowing this example is not a larger debate on this general issue. Borderline cases need to be decided on their own. In this case, it doesn't sit well with me to have this in the database. That's not to say there are other examples that might be related that do seem to fit better.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    JeroenG8
    Well, technically, yes it could be eligible.... but that's also a borderline case, even more than the Bohemian Rhapsody release we are discussing now, because then it would be the movie itself we're talking about. Here we're talking about the bonus feature 'The Complete Live Aid Performance' which was actually added to experience the complete Live Aid performance while seeing the movie characters on screen.


    I don't like it. With any other characters than original band members it is nothing more than a screensaver and from factual point of view it is misleading.
  • Martin35 over 2 years ago

    Martin35 edited over 2 years ago
    It seems this forum topic has been raised to check how many people are in favor of having this one removed instead of being open-minded to the reasons why it can stay in the database. I'd suggest jackvanamouse just do a request for removal.
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    JeroenG8 edited over 2 years ago
    Martin35
    It seems this forum topic has been raised to check how many people are in favor of having this one removed instead of being open-minded to the reasons why it can stay in the database. I'd suggest jackvanamouse just do a request for removal.


    IMO it is way too early to do that.
    It would make sense either, because the people voting would be mainly the people from this forum topic.
    Apart from, you can count on it that the DVD will be added within a few days again, and the discussion can go on again.
    Therefore we need more people involved, and since this seems to be such a strange case, preferably including someone from maganament. nik? Diognes_The_Fox?

    It was ruled in the past that a bonus music video on a movie DVD makes the complete DVd eligible for the database.
    Now we have the following situation.
    We have a movie DVD with as a bonus a complete original uncut live performance.
    The audio of the live performance is from the original artist. (Queen in this case)
    The video is from actors impersonating that artist.
    Is this DVD eligible for the Discogs database or not?
  • baldorr over 2 years ago

    JeroenG8
    Apart from, you can count on it that the DVD will be added within a few days again, and the discussion can go on again.


    Well, this can be the case with anything we remove. I was going through my VHS tapes recently and was about to add 200 Motels by Zappa. If I didn't do my diligence and search around a bit first, I would have added it without thinking. This is not an argument to leave something in the database if it shouldn't be there.

    If this ultimately stays, it certainly needs to be changed to "no artist".

    We base these things off of consensus. If the majority feel this should be removed, then we remove it. This one case shouldn't set a precedent, since we're talking about something on the "borderline" (as per the guidelines), so we handle these on a case by case basis. It seems like the majority are in favor of removing this.

    When the removal request appears on those releases, more people will become aware of this thread and things might change. But forum decisions are always going to be missing all kinds of opinions and be limited to those of us who frequent the forums. That's not a problem, or at least it's the best option we have.

    I would be fine with nik and DTF jumping in here too. That would help solidify the result for this case to have the staff input.
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    JeroenG8 edited over 2 years ago
    baldorr
    If this ultimately stays, it certainly needs to be changed to "no artist".

    Absolutely agree about that, no doubt.

    baldorr
    If the majority feel this should be removed, then we remove it.

    Of course, but choices have to be made based on the correct information.
    In this case lots of people first assumed that it was just a movie with music, and therefore should be removed. (and correctly, if that indeed would have been the case)
    Then it was pointed out that a 'complete live performance' was present as a bonus, and several people assumed that it was just a part of the movie as a seperate bonus feature without any music of the original band, and thus had the opinion it should still be removed (which was an incorrect assumption)
    Then it was made clear that the audio is a complete original live performance of the original band, and only the video was actors. Still some people had the opinion the release should be removed, but a lot less than in the beginning of this forum topic.

    In short: Forum consensis is great, but based on the correct information please.

    To make perfectly clear what we're talking about here, this is the exact bonus feature that is under discussion, except that on the dvd only the left screen (actors) is present.
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8hBkyrq-buk
    Eligible for Discogs? You say it...... my opinion is yes.
  • jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    jackvanamouse edited over 2 years ago
    Current Vote Count:

    Remove: 9
    hmvh
    seehaas
    steve.fletcher
    jackvanamouse
    pushkin_cz
    Symphonyz
    mirva
    baldorr
    Opdiner

    Keep: 5
    timhorton69
    pheenixx
    JeroenG8
    Martin35
    mau079

    I've initiated votes for removal of all releases but the key release because I don't know how to do that.
  • Martin35 over 2 years ago

    Martin35 edited over 2 years ago
    jackvanamouse
    Keep: 3
    timhorton69
    pheenixx
    JeroenG8


    Aren't you forgetting people?
    You can add me in the 'Keep'-list. And what about the original submitter of most versions? mau079
  • jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    Martin35, you didn't say "keep it" after I asked for a vote count, so I didn't include you. You have now been added.

    Although they have not formally commented, I have added mau079 to the keep it list.
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    JeroenG8
    It was ruled in the past that a bonus music video on a movie DVD makes the complete DVd eligible for the database.

    Pheenixx
    If it *was* an independently-accessible option and therefore, to me, of interest to GTA collectors who could be researching all the obtainable releases by the band, does that still make the DVD forbidden?

    Still hoping for confirmation on this. If a DVD release does contain a full music video as a bonus feature, is it eligible? Don't many James Bond 007 home releases have these on them such as Garbage and Madonna?
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    Pheenixx edited over 2 years ago
    jackvanamouse
    I've initiated votes for removal of all releases but the key release because I don't know how to do that.

    Woah, hang on! Have they all been removed now? Just going ahead with that without at least some final consensus was a bit underhand and premature wasn't it? This discussion is still very much ongoing IMO and some people are clearly changing their minds...
  • timhorton69 over 2 years ago

    In my view, when people's opinions are so clearly divided, and some people have demurred somewhat, I don't think we can say we're anywhere near consensus.
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    We're not and, if it's decided that all the releases are eligible after all, it's going to be a right pain getting them all re-instated. That was really underhand doing that.
  • Martin35 over 2 years ago

    Martin35
    It seems this forum topic has been raised to check how many people are in favor of having this one removed instead of being open-minded to the reasons why it can stay in the database. I'd suggest jackvanamouse just do a request for removal.

    I was being sarcastic there because I had the feeling I was talking into the wind, but apparently the request for removal has indeed been done and succesfully proceeded? Oh boy...
    What was the purpose by counting the people who where in favor and against it in the meantime then?
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz edited over 2 years ago
    ( deleted )
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    JeroenG8 edited over 2 years ago
    jackvanamouse
    I've initiated votes for removal of all releases but the key release because I don't know how to do that.


    Now this was way too quick, and I've already said that!
    We don't do actions like this when there is so much debate!!!
    And what bugs me most is that all submission removals were initiated when it was night here and already completely voted away when it was morning! That means that all NO-voters from this topic couldn't wait to jump on the requests to remove the releases as fast as they could!

    And reading the comments of some of the voters in the submission histories they clearly voted for the wrong reasons.
    (For example, some commented that a movie where actors are miming to a performance should not be included otherwise we could include every movie where this happens. They clearly weren't aware that the reason for inclusion in the database is not the movie itself, but the bonus feature 'Complete Live Aid Performance'.)
    Now that is exactly what I meant with:
    JeroenG8
    In short: Forum consensis is great, but based on the correct information please.

    I am genuinly upset and quite angry about how this removals were forced by the topic starter, without giving any information whatsoever about the pros and cons of this release!

    Very very wrong action here, jackvanamouse!!!
    And that from a user who has been here for not even two years, has only 2(!) contributions, only 7 images, only 18(!) pendings, 63 rank points and a voting avarage of 3.00(!!)
    How this action has been approved is really beyond me!
    Forcing the removals while:
    Pheenixx
    Just going ahead with that without at least some final consensus was a bit underhand and premature wasn't it? This discussion is still very much ongoing IMO and some people are clearly changing their minds...

    timhorton69
    In my view, when people's opinions are so clearly divided, and some people have demurred somewhat, I don't think we can say we're anywhere near consensus.

    Pheenixx
    We're not and, if it's decided that all the releases are eligible after all, it's going to be a right pain getting them all re-instated. That was really underhand doing that.


    To be sure I'll make a list of all the submissions that were removed, just in case we need to re-add them:
    Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody
    No Artist - Bohemian Rhapsody
    No Artist - Bohemian Rhapsody
    Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody
    No Artist - Bohemian Rhapsody
    No Artist - Bohemian Rhapsody
    No Artist - Bohemian Rhapsody
    No Artist - Bohemian Rhapsody
    No Artist - Bohemian Rhapsody
    No Artist - Bohemian Rhapsody

    Call me the devil's advocate, but I would suggest to the submitter of the submissions, mau079 to re-add all submissions again, until there is a REAL consensis what we should do with them. We can always remove them later if it turns out a REAL majority feels they should be removed.
    Same for Lerxst68, who submitted Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody and Yoss60 who submitted Queen - Bohemian Rhapsody

    Anyhow, I own a Bluray version of the movie myself and you can be sure that I will add my version to the database if it isn't already in by then!
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    JeroenG8
    Call me the devil's advocate, but I would suggest to the submitter of the submissions, mau079 to re-add all submissions again, until there is a REAL consensis what we should do with them. We can always remove them later if it turns out a REAL majority feels they should be removed.

    No, they're gone now. There's no point re--adding them if they're only going to get removed later on anyway. Let's thrash the topic out first and then *together* decide...
  • mau079 over 2 years ago

    [quote=JeroenG8][/quote]
    thank you for your support Jeroen! im completely agree with you! This release should be treated like a queen product! Too much original audio, video footage (don't stop me now video is included at the end of the movie) to be ignored! all the ppl say its wrong to keep the bohemian rhapsody movie here should understand that is DIFFERENT from "a normal movie". I really don't see why ppl have to complain about that so hard! I will re-add all the versions because this is a queen release! is so easy to see!!!! It will became a music collectable object very fast! In Italy will be released a special dvd/blu-ray version with the soundtrack included...so?why we don't have to keep trace of this particular release! I will keep to add the versions I will purchase in future if not present in the database!
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    mau079
    I will re-add all the versions because this is a queen release! is so easy to see!!!! It

    I really don't recommend doing that just yet. Let's just hold off and see what other people have got to say first.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    JeroenG8, I agree, that this action was way too fast. On the other hand, all of these submissions were of very poor quality with a major problem in "Artist" field, missing reasonable credits, BAOI etc. It's better to have that in Draft status. (Which does not apologize jackvanamouse's action.)

    I think Discogs should have much clearer specification about what is eligible content and how exactly it should be handled. That's why I started https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/788847, with one response only (!).

    I think we all are interested mainly in music and hungry for rare tracks. We must admit, that these tracks often appear on media with non-musical content in focus. This is why we have to be opened also for these releases.

    But the purpose why someone adds similar releases MUST be clearly and truthfully denoted in the submission with corresponding credits, which would make them searcheable via artist page.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    mau079
    This release should be treated like a queen product!

    No, no and NO! This is NOT a Queen product. They are NOT authors of the main content.
  • mau079 over 2 years ago

    Pheenixx
    mau079I will re-add all the versions because this is a queen release! is so easy to see!!!! It
    I really don't recommend doing that just yet. Let's just hold off and see what other people have got to say first.


    I perfectly understand you, really....I like to know what ppl think/say and I respect them all. I've already re-added the releases: I think that no one will be injured by this! Like I think that all the Queen fans out there will like the possibility to add to their databases this release in all the editions will be released. If someone don't like this, my personal opinion is that, simply pass away. This release is really particular and is under the total control of Queen so for me deserve the right to be present here (at list for all the queen fans out there as I said!!!). :)
  • mau079 over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz
    mau079This release should be treated like a queen product!
    No, no and NO! This is NOT a Queen product. They are NOT authors of the main content.


    Queen are the executive producers, and co-write the screenplay!
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    mau079
    I've already re-added the releases: I think that no one will be injured by this! Like I think that all the Queen fans out there will like the possibility to add to their databases this release in all the editions will be released. If someone don't like this, my personal opinion is that, simply pass away. This release is really particular and is under the total control of Queen so for me deserve the right to be present here (at list for all the queen fans out there as I said!!!). :)


    Okay, then change the main astist to 'No Artist' and add credits to Live Aid track (Music By, Lyrics By) with tracklisting of that part. Otherwise I vote 'Needs Major Changes'.
  • mau079 over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz
    mau079I've already re-added the releases: I think that no one will be injured by this! Like I think that all the Queen fans out there will like the possibility to add to their databases this release in all the editions will be released. If someone don't like this, my personal opinion is that, simply pass away. This release is really particular and is under the total control of Queen so for me deserve the right to be present here (at list for all the queen fans out there as I said!!!). :)

    Okay, then change the main astist to 'No Artist' and add credits to Live Aid track (Music By, Lyrics By) with tracklisting of that part. Otherwise I vote 'Needs Major Changes'.


    Vote what you want! no problem for me!
  • JeroenG8 over 2 years ago

    mau079
    This release should be treated like a queen product! Too much original audio, video footage (don't stop me now video is included at the end of the movie) to be ignored!


    While I agree with you that the dvd/bluray are perfectly valid for inclusion in the database, I must say that I don't really agree that it should be classified under the main artist 'Queen', although I understand where you're coming from.
    It's a movie, and in the past it was ruled that those kind of releases have main artist 'No Artist' (unless it is clearly the music artist themselves, but that is not the case here)

    Also IMO the only reason why they are valid is the inclusion of the 'Completely Live Aid Performance' as a bonus feature, not the movie itself, nor the 'Don't Stop Me Now' video that is included in the end titles (and thus part of the movie)
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    mau079
    Queen are the executive producers, and co-write the screenplay!


    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1727824/ says:
    Directed by
    Bryan Singer ... (directed by) Writing Credits (WGA)
    Anthony McCarten ... (story by) and
    Peter Morgan ... (story by)

    Anthony McCarten ... (screenplay by)

    I do not see any Queen member.
  • Martin35 over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz
    I do not see any Queen member.

    Brian May ... executive music producer
  • mau079 over 2 years ago

    you know what? do what you want/prefer/like!...I'm losing too much time for this.....I have a real life and no time to waist here discussing about nothing!....if you want to remove the release do it!, I will keep them in my collection for my personal needs! I'm not adding stuff just to increase my rank or for became popular in discussions, I add release to create my personal database! So if this is a problem so big that cause this intolerance: ok! As is said: do what you want/prefer/like

    I wish to all of you a great week!

    Bye!
  • CykoMF over 2 years ago

    In the past, with other releases, the decision came down to this:

    Does the recording make sense with the picture turned off?

    When we consider the live air part of say yes, however the main program, the movie, maybe not so much.

    I have no problem including it here on Discogs but my choices have not always been popular ones so remove it if you have to. I've got plenty of other records to work on.
  • steve.fletcher over 2 years ago

    jackvanamouse
    I've initiated votes for removal of all releases


    This action was way too fast. Still undergoing debate. I hadn’t even had the opportunity to watch the copy I purchased yesterday, to clarify to myself what is actually part of the movie and not eligible and what was stand alone and then eligible, as I have received conflicting messages. So in order to have a more informed position I bought a copy, went to bed , then woke up to find removal had initiated and had taken place during the night, whilst discussion was actively ongoing.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz edited over 2 years ago
    Martin35
    Brian May ... executive music producer

    I know, he also re-recorded some guitar parts. But he nor Queen are the autors. Movies are commonly credited to directors and/or authors of the screenplay, not (executive) producers. It's the same like in music, or have you seen Bob Ezrin - The Wall (although he wrote also some arrangements and song parts)?

    This is what I am talking about - in case of this type of content it must be exactly specified how to enter them into database, just to avoid such long and non-productive discussions.

    Btw.: JeroenG8, thank you for the edits.
  • jackvanamouse over 2 years ago

    jackvanamouse edited over 2 years ago
    You all can do what you want.... I don't see this release as meeting the guidelines for inclusion, and initiated the vote at the suggestion of Martin35. If you didn't actually want me to initiate a vote for removal, you shouldn't have suggested it. Sarcasm doesn't translate well online...
  • CykoMF over 2 years ago

    I don't understand this immediacy to it's removal jackvanamouse.
    Is it somehow costing you money or otherwise affecting your life by being here?
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    He's just having a melodrama, he's stomped off in a huff now anyway so, nevermind. Can we all get back to the discussion?
  • Martin35 over 2 years ago

    jackvanamouse
    If you didn't actually want me to initiate a vote for removal, you shouldn't have suggested it. Sarcasm doesn't translate well online...

    You can say that!

    My apologies if things have been misunderstood. But still, you open a forum thread to check what people have to say about this, and then you decide to take actions based on the suggestion of only one Discogs user. I am flattered, but don't blame this one on me; you are the one who was in such of a hurry. From the very first moment you were determined that the submissions should be removed and it felt that every opponent was being contradicted.

    But enough said, the submissions are back online. Like already suggested in a previous comment, maybe management can say what should be the right thing to do here so we can all be relaxed again. That was all I have to say regarding this topic. I'll leave it with that and I am gonna take a beer! ;-) Have a great night you all.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz edited over 2 years ago
    OK, let's go back to discussion. Currently we have come to two main conclusions:

    1) What does NOT make Bohemian Rhapsody eligible for discogs is Don't Stop Me Now music video, because it appears only with credits and cannot be separately played from the disc menu.

    2) What would make Bohemian Rhapsody eligible from audio point of view is the Live Aid Performance, because it may be played separately from disc menu.

    But - imagine someone, who is searching for a Queen video from Live Aid. He uses google, comes to Discogs and here it is - Bohemian Rhapsody with Live Aid Performance. He goes to a shop, buys it and here is the surprise - he starrs at some weird people pretending to be Queen with Live Aid as playback.

    This is the main point, why I think that in current form the Bohemian Rhapsody entries are not eligible for Discogs. It should be clearly stated, that the audio track is Queen concert but video track not.

    Furthermore the Live Aid Performance should be divided into separate songs as played on stage, since there is no song "The Complete Live Aid Performance" written by Queen. But this is only a detail for improving the submission quality.
  • ThomasP64 over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz
    This is the main point, why I think that in current form the Bohemian Rhapsody entries are not eligible for Discogs. It should be clearly stated, that the audio track is Queen concert but video track not.

    But it is the audio of an actual live performance, no? So it would make sense with the video turned off.
    1.1.3.a. Video: Only video items that have audio as the main focus are allowed, where "audio" is either one or more complete studio recordings, one or more complete live performances. If the item still makes sense with the picture turned off, it will probably be acceptable.

    And once the video is turned off, you actually get the audio of the complete live performance by Queen. Tell me again why this is not eligible?
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    Guys, forget this specific Live Aid clip for the moment, can we please first clarify absolutely and definitely, are standalone music videos on movie DVDs allowed? For example, as I already mentioned above, many James Bond 007 ones have their related hit single on there too, Are they allowed or not? Also, if the "Dude Where's My Car" DVD mentioned above had the music video by Grand Theft Audio as an accessible feature, would that be allowed too?

    Once we've got that nailed down, then we can argue about the eligibility of this specific clip.
  • petraspective over 2 years ago

    I'm with JeroenG8. I would've definitely voted against removing this.
  • pushkin_cz over 2 years ago

    ThomasP64, I just want to avoid confusion of potential visitor looking for Queen's live performance. I wouldn't like him to think that we are amateurs, who are not able to write one more sentence to warn about this fact.
  • ThomasP64 over 2 years ago

    pushkin_cz
    I wouldn't like him to think that we are amateurs, who are not able to write one more sentence to warn about this fact.

    As long as nonsense entries like Cannonball Adderley, Miles Davis, Hank Jones, Sam Jones, Art Blakey - Somethin' Else pollute the database, it's pretty clear we are amateurs. Better he find out now.
  • DevilDinosaur over 2 years ago

    How is a recreated Live Aid performance different to the rest of the film? If complete tracks that are part of the film are not eligible, what makes the (not real) Live Aid performance any different?

    jackvanamouse
    Current Vote Count:

    Remove: 9
    hmvh
    seehaas
    steve.fletcher
    jackvanamouse
    pushkin_cz
    Symphonyz
    mirva
    baldorr
    Opdiner

    You can add me to the remove list too

    steve.fletcher
    Ok using this logic, then every Elvis Movie that contains a stage performance as part of the movie would be eligible for the database. In virtually every movie there are complete songs performed on a stage. What about A Star is Born? There are full songs sung on stage in a concert setting. So why would the Queen biopic be treated any different?

    This has repeatedly been decided not to be eligible for the database.
    I cannot see how a mocked up stage performance filmed as part of the movie should be eligible for the database.

    I can accept actual footage of a known concert being eligible, but not something mocked up or a concert replicated as part of a movie.

    You cannot make exceptions has to apply equally to every submission.

    +1

    Mop66
    ..ah...yes ;-) : Various - wipEout 2097

    PlayStation discs would be eligible in many cases as they are actual CDs that also contain the game's soundtrack and can be played on a standard CD player - the game data itself is stored on an unplayable track.
    Totally different to a biopic with fake performances.
  • Pheenixx over 2 years ago

    ThomasP64
    pushkin_czI wouldn't like him to think that we are amateurs, who are not able to write one more sentence to warn about this fact.
    As long as nonsense entries like Cannonball Adderley, Miles Davis, Hank Jones, Sam Jones, Art Blakey - Somethin' Else pollute the database, it's pretty clear we are amateurs. Better he find out now.

    That release looks fine to me. No pollution going on here IMO.

Log In You must be logged in to post.