• KPexEA about 1 year ago

    KPexEA edited about 1 year ago
    I've written a script using the discogs API to pull down albums listing for bands in my collection.

    Today I came across an inconsistency and I was wondering if it was something that needed fixing in the database.

    Depeche Mode released a large number of live albums for the Tour Of the Universe in 2009.

    About 1/2 of them show up when I use the API but 24 of them don't appear in the listing when using the API to get the list of releases.

    I can find them manually by searching on the website, and they all seem to be "versions" of the "Tour Of The Universe. June 18th, 2009. Milan, Italy." album.

    If you click on the link below you will see the 24 all listed under the 'versions' section.

    https://www.discogs.com/Depeche-Mode-Tour-Of-The-Universe-June-18th-2009-Milan-Italy/release/1919373

    Should these 24 be detached from the Italy release so they show up as their own releases like the others?

    Thanks!
  • autumnyears about 1 year ago

    From what I have seen on the link you provided, these releases should not be bundled in a master release. They are all different concerts and releases and the master releases was just used to bundle tour concerts.

    I think this is similar to something I posted 2 years ago: https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/734146
  • LolH about 1 year ago

    autumnyears
    these releases should not be bundled in a master release.

    This (unfortunately) I thought all the MRs for these releases had been dismantled.
  • rugogs about 1 year ago

    LolH
    LolH about 1 hour ago
    autumnyears
    these releases should not be bundled in a master release.

    This (unfortunately)


    Unfortunately indeed.

    This issue pops up at least every 6 months over the last decade as the album sections of bigger artists get more and more cluttered by these releases, which makes some of those artist pages almost unparsable already.

    Imo it would actually be a significant step forward if we could lump those (non-canon) public live recordings into hacked master releases for each tour, with a dummy release as key to allow a proper name for the MR.

    The last thread i remember discussing this was https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/785599

    The above master release hack was actually a proposed method to deal with the issue and management was open to start a field test on some artist pages to examine it's practicability.

    Yet unfortunately nik and Diognes_The_Fox left the building just one step before greenlighting that experiment.
    So, unfortunately again, in the end nothing happened, as usual...
  • _jules about 1 year ago

    If those MRs keep coming back, maybe it's a sign there's something not working with "Depeche Mode have released 96 or 120 albums"

    ...a bit of a shame the most recent thread regarding those was this close to deliver but nothing happened despite staff "blessing" or something looking like some sort of blessing https://www.discogs.com/forum/thread/785599
  • rugogs about 1 year ago

    _jules
    If those MRs keep coming back, maybe it's a sign there's something not working with "Depeche Mode have released 96 or 120 albums"


    Indeed.
    Not that they should get sorted into the album section at all, but if there's really no other solution to be delivered in the nearer future to prevent them from doing so, a MR hack would be a good thing imho.
  • Diognes_The_Fox about 1 year ago

    rugogs
    Yet unfortunately nik and Diognes_The_Fox left the building just one step before greenlighting that experiment.


    It was more community pushback.
  • Diognes_The_Fox about 1 year ago

    I really am still down, though.
  • rugogs about 1 year ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    It was more community pushback.


    I wasn't under the impression that there was a major pushback for that idea.
    In fact i was under the impression that most users partaking in that thread were actually desperate to try it at least.
    And i guess _jules was under the same impression.

    However, is there any chance to revive this idea and actually try it out, in a field experiment at least?
  • _jules about 1 year ago

    The other thread is still bumpable...
    IMO, the only way to move forward is if the "experimental" MRs are created / reactivated by an account with a staff badge.

    Also, the proof of concept is pretty well established: Erasure - The Erasure Show Tour 2005 - Live At London, Carling Apollo Hammersmith, March 5th, 2005 has been in place for 6 years, no friction or even a single post in MR history, no comments / reviews on artist's page...
  • slur about 1 year ago

    Well, it really makes sense - at least as a workaround. As above and before already stated, a MR blanco with free text field and proper naming possibility would be a even better.
  • anussdorfer about 1 year ago

    rugogs
    However, is there any chance to revive this idea and actually try it out, in a field experiment at least?


    the hope dies last, but i think .....

    slur
    Well, it really makes sense - at least as a workaround. As above and before already stated, a MR blanco with free text field and proper naming possibility would be a even better.


    +1
  • luetgewatz about 1 year ago

    That's why I love the album section of the Pixies :-)

    We definitely need a conclusion for these borderline cases … I think the Notes of the master release can be used to describe that all recordings from one tour are combined.
  • _jules about 1 year ago

    _jules edited about 1 year ago
    Yes, it would be quite easy IMO to come to a robust modus operandi:
    • use the first night of the tour as key release
    • use MR notes to describe / explain the content, how those were made available (immediately after the show etc.)
    • when there's a "regular" live release from the same tour, this shall be its own MR - Depeche Mode - Tour Of The Universe : Barcelona 20/21.11.09

    Usual Discogs nonsense, I see one of the DM tours has its MR, with more entries added there just a couple days ago but a couple sub-MRs from the same tour still in parallel probably because the user didn't find how to delete MRs...

    So much fun this back and forth, some of those live DM CDs must have 2 or 3 pages of history that read Add to MR/ Remove from MR / ad lib.
  • slur about 1 year ago

    _jules
    Yes, it would be quite easy IMO to come to a robust modus operandi:


    Sounds as reasonable as it can be without asking and waiting for further staff activity and resources.

    luetgewatz
    We definitely need a conclusion for these


    Yes Yes Yes.
  • anussdorfer about 1 year ago

    luetgewatz
    We definitely need a conclusion


    Yes

    _jules
    Yes, it would be quite easy IMO to come to a robust modus operandi:


    100%
  • _jules about 1 year ago

    OK, less talk, more action, completed Depeche Mode - Tour Of The Universe. May 10th, 2009. Tel Aviv, Israel., with links to this thread and the other one in notes + Experiment disclaimer

    Is anyone more familiar with how those were made available? Pre-ordered online or pre-orders at the concert or ...? More details in MR notes would be welcome IMO
    Inviting Mr-Love

    Let's see what happens from there, will consolidate Touring The Angel in a couple days unless this triggers a Discogs flamewar.
  • _jules about 1 year ago

    Likewise, completed Depeche Mode - Touring The Angel - 27th April 2006 - Shoreline Amphitheatre, Mountain View CA USA, first recorded date as key release + notes explaining + experiment disclaimer, with links to threads / discussions.
    Likewise, anyone familiar with how those were releases / made available, feel free to update MR note accordingly.
  • Bong about 1 year ago

    I bought a couple when they came out. If I remember correctly then they were advertised with flyers at the concert and then you could order them online at the LHN web site. You could order any concert, no need to have been at the concert or anything.
  • anussdorfer about 1 year ago

    _jules
    Likewise, completed Depeche Mode - Touring The Angel - 27th April 2006 - Shoreline Amphitheatre, Mountain View CA USA, first recorded date as key release + notes explaining + experiment disclaimer, with links to threads / discussions.
    Likewise, anyone familiar with how those were releases / made available, feel free to update MR note accordingly.


    Perfect

    Bong
    ...If I remember correctly then they were advertised with flyers at the concert and then you could order them online at the LHN web site. You could order any concert, no need to have been at the concert or anything.


    Correct
  • slur about 1 year ago

    anussdorfer
    Perfect


    This really looks like a way to go ! Great overview on the dm site now.
  • LolH about 1 year ago

    Cheers _jules, this all looks much better. Let’s hope there are enough of us to outnumber the naysayers.
  • FolderolDeRiddle about 1 year ago

    slur
    This really looks like a way to go ! Great overview on the dm site now.


    +1
  • slur about 1 year ago

  • The_Beatles. about 1 year ago

    LolH
    Cheers _jules, this all looks much better. Let’s hope there are enough of us to outnumber the naysayers.

    The proposal and work done so far gets my vote.
  • TopCats45s about 1 year ago

    _jules
    action

    A functional artist page - Yay!
  • denizen about 1 year ago

    2 things:
    - The Depeche Mode page does look much better now, thanks
    - And I wish good luck to the person who'll take care of the Pearl Jam page...
  • TopCats45s about 1 year ago

    slur
    Bauhaus - New York City, NY 11.12.05 done

    Is there anyway the master release title could be 'Near The Atmosphere Tour' ?
  • slur about 1 year ago

    Sadly not without further programming by the staff. The idea to create a 'mega master' with editable title was already suggested before but nothing came off it. For the future it would be a great feature, as for all other similar cases..
  • bbark01 about 1 year ago

    I don't get it, my CD copy is a completely different show than Mountainview California. While it is an annoyance having so many releases to look through, they are still separate releases. It would be best to have a section for bands that do this instead of listing things incorrectly. In my opinion there's lots of other "junk" in the albums section that should be cleaned up instead (like interview discs, transcription discs, etc which should be in miscellaneous.) of actual releases that can or could have been easily purchased by going into a store (like Pearl Jam) or online (Pearl Jam, Depeche Mode, etc.)
  • TopCats45s about 1 year ago

    bbark01
    they are still separate releases

    ? They are just grouped together, that's all.
  • bbark01 about 1 year ago

    TopCats45s
    bbark01they are still separate releases
    ? They are just grouped together, that's all.


    Yes, but it's the same as having many different albums from the same artist listed under one album. You wouldn't have Songs of Faith And Devotion Live under Songs Of Faith And Devotion. I think the bigger issue is that Depeche Mode shouldn't be any different than other artists who do releases like this. Particular, I know, but the database should be the same for each individual artist.
  • The_Beatles. about 1 year ago

    bbark01
    I think the bigger issue is that Depeche Mode shouldn't be any different than other artists who do releases like this. Particular, I know, but the database should be the same for each individual artist.

    I think the idea here is to see the proposal in action to see the pro's & con's and give users the opportunity to comment on what they see. I genuinely see an improvement, how about yourself if your aware of how the artists page looked before?
  • TopCats45s about 1 year ago

    bbark01
    the database should be the same for each individual artist

    That's the goal here -
    The_Beatles.
    I genuinely see an improvement

    Me too -
  • dianardo about 1 year ago

    + 1 for this experiment. The DM page looks much, much better. If we could now edit the title when displaying the master, it would be a perfect solution, really.
  • _jules about 1 year ago

    bbark01
    I don't get it, my CD copy is a completely different show than Mountainview California


    I guess the same could be said about Depeche Mode - Enjoy The Silence when what you have is Enjoy The Silence or Depeche Mode - Enjoy The Silence·04 when what you have is Enjoy The Silence (Linkin Park Remix).
    Yes, the idea is indeed to try improving the usability of the DM page with the existing database tools. And see how it works from there.

    dianardo
    If we could now edit the title when displaying the master, it would be a perfect solution, really.

    Indeed that'd be a major improvement, and not just for those. I know I suggested this when I took that "would you recommend the Discogs master release to a friend" survey a couple months ago. Hope you guys did, too and they're actively working on this community request ;-)
  • LolH about 1 year ago

    bbark01
    Particular, I know, but the database should be the same for each individual artist.

    Please note the comment on the Master Release page, and comments made here. The reason why this has only been done for these 2 releases (and the Bauhaus one) so far is because it is an experiment, so see how it works out and gauge reactions. This is something that can be dealt with by the users. The other complaints you make regarding interview and transcription releases aren’t really relevant to this project as they are not something that can be changed by the users, they are sorted automatically by the database.
  • nashspacerocket about 1 year ago

    I am not i favor of this, i don't write scripts to parse albums out, i don't use search.
    I look at the release year on the physical disc i own and try to find it within an artists album list, which is listed chronologically. how do i do that when the album is hidden under master release with a different name????
    If some people want to flag these albums as a group then lobby to add a new field (tag) to albums, don't force it into a master release.
    That's not what it's intended for.
    This is an utterly ridiculous change.
  • TopCats45s about 1 year ago

    nashspacerocket
    That's not what it's intended for.

    I would imagine the master release function was initially developed to help the usability of the artist page. And this is just another step. Hopefully the next step will allow a total fix to the title. Meanwhile, all the title names in Depeche Mode - Tour Of The Universe. May 10th, 2009. Tel Aviv, Israel. begin with "Tour Of The Universe" - so I wouldn't think it would be too hard to find that master. You have the ability to change the sort order to alphabetical vs chronologically.
  • _jules about 1 year ago

    Since we're keeping track of users' reactions, before this gets reported as not a comment / review, from DM page:
    Spatzo September 9, 2019
    Ha...they took all the comments out about what a mess this page was.....for years. Looks like the stink worked.
  • cellularsmoke about 1 year ago

    I missed this coming up, I am all for it. the DM page looks a thousand times better. So many artists need this kind of clean up to make their pages Usable. I really hope this experiment gets written into the Guidelines.
  • Escapist about 1 year ago

    Not to piss in anyone's cornflakes but creating MR for each tour is great but their should be a MR for every performance. The Barcelona DM concert is correct but the Universe Tour Tel Aviv has releases from other venues/locations and dates. Is that a mistake?

    Also, this is all well and good but having a LIVE category would make this way better. Streamlining things makes the pages load quicker and easier to navigate.

    I've already had nitpicking ninnies whine about what is a live release vs an album recording, blah blah but in the long stretch of things its just semantics and where to place said releases.
  • The_Beatles. about 1 year ago

    Escapist
    The Barcelona DM concert is correct but the Universe Tour Tel Aviv has releases from other venues/locations and dates. Is that a mistake?

    No unfortunately the key release 'names' the MR. The notes explain the situation but it is a big flaw in what is otherwise a good idea.
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    The_Beatles.
    No unfortunately the key release 'names' the MR. The notes explain the situation but it is a big flaw in what is otherwise a good idea.

    Perhaps the series model would be an improvement, as you can name the series.
    Escapist
    Also, this is all well and good but having a LIVE category would make this way better. Streamlining things makes the pages load quicker and easier to navigate.

    Speaking as one of the
    Escapist
    nitpicking ninnies,
    this has been suggested and shot down many times. Many live recordings are too important to the artist's discographies to be segregated in a separate section.
  • Escapist about 1 year ago

    ThomasP64
    Many live recordings are too important to the artist's discographies to be segregated in a separate section.


    What are you talking about? Segregated? More meaningless jibberish. All categories in a discography are "important". If an artist only has singles / EPs - or for the sake of this topic, only live recordings - does that mean that they aren't "important"? Stop with the whining about importance of what is what. That is not up to you to decide what is relevant to an artists' body of work. Discogs is a database. It's a reference guide. If I went to a library do they not have several categories? If an author I'm interested in only has works in the non-fiction section does that make his work less important?

    Stop.

    The admins need to stop listening to people's BS and just streamline the discographies better so we don't lose future users because the look and efficiency here is antiquated and confusing.
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    Escapist
    That is not up to you to decide what is relevant to an artists' body of work.

    I am allowed to have my opinions. What makes you the final arbiter of how things should be organized?
  • _jules about 1 year ago

    ThomasP64
    Perhaps the series model would be an improvement, as you can name the series.


    Thanks for the suggestion. Actually those have been grouped as series for a while
    https://www.discogs.com/label/1169419-Recording-The-Universe/history#latest
    And that didn't address the "but DM haven't released 200+ albums, what's up with the 50+ rows of the same tour in the Albums section? this page is a mess. Fix it Discogs!" issue / non-issue (for some).
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    _jules
    And that didn't address the "but DM haven't released 200+ albums, what's up with the 50+ rows of the same tour in the Albums section? this page is a mess. Fix it Discogs!" issue / non-issue (for some).

    I think it is an issue. I believe many live albums are exactly that: albums. A representative live album released from a single tour performance, or assembled from multiple performances, belongs in the album section.

    On the other hand, a large number of recordings with almost identical set lists from a single tour are not needed as separate entries on the album page, and clog up the page.

    Tweaking the master release page to allow editing the title of the master release might be a better way to solve this.
  • _jules about 1 year ago

    ThomasP64
    Tweaking the master release page to allow editing the title of the master release might be a better way to solve this.


    _jules
    Indeed that'd be a major improvement, and not just for those. I know I suggested this when I took that "would you recommend the Discogs master release to a friend" survey a couple months ago. Hope you guys did, too and they're actively working on this community request
  • slur about 1 year ago

    I'm trying to work out Dead Can Dance according to this example. But it's not 'just' the performance recordings.

    The 2005 Tour is aided by two "best of's" ; Dead Can Dance - DCD 2005 - Selections From Europe 2005 and Dead Can Dance - DCD 2005 - Selections From North America 2005 and additionally this Dead Can Dance - DCD Europe 2005 Box Set.

    a) Should the Tour be split in two halves accordingly or become one (provisional) MR?
    Pro: It would follow the intention of the originators as expressed with the two additional best of compilations
    Con: It would complicate things as basically it is the same tour

    b) Should the best of Europe / N. America be included or become separate releases (even Compilations)?
    Pro: If the Tour would be seperated in the two wings per MR they would make great MR keys due the title
    Con: Actually they are Compilations even if they are tagged as Album only

    c) The Box Set should be a Compilation and not be included at all IMHO.

    Thanks for sharing your POV's what to do best in this case.
  • nashspacerocket about 1 year ago

    [quote=TopCats45s][/quote]

    I don't own any depeche mode records, this 'thing' has been done on multiple releases for multiple artists, and any comments regarding it are pointed back to this thread, which maybe isn't a sensible thing to do. In my case it has been done to a bunch of Bauhaus live CDR's from a reformation tour, and the DCD live albums referenced above. I think it's the wrong way to go, period.
    There should be better ways to address this, and if not, a wrong solution should not be shoehorned in. Add a new field to tag/group/sort them.
  • Escapist about 1 year ago

    Congrats Nash. You have officially lowered the bar with your whiny and utterly pointless post.

    Bravo.
  • LolH about 1 year ago

    Escapist
    Congrats Nash. You have officially lowered the bar with your whiny and utterly pointless post.

    Bravo.

    I'm going to say what everyone else will be thinking. If you can't say anything useful, probably best not to say anything at all.
  • LolH about 1 year ago

    nashspacerocket
    Add a new field to tag/group/sort them.

    The point here is this is an experiment, to see if it improves things. The key thing to remember, and this really is crucial, is that it is a user generated 'fix'. What you are suggesting is not something that we users can do, that would need to be coded into the database. Now, if you think that you can get the site management to buy into that, and timetable it in, then great. But seeing as we still don't have a 'fix' for the Artist/Label page 'bug' that means you can't fix typos, then I don't rate your chances.

    nashspacerocket
    how do i do that when the album is hidden under master release with a different name????

    Because it doesn't really require a degree in astrophysics to work out where to find it. And certainly with all the similar releases all within one 'folder' rather than spread over several pages, it makes it a darn sight easier to find your version. And the artist page is much more manageable to boot.
  • TopCats45s about 1 year ago

    Would be really nice to get a bit more support or constructive criticism from the community. Diognes_The_Fox - andygrayrecords - Opdiner - avalon67 - velove - Fauni-Gena - hatfulofelt - Farjenk - Jarren - Jayfive - take22 - berothbr

    And, KPexEA - any chance you would change the title of the thread to Master Release for Tour recordings?

    And, LolH +1000 Keep it civil.
  • take22 about 1 year ago

    experiment or not, isn't this just letting off discogs not doing their diligence to find an actual solution to this like sorting all of these in a separate section? Then you don't need to create MRs that are in direct contradiction of the guidelines. -1 to this experiment for me, +1 to discogs finally pulling their finger out and do something with the 10s of millions profit they make each year. Invest in proper programming instead of opting for a supposedly easier but ultimately incorrect solution.
  • Farjenk about 1 year ago

    Farjenk edited about 1 year ago
    nashspacerocket
    There should be better ways to address this, and if not, a wrong solution should not be shoehorned in. Add a new field to tag/group/sort them.


    Definitely agree. We're just kicking the can down the road. However I like the temporary fix, barring no other solution.

    Edit: so that's another

    +1 for the experimental fix.

    But really Discogs, get off yer arse...
  • andygrayrecords about 1 year ago

    Maybe it's just me...but I don't see the problem other than these live recordings, interviews etc belong in a miscellaneous section.
    They don't belong in the same MR, as they're different recordings - if you just want to group them together can't that be done as a series a la The Who Encore Series 2002
  • bertielego about 1 year ago

    _jules
    OK, less talk, more action, completed Depeche Mode - Tour Of The Universe. May 10th, 2009. Tel Aviv, Israel., with links to this thread and the other one in notes + Experiment disclaimer

    _jules
    Likewise, completed Depeche Mode - Touring The Angel - 27th April 2006 - Shoreline Amphitheatre, Mountain View CA USA, first recorded date as key release + notes explaining + experiment disclaimer, with links to threads / discussions.

    Thank you _jules for taking action!
    Very happy to see some start of a proper curation of the Depeche Mode artist page.

    To support the experiment, I contributed yesterday to such MR creation:
    Moby - Live 19th May 2005 Carling Academy, Brixton, London

    andygrayrecords
    They don't belong in the same MR, as they're different recordings - if you just want to group them together can't that be done as a series a la The Who Encore Series 2002

    They do belong to the same MR.
    Same tour.
    Same line up.
    95% same set lists.
    Same artwork.
    Same main title.

    Any fan club web site not tied to such things as database guidelines and rigid auto-sort algorhythms would obviously group these release together.
    Guess what, that's exactly what DemMod did...
    https://www.depmod.com/misc/lhn_rta/index.html
    https://www.depmod.com/misc/lhn_rtu/index.html

    take22
    Then you don't need to create MRs that are in direct contradiction of the guidelines.

    They are not really in direct contradiction with the guidelines:

    RSG §16.2.1: "Releases that match two or more of the following will probably be eligible to belong to the same Master Release:

    - Has the same artwork (including derivatives) > YES
    - Has the same tracklisting (the same recordings or versions, not totally different recordings) > ALMOST*
    - Has the same release title (including translations) > ALMOST**
    - Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, multilingual release version (for example, Kraftwerk's Computer World), or other such variation.

    *IMHO, the same song performed night after night in the same tour by the exact same line up... isn't a totally different recording from one night to another. Technically it may be different, but as a audio experience, let's be honest, it's kind of the same.

    **The main title is the same.
    Only the subtitle, consisting of the recording date, differs.

    A little tweak in the articulation of bullets #2 and #3 would allow users to create MRs for such series of tour recordings without endless discussions in the forum.

    ThomasP64
    Tweaking the master release page to allow editing the title of the master release might be a better way to solve this.

    +1
    Obviously, yes.
    Allowing users to enter manually the title of a MR should have been done from day one...

    @ nik, @ Diognes_The_Fox,
    Could you please:
    1. join this thread;
    2. conclude;
    3. implement the changes resulting from your decision.
  • Escapist about 1 year ago

    Nice job bertie.

    Can anyone with some skills make a mock up of how this would look on the site? I'd try it but have neither the time nor the talent.
  • berothbr about 1 year ago

    TopCats45s
    Would be really nice to get a bit more support or constructive criticism from the community.

    I don't think Depeche Mode - Tour Of The Universe. May 10th, 2009. Tel Aviv, Israel. should exist as a MR because of RSG §16.2.1. Specifically, this isn't 50 versions of the same release / it's 50 unique recordings.

    Like with transcription releases and samplers, I think the problem here is that Discogs needs to figure out how to move these kinds of releases to the Misc. section on artist pages.
  • Fauni-Gena about 1 year ago

    Fauni-Gena edited about 1 year ago
    take22
    experiment or not, isn't this just letting off discogs not doing their diligence to find an actual solution to this like sorting all of these in a separate section? Then you don't need to create MRs that are in direct contradiction of the guidelines. -1 to this experiment for me

    I'm another -1. Different recordings should no be lumped in the same master release. This change doesn't make the individual recordings any easier to find. To me it's not just that it's contrary to the Guidelines (though it clearly is) but, as far as I am concerned, it harms usability of the database for the sake of having a prettier artist page. The OP gave us a good example: finding the individual concerts via the API becomes impossible if you make this change.

    I guess I'll be lumped into "the naysayers" again but this is a counterproductive change for purely aesthetic purposes. It's what nik has always referred to as a display issue.
  • Fauni-Gena about 1 year ago

    andygrayrecords
    Maybe it's just me...but I don't see the problem other than these live recordings, interviews etc belong in a miscellaneous section.
    They don't belong in the same MR, as they're different recordings - if you just want to group them together can't that be done as a series a la The Who Encore Series 2002

    This is a very good summary. I agree.
    take22
    experiment or not, isn't this just letting off discogs not doing their diligence to find an actual solution to this like sorting all of these in a separate section?

    Yes, indeed.
    nashspacerocket
    If some people want to flag these albums as a group then lobby to add a new field (tag) to albums, don't force it into a master release.
    That's not what it's intended for.
    This is an utterly ridiculous change.

    This is a perfectly reasonable and, unfortunately, you were attacked for making it.
  • take22 about 1 year ago

    bertielego
    Has the same tracklisting (the same recordings or versions, not totally different recordings) > ALMOST*


    almost isn't good enough imo, and that is the most important thing to make releases part of the same MR. They have to be the same recordings, otherwise the whole idea of an MR just goes to pot.
  • take22 about 1 year ago

    bertielego
    Any fan club web site not tied to such things as database guidelines and rigid auto-sort algorhythms would obviously group these release together.


    you mean like those that tag everything an album that has more than so many songs and tag everything a single that has less than with so many songs? Maybe it has escaped your notice, but discogs ain't no 'fan club' site, we (fortunately in most cases) do things differently here. Like not lumping different recordings under one MR because "it looks prettier"
  • Farjenk about 1 year ago

    Farjenk edited about 1 year ago
    Fauni-Gena
    it harms usability of the database for the sake of having a prettier artist page. The OP gave us a good example: finding the individual concerts via the API becomes impossible if you make this change.


    I wouldn't say impossible, but excellent point, I'm glad you've reiterated. searchability/usability is definitely number one priority for me. I'm waffling a bit. I feel like compromises are made either way.

    I'm still not sure that I understand why the series model has been ruled out so strongly? If Discogs could create another "label" type function, like series, titled 'Tour Recordings Master', or whatever. Or if the guidelines could be changed so that we could use series for this purpose it might satisfy most folks.
    andygrayrecords
    if you just want to group them together can't that be done as a series

    ThomasP64
    the series model would be an improvement, as you can name the series.


    _jules
    Actually those have been grouped as series for a while
    https://www.discogs.com/label/1169419-Recording-The-Universe/history#latest
    And that didn't address the "but DM haven't released 200+ albums, what's up with the 50+ rows of the same tour in the Albums section? this page is a mess. Fix it Discogs!"


    Is this really the only negative results of using this series model? If so, I'd definitely say that's a
    _jules
    non-issue.


    A few noisey grumblers making a nuisance of themselves over and over? I mean, this is Discogs, after all, so that's just kind of par for the course. And all kinds of things end up in the "Albums" section.

    So, why not series? I'm missing it.
  • Bong about 1 year ago

    Bong edited about 1 year ago
    The DM page looks much better now, much easier to browse without having to go through page after page of tour recordings. Until Discogs implements a better solution then this is the way to go.
  • LolH about 1 year ago

    Bong
    The DM page looks much better now, much easier to browse without having to go through page after page of tour recordings. Until Discogs implements a better solution then this is the way to go

    I agree with this.
    Unfortunately, there are always going to be 2 stories - those that feel the need to stick rigidly to the guidelines, and those that feel there is enough room for interpretation for this method to actually not go against the guidelines.
    We have been discussing this for years - certainly at least as long as I have been here, no sign of any action from Discogs with regards to coming up with a workable solution that would keep both sides of the fence happy. So, what to do. There's always gonna be one group that isn't happy.
  • slur about 1 year ago

    Farjenk
    So, why not series? I'm missing it.


    A series does no harm and was tested before but does not improve the general overview of the actual album canon of - let's take Metallica as popular example for this.

    The use of the MR for Tours as "Tour Master" (prefered with editable title as the Tour was called) would clean up the page and increase the usability of the page enourmously as it is now with DM. The current work-arround is not supported (yet) by programming / written word in RSG etc. therefore it's important to differ between a 'classic MR' and and this test of a 'Tour Master'.

    Also this way there still is an an easy distinction between a tour documentation and an regular Live Album which would be lost if all Live Recordings would just slip into a seperate 'Live' category as also discussed before in this context. Imagine Deep Purple's 'Made In Japan' would end up in a different category outside the main albums.
  • TopCats45s about 1 year ago

    It not just
    Fauni-Gena
    purely aesthetic purposes

    It's also
    Bong
    much easier to browse

    And even though
    andygrayrecords
    they're different recordings

    There is "an obvious connection between the releases"
  • Diognes_The_Fox about 1 year ago

    MR THEM. DO IT.

    1 MR PER TOUR.
  • Diognes_The_Fox about 1 year ago

    We can always delete them down the road, no biggie.
  • bertielego about 1 year ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    MR THEM. DO IT.

    1 MR PER TOUR.

    Great, thanks!
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    slur
    A series does no harm and was tested before but does not improve the general overview of the actual album canon of - let's take Metallica as popular example for this.

    A "Tour Master" can be used for a series of recordings from a single tour, e.g., Grateful Dead* – Europe '72: The Complete Recordings, while a series can continue to be used for a branded series of recordings taken at different times from different tours, e.g., Dick's Picks or Rolling Stones From The Vault.

    If that doesn't solve usability issues, how about allowing a user the option to collapse all entries from a series into a single item on an artist page (much the way current master releases are collapsed into a single item), once the series exceeds a certain number of entries? Then you would have a "Tour Master" (collapsed by default; expandable upon request) and a Series (expanded by default; collapsible upon request).
  • Diognes_The_Fox about 1 year ago

    I'd also try not to get too excited and overdo it. Try and limit making these to just larger display issues on specific pages instead of trying to make a single MR for every single time a band puts out a record from a tour that hits more than 1 stop.

    If there's any questions about how/when to apply these, feel free to discuss 'em here or something.
  • slur about 1 year ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    If there's any questions about how/when to apply these, feel free to discuss 'em here or something.


    Great! Thanks !!!
  • avalon67 about 1 year ago

    I was going to mention that hopefully no one would want to link up GD tours into one MR. but assumed it wouldn't be suggested
    ThomasP64
    A "Tour Master" can be used for a series of recordings from a single tour, e.g., Grateful Dead* – Europe '72: The Complete Recordings,


    I'm assuming here, correct me if I'm wrong, that a Depeche Mode show is pretty much the same every night? Maybe a different encore or two? Or if one particular track was a radio fave in Chicago it may be played in place of another tune?

    (I don't need to mention that) none of these Grateful Dead shows are in any way alike, totally different setlists every single night, each show unique, they don't fit into the MR guideline in any way whatsoever.
    Has the same artwork (including derivatives) NOPE
    Has the same tracklisting (the same recordings or versions, not totally different recordings) NOPE
    Has the same release title (including translations) NOPE

    Diognes_The_Fox
    try not to get too excited and overdo it.


    Exactly
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    avalon67
    I was going to mention that hopefully no one would want to link up GD tours into one MR.

    Maybe I did not make the best choice of an example. The idea relates to how to handle a "Tour Master" vs. a series of releases which are not part of a single tour. I don't follow Depeche Mode or Metallica, and wound up picking something else without thinking too deeply about what I was picking.

    That being said, has it clearly been determined how closely a master based on a tour and a master based on a single recording must reflect each other? They are kind of different things, so it is not clear to me that they should necessarily follow identical rules.
  • cellularsmoke about 1 year ago

    They shouldn't, we should have a second set of MR Criteria that apply to Live Tour Recordings in the database. As they are different things but the wrapper used to combine them into compressed list like MR is definitely something that would increase the usability of the database.
  • take22 about 1 year ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    If there's any questions about how/when to apply these


    I have a question: why the easy/lazy cop-out option instead of discogs programming to sort these in a separate section? Why the complete refusal to do this?
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    cellularsmoke
    They shouldn't, we should have a second set of MR Criteria that apply to Live Tour Recordings in the database.

    Thanks; I felt kind of like I was being spanked for violating rules that didn't exist yet.
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    take22
    I have a question: why the easy/lazy cop-out option instead of discogs programming to sort these in a separate section? Why the complete refusal to do this?

    They have not finished the collection page update, and you want to give them something else to fail to complete?
  • cellularsmoke about 1 year ago

    take22
    I have a question: why the easy/lazy cop-out option instead of discogs programming to sort these in a separate section? Why the complete refusal to do this?


    Completely recreating the artist page, and also probably adding a whole new tag for us to argue over, seems like the hardest of all options when not only does the MR Exist, but I see no real reason to make a separate section, which will also cause arguments...
  • valparaiso about 1 year ago

    Let me jump in this thread I've noticed in the last month, but only read it today. For me, it was a long awaited (years, yes, years) progress to improve the album section of some artists with multiple Tour Recording Releases (to name a few famous ones Metallica, Peter Gabriel, Pixies, Pearl Jam, etc.).

    I support this experiment and the progressive ideas I've read above. DM page looks better now. I would like also to see the possibility to enter manually the title of the MR to avoid any misunderstanding (Staff?), and to have strict rules to frame this new process (for instance a minimum of releases to be grouped in these MR).

    Some of my fellow oggers above tell all this is against Guidelines. You're right, it can be interpreted as well. But our Guidelines is not The Ten Command, The American Constitution or any Holly Books. It's live, it's a work in progress. It's our work. And please don't argue 'nik said 10 years ago in a thread we are not allowed to do this...". Seriously, can we have new point of view today?
  • nashspacerocket about 1 year ago

    Escapist
    Congrats Nash. You have officially lowered the bar with your whiny and utterly pointless post.

    Bravo.


    Reading your previous posts i would disagree.
    Saying something is bad idea and against database standards is not 'whining'.
    A MR of recordings that are not the same is a wrong way to go about it. You may as well call an entire artists output a MR in that case.
    And i don't have to propose an alternative because I'm perfectly fine with how things are now, although i have long thought a there should be separate sections for live and studio recordings (yes i know know there are ones that are a mix and match).
  • avalon67 about 1 year ago

    ThomasP64
    I felt kind of like I was being spanked for violating rules that didn't exist yet.


    Not at all :-)

    As it stands currently, the MR guidelines are as they are, maybe we should 'have a second set of MR Criteria that apply to Live Tour Recordings in the database' but we don't, so I was commenting on things as they stand.

    Anyways, I'm not 100% up to date on what Dead shows have been released officially, but they toured endlessly, as you probably know.
    Between Dick's Picks, Dave's Picks, From The Vaults, Road Trips there's dozens of shows from every year available.
    Some of the 1969 shows available....
    Grateful Dead* - Fillmore West 1969 February 27th
    Grateful Dead* - Fillmore West 1969: The Complete Recordings
    Grateful Dead* - Fillmore West 1969
    Grateful Dead* - Fillmore West 1969 February 28th
    Grateful Dead* - Dick's Picks Twenty Six: Electric Theater, Chicago, IL - April 26 1969; Labor Temple, Minneapolis, MN - April 27 1969
    Grateful Dead* - Fillmore West 1969: The Complete Recordings / Fillmore West 1969 Bonus Disc
    Grateful Dead* - Dick's Picks Volume Sixteen: Fillmore Auditorium - 11/8/69
    Grateful Dead* - Fillmore East 2-11-69
    Grateful Dead* - Dave's Picks, Volume 10: Thelma, Los Angeles, CA • 12/12/69 / Dave's Picks 2014 Bonus Disc
    Grateful Dead* - Avalon 69
    and of course
    The Grateful Dead - Live / Dead
    Where does one tour end and another begin?
    They played 7 shows in NY just a few days before Wembley in '72, that could be part of that 'Spring' tour....

    If new guidelines are to be written, which I doubt, then maybe to include in some way the intent behind the releases, looks like these DM releases are intended as 'momentos of the tour' recordings, I know nothing about other bands mentioned.
    Set lists could be some sort of defining factor too. Is a band playing a greatest hits set at 6 European festivals during the summer 'on tour'? Yes and No really

    TBH it doesn't matter that much to me......
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    ThomasP64 edited about 1 year ago
    avalon67
    If new guidelines are to be written, which I doubt, then maybe to include in some way the intent behind the releases

    How about simply a set of live recordings (five or more, perhaps):
    Released at about the same time,
    Covering a single tour,
    With common design elements or branding.

    Thus, for the Grateful Dead, "Europe '72: The Complete Recordings" was all released at the same time (roughly, at least); covers a single tour, and has common design elements (a general look similar to the triple LP Europe '72). Europe '72 would not be part of the same "Tour Master," because it was released decades earlier. That avoids trying to go back and parse out which recordings released over a period of years belong in a single "Tour Master."

    I don't even think it needs to document complete concerts; something like this might be eligible:
    The Best Of Joe Blow's 1967 Tour, Volume 1
    The Best Of Joe Blow's 1967 Tour, Volume 2
    ....
    Maybe Not The Best Of Joe Blow's 1967 Tour, But Hey, It Ain't So Bad, Volume 37
    ....
    Joe Blow Blows: Total Rubbish From Joe Blow's 1967 Tour, Volume 72
  • slur about 1 year ago

    ThomasP64
    How about simply a set of live recordings (five or more, perhaps):
    Released at about the same time,
    Covering a single tour,
    With common design elements or branding.


    I would agree on

    'Covering a specific tour, in the sense of Documentation', often recorded and released by a specialized Agency / Label (like Live Here Now, Disc Live, Instant Live and others) or self-released excluding 'best of tour' collections and box sets (>compilation of the otherwise published concert recordings).
  • bertielego about 1 year ago

    How about simply tweaking RSG §16.2.1? (proposed minor changes and additions highlighted in bold; comments in italic and between square brackets)

    "Releases that match two or more of the following will probably be eligible to belong to the same Master Release:

    - Has the same artwork (including derivatives)
    - Has the same tracklisting (whether the same recordings or versions, or the same tracks recorded over different dates of the same live tour). [replacement of "not totally different recordings"]
    - Has the same release title (including translations, and subtitle variations) [addition]
    - Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, multilingual release version (for example, Kraftwerk's Computer World), or other such variation

    Additionally, the release usually has to have matching release format descriptions, from the following list:

    - Album: For example, CD, Vinyl, Cassette version of the same album. Samplers should normally not be put in the same Master Release as the full album.
    - Mini-Album
    - EP: For example, the white label version and the full version.
    - Single including Maxi Single: all versions should be bundled in the Master Release, including Maxi and Remix versions. For example, Madonna's "Deeper And Deeper" Master Release includes all versions, including the double 12" remix promo version.
    - Releases without any of the above format types can be put in with any other of the above format types, or in their own Master Release, such as live recordings from the same tour." [addition]
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    ThomasP64 edited about 1 year ago
    slur
    excluding 'best of tour' collections

    Well, if many Best Of Tour collections are released from the same tour (hypothetically; I don't know if anyone actually does that), the resulting barrel-scraping can clog up artist pages just as much as many complete concerts. So is it a good idea to exclude "Best Of" collections without qualification?

    For example, what if a single "tour master" can include either a) complete concerts, or b) live releases recorded at multiple dates or venues, but not both? You might then get two entries from a single tour, as opposed to many.
  • slur about 1 year ago

    ThomasP64
    For example, what if a single "tour master" can include either a) complete concerts, or b) live releases recorded at multiple dates or venues, but not both? You might then get two entries from a single tour, as opposed to many.


    I checked yesterday the 2005 Tour of Dead Can Dance, I had mentioned a few days ago already. I think this is one of the rarer cases where not only the full concerts where released.

    a) Dead Can Dance - DCD 2005 - 10th March - Ireland - Dublin > Master for all full concert releases

    b) Dead Can Dance - DCD 2005 - Selections From North America 2005, Dead Can Dance - DCD 2005 - Selections From Europe 2005 > different compilations of these releases
    Dead Can Dance - DCD Europe 2005, Dead Can Dance - DCD North America 2005 > different compilations of complete concerts

    I did not think about grouping these 4 releases in a MR actually. To use another MR seemed not utterly necessary and imho we should keep the concept as simple and comprehensively as possible.
  • ThomasP64 about 1 year ago

    slur
    I did not think about grouping these 4 releases in a MR actually. To use another MR seemed not utterly necessary and imho we should keep the concept as simple and comprehensively as possible.

    Agreed; four would not be worth it. On the other hand, many trips to the same well (as in the case of the esteemed Mr. Blow above) might be.
  • syke about 1 year ago

    Diognes_The_Fox
    MR THEM. DO IT.

    1 MR PER TOUR.


    god awful decision. This will only lead to dupes as users who do not know of this method will simply create new entries as they won't find the correct versions. It makes finding versions awfully hard for nothing much to be gained if the title of the master release isn't the name of the tour. If the master release is named "Boston Garden, 9/7/2917" and you'll file all following 50 shows of that tour under that, try to imagine how many people are going to look under that MR...

    and all that just you guys have given up development and haven't been able to find a solution for something like this for over a decade now. and no, that terrible and useless tracks project that's been hanging in the ropes for close to 5 years now does not count as development
  • take22 about 1 year ago

    cellularsmoke
    but I see no real reason to make a separate section, which will also cause arguments...


    what arguments would that be? It would solve the cluttering of Albums section, it would solve not having to go against MR RSG, I don't see how adding different recordings to the same MR would be a better solution in any way. It comes down to money in the end, it costs money to reprogram, it costs nothing to go with a weak-a**ed option.
  • cellularsmoke about 1 year ago

    take22
    what arguments would that be?


    "For some artist the Live albums are an important part of their discography" argument bantered about here and there.

    Also, I'm of the opinion that the section should contain all forms of Full Length Releases, not studio albums as we commonly know them currently.
  • gunkldunk about 1 year ago

    andygrayrecords
    They don't belong in the same MR, as they're different recordings

    ^ Real talk, that's it right there in a nutshell ^

    If some bands want to release dozens and dozens of live albums, then that's their prerogative... but I don't think Discogs users should be expected to jump through weird confusing hoops in an effort to "prettify" their "ugly" discography pages. Sometimes correct data is not "pretty".

    Plus, also remember that even if we fully go this way, it is only going to be intuitive to old-timers, and (as has been mentioned above) we'll all be fighting a never-ending war of newer users resubmitting releases over and over that they don't see listed (but are listed under another show's MR).

    My two cents.

    (FULL DISCLOSURE: I have "played along" with the trend to MRs like this in the past, but now regret it - for example: The Residents - Talking Light Santa Cruz and The Residents - Talking Light Nijmegen Holland - I would not mind one bit if these were broken back out separate)
  • TopCats45s about 1 year ago

    gunkldunk
    resubmitting releases over and over that they don't see listed

    Mmm, well that master actually proves otherwise. Was created for the Talking Light Tour over 8 years ago. And not once has any of the 15 releases in it ever been duplicated or merged (that I can find).
  • AndyEvans2 about 1 year ago

    This change is positive. The vocal denunciation of a few shouldn't outweigh the silent sighs of relief of many.
  • gunkldunk about 1 year ago

    TopCats45s
    Mmm, well that master actually proves otherwise. Was created for the Talking Light Tour over 8 years ago. And not once has any of the 15 releases in it ever been duplicated or merged (that I can find).

    Well, look - I truly love The Residents... but let there be no delusions that they would have nearly as many fans entering info on Discogs as say another act like Pixies or Pearl Jam. Like orders of magnitude fewer.

    (Also, as those were all digital releases, they would not have had sellers creating "missing" entries to try and sell an item like a DiscLive CD etc.)

    So I don't really think of that example as some rock-solid counter argument.

    shrugguy.com
  • djcarbines about 1 year ago

    cellularsmoke
    "For some artist the Live albums are an important part of their discography" argument bantered about here and there.

    Also, I'm of the opinion that the section should contain all forms of Full Length Releases, not studio albums as we commonly know them currently.


    Indeed, but I think they are generally released as an intended pre-pressed release. In contrast to the pre-order/crowdfunded or press-on-demand type releases (or gigs from specified tours), Which I believe should be separate somehow from the label-released catalogue. Is there a retrospective terminology for the old pressed-then-sold releases in the 20th century? As opposed to the sold-then-pressed releaes clogging up the discographies?

Log In You must be logged in to post.