"confirmation" of shows

Tour history discoveries & ephemera
User avatar
helicine
I Fix Shit
Posts: 2770
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Route 12, King Side Road
Contact:

Re: "confirmation" of shows

Post by helicine »

That makes sense as well, and is something different than even grading or qualifying confirmed shows. Hell, that's the type of thing that could just be typed out in the show info section.
janesaddiction.org

User avatar
Mike
Addicted Archivist
Posts: 5910
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:20 am
Location: In the mud
Contact:

Re: "confirmation" of shows

Post by Mike »

intertwoven wrote:Maybe points and percentages don't matter. I'd just like all the "evidence" for a show happening to be mentioned on the show's entry page. People can see it and decide for themselves. I don't think we really need "probable" added. And as I've said in another thread, I don't agree with dated live reviews being handed down from Moses as undeniable proof of a show.. journalists and editors are still susceptible to typos and mistakes. I've seen it many times.
I agree that all evidence should be added to each shows page and I think we do a pretty good job of that.
That said there are instances where we might have something that's not been added to the database yet.
Some of those omissions were rectified when we implemented our status update.
I plan to go over every show and add any missing piece of evidence I have.
Matter of fact I've been doing that since Erik gave me access back in November.

I still say probable should be added as a status.
There are shows on the list that fit better into a probable vs confirmed status.
At least in my opinion they do.

As far as reviews of shows go I stand by my claim that they are the ultimate confirmation a show happened.
Both Erik and yourself have mentioned reviews that you feel are bogus as confirmation.
Can either of you please point me to the reviews you're referring to because in the almost five years I've been doing this none jump out at me.

Sure people make mistakes but I really can't think of any in this area off hand. :noclue:
intertwoven wrote:I just clicked on a random unconfirmed show..
http://janesaddiction.org/tour/show/jan ... 3-26/1490/
Jane's Addiction - March 26, 1987 - Stratus, Spring Valley, CA
Date: March 26, 1987
Location: Stratus, Spring Valley, CA
Recorded: No / Unknown
Status: Unconfirmed
Type: Concert
Artwork:

Show Information:

Faster Pussycat opened.

Thanks go out to Mike for uncovering this show.
I'd like to know why this show is here. That's mainly why I liked the "check box" idea with the 10 possible areas for confirmation. I'm guessing this was a "fan recollection" otherwise there'd be artwork or a recording listed, right? But yeah, give people the evidence you have for a show happening and they can decide if they think it happened.
As far as officially marking a show as "confirmed" or not, that's just your informed decision, Mike. Maybe it's a mistake trying to make that a mathematical/scientific thing.
That one is a blast from the past.
I first got wind of that show when I was doing this section elsewhere back in December of '06.
Please follow the "elsewhere" link.

It comes from the San Diego Concert Archive.
http://www.sandiegoconcertarchive.com/

If I remember right every San Diego concert we have on our list is listed there.
Since I first found that site back in '06 we've been able to confirm every Jane's and Porno show listed there except the March 26, 1987 date.

To me that just lends credence to that sites archive and it enforces its position on the list.
We can add the link to that site to the shows page and I can attempt to contact them again.
I do have the link to their site in my gig listing thread as well.
It's been there since I found it as a reference.

It's placement in the tour dates section is before I was working on the site but we can definitely add the link.

I'll try and get everything I've got added in ASAP but in the meantime if there are any other shows present on the list you question let me know and I'll fast track whatever info I have.
"The quality of mercy is not strained, it dropeth as the gentle rain from heaven."

User avatar
intertwoven
Jedi
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 2:31 pm
Location: portland
Contact:

Re: "confirmation" of shows

Post by intertwoven »

Off hand, I can't think of a Jane's example. But I also do a Rilo Kiley gigography, and here's a show that's known to be from June 28, 2002 (flyer and many fan accounts), but an LA Weekly review misdates it June 29.
http://rilokileyplace.com/shows/20020628.html

Also, I seem to recall a few instances of where Jane's photos were dated a day off by the photographer. This just goes to show that even if someone was there documenting it with a review, photos, or a recording, they can still screw up the date.

Again, I think you shouldn't get too worked up over the "confirmed vs probable" status. It's not like anyone is gonna take you to court if a show you confirmed ends up bogus. :lol:
I know you wanna get the list as accurate as possible, but like Erik was saying in another thread, only a small percentage of shows have live reviews for them. I think you're over-complicating things. Again, if you believe a show happened, "confirm" it. Give the evidence you got and let people make up their own minds.

User avatar
helicine
I Fix Shit
Posts: 2770
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Route 12, King Side Road
Contact:

Re: "confirmation" of shows

Post by helicine »

Exactly - the only difference between a show review and an article noting that a show is taking place is the article was written after the concert instead of before. It is still subject to the same human error of unintentionally screwing up a date or venue, etc.
janesaddiction.org

kingsvikes
Radio Tokyo
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:23 am

Re: "confirmation" of shows

Post by kingsvikes »

so glad you guys are thinking of doing this makes much more sense then just taking a peice of info and using it as facts

User avatar
Mike
Addicted Archivist
Posts: 5910
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:20 am
Location: In the mud
Contact:

Re: "confirmation" of shows

Post by Mike »

kingsvikes wrote:so glad you guys are thinking of doing this makes much more sense then just taking a peice of info and using it as facts
If you honestly think that's what we do here you're crazy. :looloo: :lol:
"The quality of mercy is not strained, it dropeth as the gentle rain from heaven."

User avatar
Mike
Addicted Archivist
Posts: 5910
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:20 am
Location: In the mud
Contact:

Re: "confirmation" of shows

Post by Mike »

I talked with Erik tonight and I think I have a better idea of what you guys are talking about now.
Once he explained a few things more clearly to me it made more sense.

I guess it could be a good thing and I'm interested in seeing what we can come up with.
I'm not 100% sold but like I posted previously I'll go along with a majority decision.

Who knows?
I may end up thinking it's a great idea once we decide exactly how to implement it.
"The quality of mercy is not strained, it dropeth as the gentle rain from heaven."

User avatar
Mike
Addicted Archivist
Posts: 5910
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:20 am
Location: In the mud
Contact:

Re: "confirmation" of shows

Post by Mike »

intertwoven wrote:Off hand, I can't think of a Jane's example. But I also do a Rilo Kiley gigography, and here's a show that's known to be from June 28, 2002 (flyer and many fan accounts), but an LA Weekly review misdates it June 29.
http://rilokileyplace.com/shows/20020628.html
That's interesting but I honestly can't remember seeing a bogus Jane's review in the near five years I've been doing this.

I'm not saying it can't or hasn't happened, I just haven't seen it.
intertwoven wrote:Also, I seem to recall a few instances of where Jane's photos were dated a day off by the photographer. This just goes to show that even if someone was there documenting it with a review, photos, or a recording, they can still screw up the date.
This is absolutely true and I just ran across an instance of photos being misdated this past weekend.
Here's a link if you want to check them out:

http://forums.janesaddiction.org//viewt ... =36&t=1672

I guess when using any of those items as show confirmation you need to look further into it.
It's what I do all the time.
What I mean is a photo or recording can be a good hint but they're not enough on their own.

Here's a couple examples:

October 25, 1988 - The Pterodactyl Club, Charlotte, NC
http://forums.janesaddiction.org//viewt ... f=8&t=1622

I found a master recording of Iggy's set and we know Jane's were opening for him at this time.
I dug a little further and found two tickets with Jane's name on them.
Confirmed.

January 18, 1989 - Tommy's, Dallas, TX
http://forums.janesaddiction.org//viewt ... f=8&t=1090

I found pictures from this show but the photographer says the show took place on the 12th not the 18th.
I've been in contact with the photographer and she says she still has her ticket.
For now the show on the 18th has been downgraded to questionable but until I get a ticket scan or some other proof the show on the 12th only exists in this forum.

It's good stuff to have but lots of times it's only a first peek into figuring out if the show really happened.
intertwoven wrote:Again, I think you shouldn't get too worked up over the "confirmed vs probable" status. It's not like anyone is gonna take you to court if a show you confirmed ends up bogus. :lol:
I know you wanna get the list as accurate as possible, but like Erik was saying in another thread, only a small percentage of shows have live reviews for them. I think you're over-complicating things. Again, if you believe a show happened, "confirm" it. Give the evidence you got and let people make up their own minds.
Sorry if I came across as "worked up" or something.
I'm not really upset or anything like that.
I guess I'm just passionate about the work I've done these last several years.
I know it's all out there for public scrutiny and such but if i think I'm right about something I stand up for it.
It doesn't mean I want to fight over this stuff but I will debate my work's merit with anyone that wants to.

As I mentioned in my previous post Erik and I talked about this stuff at length last night and I now understand better what the two of you are talking about.

I think he'd be the first to tell you that he better understands where I'm coming from as well.
My main problem with this is the level of confirmation deal.
I feel that if a show is confirmed it's confirmed.

That said Erik and my idea of confirmed vary somewhat.
I now have a better grasp of what he sees as confirmation and it helps to make sense of this point system.
I still feel as though a dated review is the ultimate confirmation that a show did indeed happen.
He sees the tickets, flyers, posters, etc as confirmation that a show happened.

You're both right as far as there only being a small percentage of shows with reviews.
I'm of course talking about the original era shows.
They pop up from time to time but it would take a lot more work than I'm able to do at this time to get one for every show and more than likely many of the earliest shows weren't reviewed.

What you say about giving people the evidence and letting them decide for themselves is what I'm trying to do.
I dunno if I'm succeeding all the time or not but I'm trying.

This section of course can and should be used by anyone who might disagree with my / our findings.
If you or anyone else for that matter think something isn't right about a show on the list let us know.

Lastly I'd like to see anyone try to sue me! :lol:
"The quality of mercy is not strained, it dropeth as the gentle rain from heaven."

Post Reply