No, concert films aren't documentary.

Okay, but why not?

They are just retransmission of the concert, even if a few of them have interviews.

If that's the policy, then that's the policy. But that's an extremely inaccurate description of a concert film. Calling it a retransmission makes it sound like someone just pointed a camera at the stage, but concert film directors use camera positions, editing choices, and other filmic techniques to tell a paint a unique picture of the artist and the performance that no single audience member could experience otherwise. Moreover, many concert films, like stop Stop Making Sense, Woodstock, Jazz on a Summer's Day, etc., are among the most famous and well respected documentaries. I know you're just the messenger, not the one who instituted the policy of not using that tag, but quite frankly, it's a very bad policy.

@offensivename
Could you post the link of a movie here on TMDb with the concert genre that should also have the documentary genre?

That's the thing. I think all of them should. The three concert films I mentioned in my previous comment do have the documentary tag. But what's the real difference between those films and a BTS or Taylor Swift concert film? The only thing that separates them that I can think of is subjective measures like quality or importance. And I don't think a site like TMDB that's meant to simply record data should be making subjective judgments about films.

Jazz on a Summer's Day (1960) and Woodstock (1970) aren't concert films, but documentaries. They doesn't contain a complete concert from start to end.

I don't know your third example Stop Making Sense (1984), so I can't talk about it.

I don't really understand that argument. Yes, those two films are documenting concerts that include multiple artists and therefore don't play the entire show from front to back, but I don't see how that makes them more of a documentary than a concert film of a single artist. But even if it did, Stop Making Sense is a single artist (filmed over three shows and edited into one seamless performance). Scorsese's The Last Waltz, another famous concert film with the documentary tag, is a single concert filmed in one night.

What makes those films different than Pearl Jam: MTV Unplugged or Harry Styles: One Night Only in New York or Break the Silence: The Movie, just to pick three examples that are highly rated on Letterboxd. And what makes those films different than Taylor Swift: Speak Now World Tour Live or Homecoming: A Film by Beyoncé, both of which have the documentary tag? It seems like the tag has been applied very haphazardly with no real rhyme or reason.

Did you read the whole comment or just one sentence? Even if that argument was truly sufficient to separate Woodstock from other concert films, there are dozens of other concert films with the documentary genre tag that document an entire concert from a single artist. Please don't condescend to me about how simple it is when you're ignoring the vast majority of what I said.

But "ordinary concerts" like Stop Making Sense and The Last Waltz are some of the most famous and well-regarded documentaries of all time. It would be absurd not to tag them as documentaries. And there's nothing that separates them from the other films I mentioned other than subjective questions like quality or prestige. Getting hung up on Woodstock as if it's the only concert film that's ever been considered a documentary is silly.

If your opinion. But many people do consider films like Stop Making Sense, which doesn't even have any interview footage, to be documentaries. For example, it's included in Sight & Sound's list of best documentaries from 2014. That is the entire case I'm making. You repeating the same thing and saying that they're not documentaries based on your own authority alone doesn't really add anything. https://mubi.com/lists/bfi-sight-sound-greatest-documentaries-of-all-time-2014

I have not typed/wrote a single word about Stop Making Sense. I say that an ordinary concert that are recorded in a concert hall as concerts from Live in Montreux or Royal Albert hall are concert.

But that's what I'm saying. Stop Making Sense is a normal concert. It's a single artist playing a single set of songs with no interview footage. It's a band with a lot of visual flair and it's filmed extremely well by a well-known director, but there's nothing really that separates it from the other films you're talking about.

Therefore should it be tagged as a concert as the rules are on this site.

There is no "concert" tag that I know of. There is a "music" tag, but that tag applies to musicals and films about music as well. Putting a concert film into the same category as La La Land or Amadeus doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Which is the whole reason that I started this conversation to begin with, to look for a solution.

And if people are considering stop making sense a documentary then is it their opinion.

That is correct. But the "people" we're talking about are acclaimed directors and film critics. Their opinion should carry a lot more weight than yours or mine. Sight & Sound magazine is as close to an authority as there can be for this subject. I'm not saying that you can't still think it's not a documentary. I'm just saying that it's more complicated than you're making it out to be and being dismissive about my argument as if I haven't thought it through is rude.

Should concert films have Documentary as a second genre? They are documenting an event and many of them have interviews in addition to the music.

This is a subject I've given some thought to a few times in the past while trying to organise my digital library.

No, concert films aren't documentary.

Wrong. The Wikipedia definition of a documentary film is this: "a non-fiction motion picture intended to document reality primarily for the purposes of instruction, education, or maintaining a historical record". [1]

They are just retransmission of the concert, even if a few of them have interviews.

Absolutely. That is precisely what makes them documentary. They are a preservation and retransmission of history. The inclusion of interview or behind-the-scene footage only serves to define the style not the genre. The same can be said of sporting events.

Moreover, many concert films, like stop Stop Making Sense, Woodstock, Jazz on a Summer's Day, etc., are among the most famous and well respected documentaries. The three concert films I mentioned in my previous comment do have the documentary tag. But what's the real difference between those films and a BTS or Taylor Swift concert film? The only thing that separates them that I can think of is subjective measures like quality or importance.

No difference other than viewer taste. It is not whether it's a full concert, a portion of a concert or a group of concerts (tour), the fact remains that is an archival record of an event and thus a documentary.

There is no "concert" tag that I know of. There is a "music" tag, but that tag applies to musicals and films about music as well. Putting a concert film into the same category as La La Land or Amadeus doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Which is the whole reason that I started this conversation to begin with, to look for a solution.

I agree. It might be time for an even broader conversation on the merits of expanding the available genre choices to include concerts, musicals, stand-up, panels, lectures and interviews, just to name a few. Perhaps a feature request would be in order?

One final thought.

...the "people" we're talking about are acclaimed directors and film critics. Their opinion should carry a lot more weight than yours or mine...

Nonsense. The only reason film critics opinions carry more weight is the fact they have a bigger platform and receive payment for voicing their opinion with the second point being to me the best reason not to give them more weight than yours or mine. Remember, opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and nobody thinks theirs stinks.

Of course that's just my opinion. ;)

@JuanMortyme said:

The only reason film critics opinions carry more weight is the fact they have a bigger platform and receive payment for voicing their opinion with the second point being to me the best reason not to give them more weight than yours or mine. Remember, opinions are like buttholes, everyone has one and nobody thinks theirs stinks.

Well, there's usually a pretty good reason why professional critics have a bigger platform than you and also get paid for their opinion.

And I would add that they tend to be much more professional than you in their use of language. If you want to know what stinks, maybe you need to smell yourself.

I do think that the opinion of someone who has dedicated their life to studying something should count more than the opinion of someone who has not. Especially when we're talking about a whole group of those people all coming to the same conclusion. We're also talking about how something should be categorized, not whether something is good or bad. It's still subjective to some extent, but much less so.

At any rate, I would love to get mod permission to begin adding documentary as a genre on concert films. Or failing that, assurances that some other way of classifying them is in the works. Putting them under "music" just doesn't work.