There was a 2017 mix. Two song-cycles with 4 parts each. No problem there. The CD has the four parts indexed as separate parts so I added them as separate tracks (with the cycle part as part of the title) and related works.
But then there was a 2019 remix.
The second part of Epiphany was left out of the remix. The LP has the shortened version of Epiphany with parts a, c, and d.
The CD, however, adds part b as a separate bonus track at the end of Epiphany, in the same CD index.
Could someone have a look at my solution for this? Is this accroding to MB standards for edge cases like this? Or do I need to change anything?
Looks pretty good to me (though Iâm not the last authority on this, Iâm relatively new to MB), but I think, thereâs another problem. Should original mix and 2019 remix really be in the same release group? Or is the remix that close to the original that it could have been marketed as the same product?
Ah, never thought of that. I donât know what the exact definition of a release group on MB is.
I have both versions and they sound very similar except for (re)moving one song. Remix, remaster, I donât actually know what theyâre doing to the music then.
âA release group , just as the name suggests, is used to group several different releases into a single logical entity.â - Is that helpful? Everywhere you look are borderline cases. Artists seem to refuse all attempts to have them properly integrated into the database.
As Discogs put them into the same release group, I would do the same. But I donât think the 2019 version should be a remix. 2017 was a self-released CDr. 2019 was the real thing, the label-released album. So this shouldnât be a remix of the first release, although technically it was. I think there must be another recording relationship.
Interesting. As a non musical tech I donât know what would classify as a remix, then. It shouldnât be a remix while technically it was? I donât understand. If thereâs a better relation, I will change it of course.
Is it a âremixâ, as in, different music based off the original tracks?
Or is it a ânew mixâ, meaning an audio engineer has mixed the existing recordings differently?
âremixâ = new release group
ânew mixâ = same release group
To be honest, I donât see the difference in the definitions between âdifferent music based off the original tracksâ and âmixed the existing recordings differentlyâ.
Do you mean a remix is like those 1980s 12" extended remixes?
For example, Nektar. Their album A Tab In The Ocean was remixed (in the 1970s definition of the term). Same recordings, but a guitar and keyboards got a different volume level. With longer and shorter fades, one track was slightly longer than the original mix.
To me that is the same release group. Same album, same recordings, just different mix.
If weâre using the newer definition of a remix then itâs probably not something I have in my entire collection. By all definitions I can think of, the album in my OP belongs in the same release group.
I think this is more typically called a âremasterâ, rathern than a âremixâ?
But remix/edit/cover/etc. terminology is extremely fluent and definitely not clearly defined. In modern electronic music, the technical differences vanish even more (since adjusting the volume of a track in a DAW is basically just as much work as adding more or replacing it with another track).
Your example for Nektar is a good description of remixing âexisting recordingsâ (eg. upping the volume on the guitar and keyboard tracks). Same release group
Without going into detail, if the track was called something like âNektar (Drum and Bass remix)â, then that single would most likely be a different release group.
Hm, that term is used more often than remix. Iâll stick to your definition of this, makes more sense. My taste is far from modern electronic music so that makes it a little easier for stuff in my collection.