DJ promo releases

I would like to ask the opinion of the users here in MB… A short time ago I posted on having DJ releases I was considering adding to the database. The answer I received was generally yes, do it, as long as it is a valid release.

I have some releases that are not really normal in the sense that there are no track numbers. Picture something like this:

  • Song - Clean - Remix - MP3
  • Song - Clean - Remix - WAV
  • Song - Explicit - Remix - MP3
  • Song - Explicit - Remix - WAV
  • Song - Clean - Extended - Remix - MP3
  • Song - Clean - Extended - Remix - WAV
  • Song - Explicit - Extended - Remix - MP3
  • Song - Explicit - Extended - Remix - WAV

There is no stated order, just the files in a folder, as it is not really intended to be a release that one would play, but one that a person would pick what is needed from it to use separably.

How have others handled such releases, or what ideas are there on how to handle them? I would prefer not to assign track numbers as there were not any on the release, I would essentially be creating aspects to the release that did not exist. It is “allowed” to add a release without track numbers in MB? Or how else could it be handled?

Cover art for these generally is not an issue as the remixer usually creates a cover, which I would assume to treat as official as it was provided by the person who created the release. I have all metadata in tact, so I can provide all I have, although MB likely will not be setup to accommodate all of the data, but I can enter into the text of the release if it is relevant. There will not be any ISRCs here, nor barcodes. I assume the “white label” for the release and catalog number is there is some sort of ID supplied. AcoustIDs are easy enough. A reference will be difficult many times, so not sure the best way to handle that.

Any input and/or ideas are welcome. If I am to add these to the database, I would like to have some idea of structure to at least provide consistency formed by a consensus of the users here.


oh yeah, it most certainly is a release~

for releases such as this, track order should be alphabetical by title, just like it would be sorted in a folder on your computer. an example I’ve added is My Little Pixels. I remember I read this guideline somewhere in the docs a while back, but can’t seem to find it at the moment…

you can also remove the track numbers when entering the release, since they technically don’t exist. I will note that if you use Picard, it will almost certainly still add track numbers to the filename, unless you specifically set up your file naming script to handle that… (I could help you with that, if you’re interested)

for multiple file formats, you can just double each track, kinda like this release. (note, the track listing was imported from Discogs). be sure to note this in the annotation tho.

a note on doing this, the MP3 and WAV files should likely be the same recording. note how the recording Blue Comb ’78 inst is on the exact same release twice.

a note on metadata that “MB likely will not be setup to accommodate”, there is always the “Miscellaneous support” relationship, if you want to take it that far. an example I’ve edited is the video for Unison. if not, you can always just add that information to the release annotation, like I did with 3時12分 or The Birthday Girl vs. the Internet. it is better than nothing~


Thanks for the info. I am set on the setup for Picard naming, although I do not often use it. I use Picard mostly to add releases, not to tag or rename files.

Perfect, thanks! That is exactly what I was looking for. The WAV and MP3 for MB are the same recording, I agree. I do not treat them in this way, but MB does, so I will be sure to remember this.

How do I use the same recording twice when adding the release? Do I need to add the first 4, then the second 4, or do I add all 8 and merge to 4?

I added them half-and-half in this case, but you could also merge. might be easier in the example you gave above~

1 Like

Ok, I added a new release of this type here:

Could you have a look and share your thoughts on how it is added?

tracklist looks good~

one question, is this a DJ-mix, or a remix? because it looks to me like a remix.

for reference, a DJ-mix is where each track is cross-faded/mixed into the next track, such as some versions of deadmau5’s 4×4=12. here it is on YouTube, the second track starts around 7:00.


Ok, it is corrected. Thanks for the note.


With recordings like this I also add the relationships for remixer (artist) and remix of (recording) where known. Release “RMX-BUNDLE” by Lazy Habits - MusicBrainz

It was after a conversation with you that made me think of adding some of those other items in the annotation that came from the files. Annotations are good for history notes about the tracks


Ahh, yes. I can agree with that. Thanks for providing such suggestions, I will go back and do this.

I have a question, although I believe I have the answer… Most times I cannot be sure exactly which version of the recording was used to create the remix. How does one select which version was used? I would assume that the original version (like the album version) would be selected, as that would also be the source of any other edits or remixes as well. Just want to make sure I am thinking in the same.


This is a puzzle I sometimes have. Especially if the track appears as a single and the album. Like your theory I usually focus on which came first and that normally is the album. In my example I have an album where tracks are remixed so it was easy to choose.

The main key is going back to an Original that the remixer is likely to have in their possession.

I like adding these remix links as it then all appears under the remix artist as part of their portfolio. The linking ability of the MB database then really opens up as you see who else they then did remixes for. And it now appears with the original recording letting you trace multiple remixes of a track.


Absolutely. This is a great reference to have. I definitely see the advantages on all sides of this. You can see all remixes of a recording by an artist, and you can see all remixes done my a mixer/DJ/etc. I see a lot of benefit to this.

The issue I have now is references. The editor chaban pointed out that the references I selected are under suspicion of piracy. While I did find paid references (knowing these materials are not free), they do appear suspicious and I thusly removed them. I am unsure I want to add stuff like this if I cannot find a reference for them.

I added three such releases as a trail of sorts. It seems there are a few issues that need to be worked out to proceed further. I am happy that I asked these questions here as the responses I am getting are very useful. I think that once this is worked out, maybe the “procedure” can be shared and placed somewhere in the MB documentation.

1 Like

@IvanDobsky I added as you have stated, and also completed more of the remixer’s MB profile. Please have a look here:

Is this what you were advising?

Another question for the group… would it be acceptable to add a PDF or DOC/DOCX of a press release as “cover art”? I ask as it is not really cover art, and I know the files are stored at Internet Archive.

I am trying to think through how all of the supporting materials can be included. It seems references will be difficult at times.

1 Like

I am keen to have everything added that can be!

As long as it can be said to ‘come with’, or extremely closely related to, that release in some form.

Ok. I started slow, and focused only on R Isaac. I am trying to get the artist profile completed and the releases under also completed. I want to see how this might work, meaning, to have a solid process and procedure to add such things.

I did edits a few hours ago on a DMC release, and things are very inconsistent. I do not think it is due to bad editors, but editors without information and guidance. As another editor pointed out on a different thread on a related topic, this seems like an simpler version of the classical genre edits. There are aspects that are not really normal, as in the same as a standard commercial release from a standard artist.

Any feedback is appreciated. As I stated, Ray Isaac is the only artist I have started on in order to keep visibility. So far, all suggestions have been applied, some waiting on feedback before continuing to the rest of the initial adding.

1 Like

The cover art section handles PDFs, not sure about DOCs. Can I suggest also adding a single Cover image? If I found something like this when tagging I’ll download the PDF, then upload a JPG from it for a separate Front image. My media centre does not handle PDFs so I personally prefer jpg/png.

With Sweetest Pie - don’t need a Release remixer if all the Recordings can be identified. Otherwise that Release is looking more like I was thinking. I add as many people and places as I can find references for.

On Sweetest Pie - you only linked one Work. All those recordings can be linked to the same Work as they are all derived from it. (remixes don’t get their own Works)

1 Like

To make sure I understand, you are saying to take the DOC or PDF and convert to an image, then upload that. Correct?

Ok on the release mixer. The reason I did that is because the whole release is the same mixer, so I figured have the release appear under the artist vs just the recordings. I am still seeing how that works, so I will keep this in mind. Could I also clarify… you stated “don’t need”, does this mean it is ok to have it? I know there are some items where data should not be placed, so I want to make sure which case this is.

Could you clarify the linking of one Work? I do not believe I linked any works. What I did is create the recordings, and enter 1) a remix of and 2) remixer. There are two recordings in play, a clean and a dirty/explicit version. I am guessing I am misunderstanding here, this is not an area I have done much in.

If you have a PDF - uploaded it as it is.

But also find something that works as a single Front image, and extract a JPG of that. Upload that as well. This gives us something “digital file friendly” as well as the full document. (In this example you already have a good image in place as “front”. I was more thinking ahead in case you only had a PDF)

(And if any one asks why I would extract an image from a PDF, it is the same reason I scan the front of my paper booklet and upload a JPG. Format shifting to something useful)

With the “Release” credits. If I see duplicates like that I would normally delete them. I don’t think it is a “Must not do”, but more a case of “Not needed”.

Usually an Artist Credit appears at release level due to it being written in the booklet of an album, but not made clear which track they actually worked on. As you have the details for the Recordings, no need to repeat at Release.

Works. Sorry, I may have confused this. Click on Edit Relationships, now look on the right. I would expect to see “Sweetest Pie” linked to each entry on the right hand side. (My pre-coffee brain thought it had seen one done… but that was me just looking the first one up as I had not realised you have four tracks duplicated in this list)

1 Like

I don’t see any real issue keeping it, but it is essentially duplicate data, as far as the database is concerned. that isn’t to say it can’t be useful to some.

that said, for remix releases, I’ve recently started crediting the remixer as the release artist. since a lot of remixes I edit aren’t approved by the original artist (and are therefore a bootleg of the original artist), but it is an official release by the remixer.

(edit: a good example of this is The Living Tombstone)

not usually, but there could be exceptions.

1 Like