Hit the Ground Running versions messed up

There are certainly different versions of Hit the Ground Running:
The EP version was released on CD with length 2:53 (net length without pregap before the following track), a confirmed acoustID and ISRC DEVQ71600003 (from subchannel)
The Single version, currently offered by Spotify and Amazon, is also included in their album download, but it’s certainly a different version, length 2:44, audible different and clearly missing the first 8 seconds.

The single version is very likely the same mix included in some compilation albums. I have compared fingerprints of my CD with those of the compilation, and it is definitely a not similar enough to be the same. So I voted aginst a merge into the recording associated with my CD. But this recording also includes a version length 2:44 and digital download versions referenced by Spotify’s (since February 3, 2017) and Amazon’s download version, length 2:44.

On the other hand, the MP3 Single on Discogs has a length of 2:52, nonetheless the above Amazon link was also given as reference. Now, which version of “Hit the Ground Running” was released on Aug 4, 2017 on Amazon/Discogs?

There is also a second AcoustID associated to “my recording”, obviously similar in parts at an offset of 32 - the similarity starts after some seconds - and I looked at the music video → Alice Merton - Hit the Ground Running - YouTube with some seconds ahead and many additional sounds mixed in but is basically my CD/EP version. … t̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶s̶u̶s̶p̶i̶c̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶h̶a̶s̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶b̶e̶ ̶c̶h̶e̶c̶k̶e̶d̶…

EDIT: this is the AcoustID for the video, now created: Video “Hit the Ground Running” by Alice Merton - MusicBrainz with a fingerprint for this ID submitted

[There is also a number of live performances all using the same programmed drum computer (possibly similar in parts, even if “acoustic versions”).]

And to make it even more complicated I found out by ISRC Search that the “Single version” - length 2:44, but same ISRC - is actually part of the EP, but that’s certainly not true for my CD. Now I’m a little stuck. :frowning:

EDIT2: Waveforms of first 10 seconds of the Spotify single version compared with synced CD-EP version:


I find this can be quite common. Only sane thing to do is (disambig) and sift. Maybe having three versions - single, album, unknown. Or just split on the lengths.

It can be pretty hit and miss what appears on compilation albums. And can also different between a CD and a digital edition of the same release. They have been known to “optimise” their storage and only keep one copy of a track.

“Second AcoustID attached” - AcoustIDs can be pot-luck. Picard allows them to be added “blind” and not everyone will verify the version it is being attached to. If I only see one or two samples then I’d disconnect it. (In Picard the “Submit AcoustIDs” button is far too visible for a noobie who has just scanned 1000 tracks…)

ISRC is about payments so can’t be used to separate a single and album version. That often gets mixed up by the digital stores. Again the older the track the worse it will be. Never merge on ISRC alone.

All you can really do is separate what you know for sure, and note it in the annotation.

Your Waveforms are interesting. Looks like generally the same spikes, but different mastering?

An example I am used to is Chumbawamba’s Tubthumping: Chumbawamba - Recordings - MusicBrainz

There is the album version (4:39) and single version (3:33). Then alternate other versions appears in compilations (3:57) (3:23) some without the intro speech, less verses, and other edits. The compilations just swap between these almost at random. Same ISRC is attached to all of them.


the second AcoustID is no longer unknown :slight_smile:
(I submitted a fingerprint from the music video)

Actually, it was mixed up by IFPI (ISRC search) and label (CD subchannel)

I don’t think so. Much more likely a different mix. It’s audible (distinguishable different) ¹

Looks great :roll_eyes: (are these all associated correctly?)

¹) my remasters often submit to the same acoust ID as the original version and even if they don’t - their fingerprints are still very similar

1 Like

Those Tubthumping versions have involved a bit of sifting over the years by me. Getting the longer ones separated is easy.

I actually think the 3:33 single and the 3:23 version are the same. Just an earlier fade going on. Been digging around on YouTube and find versions of these lengths that play exact. This track is on SO many compilations… not surprising if they trimmed 10 seconds from the end of it for space. May merge it one day, but no real rush.

A quick look in the 3:33 find many 3:23 compilation edits mixed in there already… but there are three pages of them so I ain’t separating them. :joy:

I only own official versions, so no compilations to refer to apart from YouTube.

The main reason I posted it here is that ISRC. I see that on all of them. I also noticed the swap between lengths on the compilations over the years.

(LOL - and now I gone and spent 30mins documenting the differences in those four tracks… :rofl: :upside_down_face: as I worked out why the 3:57 edit is 3:57)

I can see some of the spiky changes so that does make sense. Interesting the main peaks are staying sync’d. No extra verses, etc added. Playing stuff back to back is a really handy (and geeky) trick. I enjoy it as it lets me focus on so much more details within the track. Can get a bit mad if you are lining up three of them at the same time…

When AcoustIDs are getting overlapped and confusing I’ll add them to the recording annotation.

This is one of the good parts of MusicBrainz. It lets us music addicts document and share the little details we spot.


That’s what I fear for the “single version” of “my” album as well, but fortunately I don’t have to deal with such a mass of versions :wink:

It was not about adding something - it’s an improved version: there’s a vibrating echo in the voice, where only a usual echo was before (I say “before” because I’m certain that the “Single version” is the improved and later version, replacing the original (both EP and single) version. Unfortunately they removed the 8 seconds intro → see first second, when the “Single version” sets in.



It goes on a lot. Even a modern album. I bought a Kasabian CD for a mate… and then found the digital stores all used the Single for track five instead of the Album version. Which means the only place you can now hear the original track five is on physical media.

In this case it is actually backed up by the ISRC showing the differences. (One of the rare times I pulled ISRC data from a CD). It was also obvious by time and audio. 20 seconds shorter and noticeably different.


I suspect, that’s exactly what happened on this album. They removed every trace of the original version and replaced it with the new one - “always has been” - but it doesn’t work with physical releases. :laughing:
And in this case there is an official music video too, although remixed to fit the needs of the film. The only version I found with 2:52 (apart from the video) is also the music video score.


With the Kasabian album the online stores have never had the real track five. A few tracks were released before the album came out. Track five was one of these as the shorter edit.

When the album was released my mates CD copy appeared on pre-order which is when I made a “backup” of it for her which I then uploaded to MB. The fact the track time was off by 20 second was the trigger for me to go investigating. And found all the online stores were the same.

What will be interesting is what happens in the future? When the CD is reissued at a later time what will be on it?

I bet this happens on a lot of digital albums without people realising. Some MB editors can be too keen to merge tracks on name without really checking why the lengths are off.

1 Like

That’s not very likely going to happen in case of my EP :laughing:
But it probably depends on how many people are expected to buy the re-release. If they don’t expect a big success, they will repress the first version.

I fear that too :worried:

1 Like

If they don’t expect success, then I more expect that they will just grab the digital edition and press it. I’ve heard that has happened with some of these expensive modern vinyl pressings. They don’t always go back to studio tapes, and can just press from a digital copy.

I personally knew a 1960s “one hit wonder” artist who pressed a CD to sell to fans… and used a pile of 128mpbs MP3s as the source :exploding_head:

This is why we annotate.

1 Like