If a digital release is later edited or reissued so that a significant part of the release is missing – such as for rights issues – do both releases belong in the same release group?
MONSTA released their self-titled “MONSTA EP” under OWSLA in 2012. In 2013, the group changed names to “I See MONSTAS” and signed the rights to the first 3 tracks to Polydor Records. They later rereleased the other 3 tracks (all remixes) as “I See MONSTAS” with the same label and cover art as the first release.
Given that this new release is essentially a single, I would think the RGs would stay separate, but the RG relationships “single taken from” and “excerpt from” don’t seem to match this use case. There’s also the fact that the first 3 tracks were removed from the MONSTA EP release so that it resembles the I SEE MONSTAS release in all but name.
When such changes happen we usually consider adding a new release. It can be changes in track listing (order, tracks added or removed), track names, artist’s name changes, or changes in cover art.
But you can re-use existing recordings (if they match).
This is a tough one. I’d probably create a new release group, since I think I view “MONSTA EP” as a three-track EP with three bonus remixes thrown in, while “I See MONSTAS” feels more like a three-track remix EP. It’s debatable, though.
One benefit of having one RG credited to MONSTA and another RG credited to I See MONSTAS is that it makes it less likely that someone will enter a duplicate release if they visit the ISM page and don’t see a self-titled RG listed there. (If I’m using a single RG for releases that have been recredited like this, I’ve sometimes listed both artists in the RG credit so that it’ll show up in both artist’s main discographies.)