just making sure this makes sense to others, and not just me…
I’ve often found that artists will release a DJ-mix in multiple forms, one where the tracks are split into several files, and another where the whole mix is a single file. for example, 4×4=12 by deadmau5 has a single-track continuous mix as well as a multi-track version of the same recording(s). I feel like these should both be related back to the original tracks, and only just recently figured out a possible solution:
the arrows represent relationships between recordings
that is to say, both types of DJ-mix are related to the original track, and the DJ-mixes are related to to each other using a compilation relationship. while the relationship page does mention DJ-mixes, I believe that’s talking about not linking the original recording to a DJ-mix with it, not linking two DJ-mixes together…
1 Like
are the first two discs DJ-mixed too? because that’s the particular case I’m talking about… if the first two discs are the original, unmixed versions, I understand that case
this is almost what i’ve been doing… the way you’re proposing feels most intuitive to me as well but i was worried no one else was on the same page! i agree with this way of doing things, i think.
when i get scared, though, is when it comes time to incorporate works into it… like, i feel like this release looks excessive as-is, and i haven’t even added the “one-track ↔ original” relationships. but that’s another problem for another day
@afrocat helped me remember that I didn’t actually go through with adding these relationships to my examples in 4×4=12, so I’ve added those~ (and the snippet isn’t showing correctly because of it… lol)
1 Like
With @UltimateRiff’s help i’ve now added this DJ-mix with a similar structure. The full recordings, the full dj mix recording, and individual mix cut recordings, all interlinked 
