Occasionally when an artist releases an album, an alternate version will be released around the same time with karaoke versions of all the tracks. I don’t know if there’s any formal guidance on whether these karaoke albums should be placed in the source album’s release group or a release group of their own. There’s currently no “karaoke version of” relationship, though I just made a ticket for such. Should these albums be separated out or not? I’m of the opinion that we should, since we already separate out remixes from their source releases.
I’m on the fence for this one. I’d say we should separate instrumental versions of albums (like “Hip Hop Album X: The Instrumentals”) but at the same time, karaoke seems like it’s supposed to be a closer pair to the original than just instrumental. Let’s see what others think
I’d say separate. I was told previously than an acoustic and non-acoustic version of a Release (released at the same time) should be put in different RGs, and I don’t see how this is much different. With the “do I have this album?” implicitly question posed on the Release Group definition page I’d say that the two versions are not replacements for each other.
Very good way of telling when we should not merge release groups!
That means we shouldn’t merge original singles and remix singles either, then.
I frequently see those but with this simple question is quite easy to say they shouldn’t.
We should probably update the release group doc to add this good helper question for editors.
If we do separate out a Karaoke release from existing release group, is this a remix release group or just release group with no subgroup selected? Are we still separating these & instrumentals? I always thought instrumentals were in the same release group.
If someone sings an album in German instead of English isn’t that in the same RG? Would have thought it follows that Instrumental are in same RGs if they follow the same track list as it is just a “no language” versino.
No. It’s actually not. Look at all the Disney film soundtracks. They release those things in like 10 different languages all around the world and each one gets it’s own release group. It actually states this in the guidelines as controversial, so should stay separate catagory.
I don’t do Disney stuff so don’t know their special rules. I just stick with normal music.
I do know of a number of instrumental versions of releases that are in the same RG. Partly due to how the band also see that album a version of the same. Similar to how a Deluxe or a Remaster stays in the same RG as the core albums is from the same recording source.
I understood that a Remix is when you give an album to a different selection of DJs who remix in their own style, changing the source recordings, adding their own extra sounds.
I also see how an Acoustic vs non-Acoustic release would be different RGs as they are different recordings.
The Karaoke is using that same original studio tape, just without the audio track. Bit like a Remaster who then turns down the volume of the singer
Ok. The Disney example maybe not a good one as they hire different artist to record the different languages. But I always took that statement in the release group guidelines to mean to keep all releases groups in different languages separate.
Yes. Normally you do see instrumentals in the same group. That’s why I was asking if that is something that should be. Was just going by comments earlier in this thread.
- I guess most of the time, those instrumentals are karaokes (removal of lead vocal tracks from the mix), right?
- Not to be confused with (a minority in fact) real instrumental versions (where at least the lead vocals are replaced by lead instruments or it’s a whole complete rerecording in an instrumental way, with lead instrumental) - example Low or “Heroes”
Where lead is main melody.
I think the real instrumentals should not be in the same RG.
Like the other languages or the re-recording (self-cover) albums shouldn’t.
But this topic is about karaoke.
Long time ago I would have put them in the same RG, like for the alternate language albums.
But now, as I agreed with not same RG for different language, I (now) think karaoke should not be in the same RG, either.
When they are a bonus disc after the main album, yes, they should be in the same RG.
Because imagine you have a Céline Dion karaoke (only) version of thisthat famous album:
You could not say you do have thisthat album in your collection at all, in my opinion.
This is why I would tend to separate karaoke (only) RG.
No, I am talking of music that has just dropped the audio track. Released as a variation of the album. Not Karaoke type music. Just a remaster with the voice gone. The music is strong enough to stand on its own without remixing. Unlike a Celine Dion album that I could see would not stand up on its own without voice.
Your Low and Heroes examples are clearly different as different artist making their own recordings released under a different name.
The way I’d look at it is similar to recordings - is it using that same studio tape?
A reason I would not be creating a new RG for it is to avoid it appearing as a new item in the Album list of Discography. I don’t get the “not buying it twice” argument as I buy an album on release, and then the 25th anniversary deluxe and play them separately as different items, but they share the original source recordings so are in same RG.
But I should not be in this discussion really. I don’t do karaoke and I assume there are already hundreds of these in the database. I had always assumed that Karaoke was not made by the artist so would have found its own RG anyway.
I was asking because Big Machine released a bunch of Taylor Swift karaoke albums under her name, but then state, she’s not on it, lol.
Well, you describe taking the song and removing the lead vocals from the mix, too, no?
It’s exactly that, a karaoke version of the original track: See tracks A2 and B2.
I think the OP @HibiscusKazeneko thought about these normal karaokes.
Well, or, you mean that, there are also some third party karaoke albums consisting of MIDI(saster) versions of popular songs.
But these are just like cover albums, other RG, too.
Is this Big Machine an artist or a label?
@HibiscusKazeneko and all you guys, please provide example links to show exactly what kind of release you are thinking about putting in the same RG as the… original album?
Sorry. Big Machine Label Group. The Label she’s been battling for years. It’s her previous label. So, officially they own those recordings, but I’m assuming they are just removing the vocals on things she already recorded, thus wouldn’t this be a remix?
BTW, the editor I was asking for has now agreed they should be moved out and a remix, but it would be nice to have something in the guidelines officially.