Does anyone object to the merging of the release groups:
with:
As wikipedia says:
" The album was released as Internationalists in the United States, with a reconfigured track listing."
That reconfigured track listing is only the swapping out of the song “Our Favorite Shop” for the song “Shout to the Top”. Other than that, the tracklists are identical. The Genesis album “From Genesis to Revelation” / “In the Beginning” is treated this way, and it doesn’t seem to be against the style guidelines, though there’s some ambiguity there.
3 Likes
You can easily argue that the USA release is a Reissue of Our Favourite Shop. Putting them into the same RG makes sense. But I vaguely remember a conversation like this about a Beatles releases where more tracks differed. Not sure the result to that discussion.
When I look at an Artist page I want to see a Discography. I would think it would be an error to list the same album “twice” by having separate UK and USA RGs.
Edit: An example was A Hard Day’s Night. That was briefly split to a USA and UK editions, then got merged back together again as a single RG. That has a number of tracks different, but consensus kept it as a single RG
1 Like
I think merge, with all the helpful disambiguation, aliases and annotations needed to not have it pop up again.
I think possibly something to do with SensCritique preferring those kinds of albums separate? Unfortunately I don’t think that preference was in line with MB direction.
2 Likes
Yeah, that was the one. I thought there had also been a sensible discussion as well which was staying within the MB guidelines. Couldn’t locate it in the search though.
2 Likes
Canadian edition has a UK title, but a USA track list. Without a merged Release Group would make it hard to place.
4 Likes