That’s a fair point I didn’t think about earlier: do we consider an album re-recorded if only some parts were re-recorded?
I expect many Ozzy collectors/fans would not consider the re-recordings equivalent to the originals, but I expect Ozzy (at the time at least) did…
I don’t think we should take the artist feeling for this.
And in fact the artist certainly did not consider it the same thing, otherwise they would have kept the original recordings.
in some cases, yes… but it definitely depends. for example, there are currently seperate release groups for the album and the album (jp version), but i put in an edit to merge these since the jp version was solely released in japan and only the korean lyrics are rerecorded - most of the lyrics are english.
there is definitely a cutoff… but it’s very hard to define. i have no idea what would be considered different, but i guess it just feels like the same rg sometimes? does that make sense?
I’m not personally opposed, and clearer guidelines are generally better, but as I recall from the “same album sung in different languages”, opinion seemed to be divided in that case.
sorry for the bump, but just to be sure: is the general community consensus reached in this thread that if two releases share no (/very few) MB-recordings, they should usually be in separate RGs? i like this rule of thumb because it explains why remasters are the same RG and usually not rerecordings or re-mixes, but i want to be sure i’m understanding correctly before i internalize it haha
Good bump-- This won’t come as a surprise to anyone that’s been watching recent discussion, but I’m actually opposed to this, even after a little light reading on the previous posts in this thread. The most important role that RGs serve, to me, is to aid in discoverability.
I can definitely see / relate to / understand the desire to have different RGs for re-recordings, but in my mind… how to put it…
…Works are to Recordings
as Release Groups are to Releases
They represent, on a conceptual level, the same entity, but different instantiations of that entity. The most mainstream use case for RGs is different editions and releases in different countries (The Xenoblade Chronicles 2 soundtrack comes to mind), but I believe it’s more helpful than hurtful to use more generous grouping than just that, and group, say, the original and re-recorded versions of a release together, so that information discovery is easier for people actually using the MB site, and the Releases can “cross-pollinate” (so to speak) users’ discovery of the other Release.
Edit: I realize that I’ve just hit on the heart of the issue, which is, “When does one consider the entity, on a conceptual level, to be distinct?” And this is always going to be controversial. I don’t have any good answers at the moment, but here’s food for thought:
Could the same rules that are used to determine whether one Work should be distinct from another Work also be applied to Release Groups?
Edit 2: And also: Regarding our stance about how artists feel about their newer works being grouped with their older works, or whether they’re able to make clean breaks from the past and whatnot… I’d encourage folks to go and read the Data Removal Policy, and just take a moment to soak in the ethos of what’s written there. That’s kinda where I’m coming from re: that little facet of the discussion, personally.
But your example is not really the same.
You are talking about different MB recordings of the same audio recordings / same source.
The typical example for separate release groups is new recording sessions of an album, like a self-cover album.
I’m in the ‘always a new RG’ camp. They may be the same songs, but they are different performances. This happens in classical all the time. Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic recorded all 9 Beethoven symphonies on 4 separate occasions. I don’t think anyone considers them a single release group.
i see!! so the general “rule” here is more like…
new MB-recordings = new release groups, as long as these recordings are the result of the artist making actual changes, whether the album (or many parts of it) is rerecorded, heavily re-mixed, or both, which would exclude
does this sound right? im autistic so im not great at taking it totally case-by-case haha. i want to have a general course of action even for things that might seem intuitive
also, i LOVE annotations, so i definitely think any case of split release groups should have plenty of annotations to aid in discoverability & explain why they’re not together
Yes.
Me too. Annotations are also an excuse to share little gems of unique knowledge about something too.
But if the MB recordings are different just because the track split is different, it should remain in same release group. 
I finally added this as a new RG-RG relationship option. The relationship is meant for complete re-recordings, which most of us agreed should be separate. What to do for an example like the one where only some instruments were re-recorded is unclear, so the guidelines explicitly mention that as a case per case basis situation.
For situations where an album was partially re‐recorded (just the drums, for example)…
Is this caveat supposed to apply to cases where 60% of the tracks of an album were fully re-recorded? Or just to cases where a specific subtrack of each track of an album were re-recorded and re-mixed with non-re-recorded subtracks?
The example I’m thinking of is not one where anyone would dispute they should be separate release groups, but I’m wondering whether this kind of case was considered in the wording of this sentence.
I was mostly thinking about the latter but I considered both and both seemed the same sort of grey areas this should not be seen as a decision on, but could be linked with this relationship if they are set in different RGs, so both I guess?
I have a live performances and re‐recordings, here, and a self cover album, there.
100% same song sequence in both cases.
For the first one I linked re-recording of (new) and live performance of (existing) relationships.
It looks right.
For the second one, I turned the existing cover of relationship into the new re-recording of plus the disambiguation comment.
I’m not sure.
These cases really fit the re-recording definition but are usually called self cover albums.
Is the term “self cover” widely used in any context other than Japanese music? That’s the only usage of it that I have seen.
Probable as I don’t know many other countries creating so many funky English expressions, like survival horror, psychedelic violence crime of visual shock, or self cover. 
I don’t know a French example of the equivalent of セルフカバー (self cover), for instance.
It can be rather called a new version, a new recording, or something like that.
I feel like the re-recording relationship might be a bit extra in case one, as the live performance relationship implies re-recording? I also can’t think of any cases where a live performance of an album wouldn’t also be a re-recording (save for live cover of albums). though perhaps being specific in these cases might be good? I think it’s fine either way
edit to add: a quite clear-cut example of a re-recording would be Taylor Swift’s “Taylor’s version” releases, like Red (or reputation, which is already on the relationship page as an example, lol)
Does re-recording imply that the new recording sounds very similar to the original recording and/or reflects the spirit of the original recording? Because my understanding is that self cover albums typically do not intend to do either.
Luna Sea (Luna Sea album) - Wikipedia does not describe this as a “self cover” - was it marketed that way?
Yes they do:
I removed the cover of relationships because it says another artist.
I have also put the re-recording of relationship because it brings 100% same song sequence idea, whereas live performance of brings only majority of songs (not even in same sequence).