Yes.
Me too. Annotations are also an excuse to share little gems of unique knowledge about something too.
3 Likes
But if the MB recordings are different just because the track split is different, it should remain in same release group. 
5 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
1 Like
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)
2 Likes
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?
1 Like
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).
Actually that is not how I understand either of these relationships. Re-recording for me would be specifically for the case where a previous studio album gets new studio recordings. A live performance wouldn’t be that.
Likewise the live performance relationship is specifically for the case where an album gets performed live, at least almost in its entirety. There can be of course variations, but those should be in the same area as variations inside a release group. Just performing some songs from an album, likely mixed with other songs, is not a live performance of that album. It’s just your typical live setlist.
5 Likes
Then the live performance of relationship doc may be improved?
Currently it says:
The work‐order of the studio release does not have to match the work‐order of the live release.
Here is another special case for me, there is a CD that is a live performance of an album, 100% same song sequence.
But it is only the bonus disc of a specific edition.
So I cannot really link the release group, can I?
thank you for adding this!! do you think we could also get a secondary type? for example, taylor swift’s page looks really messy with all the re-recorded albums and midnights gets buried in-between them all. i feel like it would help clean it up and provide more insight into why the albums are separated. https://musicbrainz.org/artist/20244d07-534f-4eff-b4d4-930878889970
wikipedia, for example, separates original studio albums from their re-recorded counterparts (Taylor Swift albums discography - Wikipedia) because they are a totally different type of release.
1 Like
Are they a different type of release though? I can only see it in two ways, either they’re just the same studio album again and it should be one RG, or it’s as valid an album RG as the original one and it shouldn’t be “demoted” to a separate category. In fact, I understand for the artist, they’re more important/valid than the original versions, not less?
3 Likes
I have not yet listened to some Taylor Swift songs or albums so I don’t know for sure.
I tried to read a bit about her but her French Wikipedia page is full of French typos and looks like a translation of her English page, which itself looks very promotional (like her tous revolutionised the world despite I have never heard her sing). 
For me all versions of the album are equally important on a factual/encyclopedic level.
Some people may think the original albums are more important even if the singer thinks the opposite, even if it is for good reasons.
I agree with Reo that neither of the versions should be pulled out of the (prominent) studio album section (primary type: album, secondary type: none).