Release Group question


#1

I have an oddity.


This release as you can see was a double CD/LP release. However, the digital releases have been released as separate releases, i.e. the first CD as Art of War I, second CD as Art of War 2. Should I create new RGs for each separate digital media, or just put them under the same RG as the original. It’s the opposite of the compilations where we create new RGs.


#2

Yes.

See https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Style/Release_Group#What_should_not_be_grouped_together.3F - that one assumes that the two individual releases were made first and then later published together, but the same reasoning for that also applies when the order is the other way around.


#3

Hello @Freso.
To me it’s weird if an original release is later arbitrary sold in parts, then those incomplete re‐editions are not in the same release group.

Imagine if some lame label or some random pirate decides to sell THE BEATLES WHITE ALBUM in two or more parts. It would be lame to create bogus release groups for that, wouldn’t it (the answer is highly suggested by my question)? :wink:

There is an ongoing example of this rather rare situation:

IMO, the original intent / original release approach is important in both situations to:

  • Keep original RG separated and bundle in yet another RG, like said in the guideline
  • Keep all releases in same RG, in this topic case, not covered by the guideline.

#4

Not only that, but with the release in question because they were digital, they had the original release date, not the accurate release date, which caused one of them to have no date for the RG, so it looks just wrong. Not only that, but it’s not a compilation because it’s not compiling anything, so they are 2 new RGs that are in their discography as original albums, when they are not. Maybe need an “other” secondary type because they are still albums.


#5

In the hypothetical “White Album” case…listing the “White Album Side 1 Only” release as a ‘version’ of the original album (as implied by making it a new release in the existing RG) is not, to my mind, more correct than a separate RG.

Can you elaborate on this ? I’m not sure I understand your argument.

I could accept either approach, personally. I just want to see consistency.


#6

Yes it’s really not clear my text.
I meant the original intent is important.
What I meant is here what I think we should do in my opinion:

  1. If earliest official release is two distinct buys then we will always end up having three release groups (two for the original releases and one for the combined compilation).

  2. If earliest official release is combined then we will always keep only one release group including all the later releases that would be sold splitted for whatever reason (official or not).

I see now a third case with this edit:

  1. If the original official releases were both versions combined and split, then we are like in case number 2 with only one release group

That’s just what I’ve been thinking of, you know… Doesn’t it seem sensible? :thinking:


#7

I don’t agree with this, neither in principle nor in the current reading of the guidelines. If you have a Release BA with 20 tracks and then later you have Release A with 10 of those tracks and Release B with the other 10, you wouldn’t say “I have the BA album” if you only have Release A. This seems to me to make it fall under the “separate Release Group” category.