If a release (single, album, box set, etc) consists primarily of studio recordings but includes 1 or 2 live tracks, does that necessitate adding the live secondary type? The same would probably apply for remix as well.
For example: a studio album that contains 1 remix (most often a bonus track) would seem strange to classify as “album + remix”, and the same would go for a (maxi) single where there’s 3 studio tracks and 1 live track to be classified as “single + live”.
Is it correct to add these secondary types in those instances or leave them off? What is the threshold for adding these secondary types?
It’s an interesting case, because while there is a secondary release type ‘live’, there is no secondary release type ‘studio’. So if you’d set Ummagumma to ‘live’, it would appear on first glance to be a mostly or completely live album, and I don’t think that is helpful.
Adding a ‘studio’ secondary release type wouldn’t be ideal either, because that would require the vast majority of releases to have that release type set, and of course a vast majority of that vast majority wouldn’t get updated. The current situation, where no secondary release type means “most likely a bog-standard studio album” is quite useful, I think.
Any secondary types should apply to most of the tracks on the releases within the release group. It’s OK if some of the tracks do not fit the type (for example, if a live album has some bonus studio tracks), as long as the type applies to the releases overall.