Release with same title but different tracklisting

I’ve searched and found one thread which seems semi-related, but not exactly answering the question for me.

In the Roxette Don’t Bore Us - Get to the Chorus! release group, two different editions have been added: the original from 1995 and another from 2000.

Their names are partly the same:

  • 1995: Don’t Bore Us - Get to the Chorus! Roxette’s Greatest Hits (on the cover and spines)
  • 2000: Don’t Bore Us, Get to the Chorus (GREATEST HITS is appended on the spine only)

However, the track lists are not the same (they share only 13 of the same tracks and the order of the tracks differ):

  • The 1995 edition contains 18 tracks. 4 are new recordings and 14 previous releases.
  • The 2000 edition contains 16 tracks. It removes 3 of the new recordings and 2 of the previous releases, while adding 3 other recordings in their place.

The artwork differs significantly, but it uses the same liner notes for the tracks that are similar on both editions.

This doesn’t feel like something that should be grouped together, since the newer edition doesn’t build on the original edition but reuses only parts of it. Should this release group remain as one or split in two?

1 Like

Yes, the best hits greatest hits best of artist compilations often have the same titles.
They usually take their titles from the artist most famous songs.

They should not be in the same release groups of they are this significantly different.

It’s a compilation and most of the tracks are still included. I would keep it in the same RG. Artwork changes are no indication for a new release group.

Yes, but in this case, it’s more a “second generation” and a very distinct title.

1 Like

13 tracks shared seems like a high ratio to me (out of 16 and 18 total) and I personally would consider it an ‘update’ (e.g. same release group). Track order is very similar as well.

edit: licensing issues with some songs? or a lazy attempt at making it look new on the shelves? always interesting :smiley:


looking at the Wikipedia page, the 1995 version has 4 related singles, including a new version of “The Look”, and none of those 3 are on the 2000 version. I’d say separate release groups, similar to how I handled Elvis’ Christmas Album. that way we can link those singles to only the releases that actually include them

1 Like

I just dealt with this other case, since Wikipedia and Discogs see fit to separate them:

1 Like

None of the removed songs were released as singles in the US, and while the newer added tracks also weren’t, they probably tried to update it somehow so as to not seem 5+ years out of date.

This release was originally intended specifically only for the US market (since they never got the 1995 edition - major issues with their US record company at the time), but it was subsequently also issued in other countries/regions. This makes the decision to split/keep combined even more murky. If it was a US-only release, it’d make 100% sense to me to split.

This is a good reason that make sense to me for splitting. Of the 4 new tracks, 3 were released as commercial singles and the 4th as a radio-only single.

The discography on their own site doesn’t list it which says to me they probably also consider it a “second edition”.

Probably best to leave them as-is in one RG, and only adjust the releases’ names to accurately reflect what’s printed on them.

Thanks for all the points of view.

Edit: I’ll revisit this in a few months’ time after giving myself ample time to consider the singles issue as explained by @UltimateRiff, since that’s a very compelling argument.