Remix relationship for re-mixed recordings/releases/etc?

i guess in short my question is, in musicbrainz, is a “remix” the same as a “re-mix”? should a recording that is a “re-mixed” be linked to the original recording with a “remix” relationship? should an album that is “re-mixed” have a separate release group to the original, like a “remixed” album would?

i know the distinction might not make sense haha. it doesn’t matter too much to me whether i should use the remix relationships or not, i don’t mind doing it and i don’t mind not doing it. but the release group thing has been bugging me.

as an example, one artist has released many re-mixed albums that he calls “remasters”. with most of these i created a new release group because they usually also have many rerecorded elements. but one in particular he actively marketed as a “remaster” and sometimes even a “reissue”, and from what i can tell it is only re-mixed and not rerecorded (or, if it is rerecorded, it is not obvious). it can be found here in this release group (don’t mind the pending edits, haha. been doing a lot of work on these pages).

they are in the same RG because when i made the releases i figured it would be less controversial this way because they are called “remaster” and “reissue”. but i am starting to wonder if it would be better to separate them. remix albums are mentioned in the style guideline as something that is controversial and it’s better to separate them but i don’t know if that also applies here…

1 Like

I honestly can’t tell the difference between remix and re-mix. I think that’s mostly used synonymously.

My opinion to (re)mixes:
If it sounds the same (maybe improved) → new recordings, but same release group
If it substantially altered → new release group
… no matter what is printed.

With re-recorded material, I would look what the artist thinks. Is it promoted as a new thing, I make it a new release group. If it has the original artwork and is promoted as an improved version, it’s still the same rg.

1 Like