Should different remix singles be merged into one release group?

Because they’re a respected editor, they get to create their own rules? Because what’s on the guidelines is clear enough to me. Don’t merge these RGs unless you’re looking for a controversial dispute, so this will always happen. Has nothing to do with “explaining” RGs. Most editors know what they are, but until there is a consensus (and not just word of mouth), I will lean on the side that these should be kept separate and so will other editors. ¯_(ツ)_/ ¯

1 Like

Here’s my notes from Edit #100037790 - Merge release groups. My opinions are based on my experience with the database, my opinions on specific edits, and the guidelines. I’ve only been around here since 2020.

When it is one solo work (no works in common) with the original is particularly when I’m cautious about merging. Sometimes remixes feature less of the remixed track than a simple sample (… perhaps). I know I’ve heard remixes where you can barely tell it’s a remix even if you’re familiar with the original track (contrary to the former example).

I think my brain prefers to see them separately and I generally agree that “we just end up with a huge list of random different releases thrown together under the single RG instead of having them neatly grouped individually.” There may however be a counter-argument that separating them just moves the mess from the release group page (mess of releases) to the artist page (mess of groups). What is the purpose of the ‘remix’ secondary type if we’re just going to merge them into the original groups? If instrumental versions of albums with lyrics can be separate release groups from the standard version, I see no reason we can’t separate these remixes too. (Note my opinion is instrumental versions should be included in the same RG as the album).

This also introduces a phenomenon where a ‘Single + Remix’ group must indicate the original track wasn’t a single. Following this- “If the original song was a single, put the remix in the same group. If the original song was not a single, create a new ‘Single + Remix’ group.” - seems like an odd rule that intentionally applies two different secondary types to the same thing.

The ‘remix’ secondary type can also apply to ‘album’, but by this logic shouldn’t all of the ‘Album + Remix’ groups be merged into the original? I understand there are differences related to charts and marketing, fine, but if a remix that is a completely new work on a one track single should be merged into the original- I would presume by that logic an album of completely new works should also be merged into the original. The only difference is the number of tracks. Are we just “letting it slide” since it’s only one track?

I do agree that in general this is going to be messy and we shouldn’t create a new group for every tracklist variation. To me, it matters most what is “the purpose” of the release. An example with Lady Gaga. I think these groups are fine and useful.

Single “Just Dance” (…): Contains all of the singles which promote ‘Just Dance’, even CDs which include remixes as additional tracks
Single + Remix “Just Dance: The Remixes” (…): Contains a specific group of tracks and releases share cover art
Single + Remix “Just Dance: Remixes, Pt. 2” (…): Same as above
Single + Remix “Just Dance” (Trevor Simpson remix) (…): Specific remix containing only one track which is the remix
A number of others just like the above Trevor Simpson remix:…,…

There is no way to nicely apply a simple rule to all remixes. While it’s important to have consistency, I think many of these are open to interpretation (votes) and sometimes best organized by someone familiar with a specific artist (no implication about Gaga, just an example).


I would also like to add that with how popular digital media has become over physical media, we started to see so many variations of the same single. Lavender Haze (acoustic) by Taylor Swift has 6 different releases, 4 of which have distinct recordings. That’s enough releases to deserve its own RG.

just dropping in my own two cents, I also believe that remixes should have seperate release groups linked to the main single (if appropriate) with the “remix of” relationship. a remix, in my experience, is almost never a substitute for the original recording (and vice versa) except to the most casual listener, which in my book means a new RG.

…or let me put it another way; say someone comes along from Picard wanting to tag a track, a remix of another song. they find the right single with the right recording either through a Scan or Lookup. however, they want the original release date for the remix, so either they change which release from the release group they have loaded in Picard (the original) and end up with an incorrectly tagged track, or they figure out taggerscript, pull the original release date for the RG and end up with the date of the original track, not the single. the former actually happened to me at one point (don’t remember the particulars), and I’d like to think I’m fairly careful with how I handle Picard (especially these days)

that’s not to say we should just cater to the taggers, but it’s something to keep in mind, and we shouldn’t ignore them either…

splitting release groups like this would also be more consistent with other general practices, such as splitting releases with different lyric languages, instrumental versions (maybe not really settled yet?) and the way I’ve felt this soundtrack/scores discussion is heading

I’m not too familiar with the release in question, but it looks more like alternate mixes and edits in this case, not really seperate “remixes”, per se, especially with them all having nearly identical cover art… while yes, they are different recordings, in my mind they are similar enough that they belong in the same group. someone walking by a speaker system playing each of the recordings at a Best Buy (i.e. a casual listener) likely wouldn’t be able to tell any difference between the two

also adding to the pile of release groups that might need a split, edit #85819758 and this release in particular. in this case there’s no recordings in common with the main RG, the only commonality is it’s got a very similar catalog number. I relented mainly because Le Tigre isn’t/wasn’t an artist I’d spent a lot of time on

1 Like

I, too, would like some clarity on this. Related, but I was also recently thinking about starting a thread asking what circumstances (if any) would warrant separate release groups for acoustic/live/instrumental/demo versions of singles.

My personal opinion. Mostly based on how many external people will use this database. How people look at their music collections. And how an Artists Discography is the key to how I organise my music.

This is also from UK Singles in the 1980s\1990s.

I agree with @reosarevok that when a single is released with multiple remixed versions, then it makes more sense to be in the same RG. These will all fill in the same count on the music charts. Some artists released multiple mixes purely to score more for that chart.

The artist will not say they released five singles, they will refer to their single. In their discography they will name their single once. The versions share a common catalogue number.

I remember this happening a lot in the UK in the 1980s\1990s. There would be one single released and multiple versions for the fans to then snap up. All as part of a push to put the one single higher up the chart. I think it would be confusing to change those artists to split up their releases as the “Single” would then only have one or two items in it, and all the remixes are then disconnected. Harder to see them as a whole as indented. It would confusingly separate the “CD1\CD2” thing that was common at the time.

The Remix Release Group type is for when they return to the single on another date and produce a different version. Or someone else remixes their work unrelated to the original release (Elvis vs JXL).

I worry that the Single+Remix would then up with dozens of separate RGs, one for each separate remix. Loosing the neat logic of keeping the Single and its versions together.

Also by separating the RGs it will put these singles into the RGs of the remixer. I don’t think the remixer would call the single “theirs” or list it in their discography - but splitting release groups would cause this to now happen. It will get harder to read a “discography” on an artists page.

@UltimateRiff - thank you


When an artist considers a remix important enough to name the single after the remix (e.g. with a prominent mention on the front cover), I don’t see why it should be merged into unremixed single release group.


Isn’t that scenario already addressed by _recording_firstreleasedate?

1 Like

that is true. I’m mainly saying it would be too easy (especially for an inexperienced user) to get the wrong data

(I also briefly forgot about _recording_firstreleasedate, lol)

@IvanDobsky sorry, I meant that more in a lighthearted/joking manner, and it was relevant to my thoughts process at the time. I went ahead and removed that part tho, since yeah, it’s not terribly relevant :melting_face:

Having recently done a lot of 70s & 80s 12-inch edits. I really see now why these should all be in the same release group. Under the “Is it the same” thing rule, almost all 7-inch singles & 12-inch singles would be separate release groups. However, it gets very confusing what even counts as a remix or different mix, etc. and many of the mixes have identical names, but can have times that are 5 minutes different. Many US & Europe releases all have different mixes. Discogs doesn’t separate them, neither do Wikipedia, Billboard, etc. I’m not saying we should merge all digital releases together when there are 20 different remixes, but I definitely wouldn’t be opposed to it. Just go to the main single and then you have all the different mixes nicely listed in one group.


The saga continues. This time with the ever so popular “slowed” and “sped up” versions:

1 Like

If MusicBrainz was only me, I would put all these speed up and slow down releases in a big common release group called “Shitty Releases”.