That was of course an exaggeration and I didn’t want to say anything about the artistic value.
But it is a fact that without the chance of proper sales, these Remixes would not have been released by the record company (at least physically). And I think, that’s why the original mix was almost always included.
2 Likes
Probably. Things must have an expected retail value in order to be produced.¹
But I do not fully understand what you mean. I’m not very familiar with The Stranglers. The compilation sold very well without “Midnight Summer Dream” and peeked only 35 in the UK, not a must on a selection of Greatest Hits.
And it includes many top hits and some less popular but more recent songs (if that’s what you mean).
¹) Digital media has brought artists more independence. Today it’s easier to release without big commercial expectations
I wanted to have a CD with a slow, long song to dance to with a woman. 
I bought this CD before the Internet era.
I couldn’t check the track list.
I had to look for a second album with this song.
Broadband Internet was introduced in Poland in 1999.
Previously, there were 56kbps modems, but the connections were very expensive, so I didn’t use them.
1 Like
No hard feelings. In fact, I quite like your comments. You just happened to be the last person in this thread expressing that sentiment 
.
Yes, record companies will sometimes “milk” a successful song (if that is what you mean). I just objected to the people painting all remixes with that broad brush.
3 Likes
I think it is more a dig at the record industry and not the artist. (Or at least it is from me)
Personally I’d like to lump them together so it is easier to find the related versions. I like a good remix, but they don’t exist without the original. They are certainly not interchangeable with the original. They enhance, not replace.
I find MB has been a bit of a hassle to my wallet in the last few years of editing here. I never used to bother with CD singles… now find myself combing eBay due to remixes I saw on MB. 
5 Likes
this is actually the main reason I’m all for splitting release groups (and of course relating the release groups to each other), since they’re not interchangeable with the original mix. extended versions may be roughly interchangable…but not remixes in my opinion
3 Likes
ah perfect, an example in a different area has presented itself~
I think most of us will agree that the live EP mentioned in the thread linked above belongs in a separate release group from the original EP, even tho it includes both the live and original sets of recordings (tho lemme know if I’m wrong)
I personally don’t see much difference between these two scenarios, the Past Selves live EP and Still Sleepless (Ekko & Sidetrack remix). I also feel like we wouldn’t be having this discussion if it were an album remix, such as the remixes of Drink the Sea or Love Death Immortality (already split and linked properly, in my eyes)
I see them as very different. A remix is using the original recording as a basis to make a variation of that recording. A live gig is a very different recording often many years later.
I waffled enough above. A remix released by the same artist within a few months of the original I’d keep together. These are variations on the original. A remix many years later I would be more likely to split into a new RG. It is about that common source material.
2 Likes
Worth noting that this technical definition doesn’t actually apply to many (most?) tracks that are called a “remix” today, since they are either recreated from scratch in DAWs or they utilize source files from the original artist.
3 Likes
Something that came up in the edit thread is that the RG-RG “remix of” relationship should only be used for remix albums, and the example given was a “significant remix”.
I think we need to revisit this, in my eyes it’s kinda weird to only deem certain remix releases worthy of the “remix of” relationship. A remix is a remix, and I really don’t see why we can’t use the same relationship for remix singles and EPs, in fact, it’s already being used this way by a lot of editors, because it makes sense to mark a release being a remix of another release, remix releases happen all the time in the EDM sphere.
The music industry at large is releasing more and more singles over long-form releases because they perform better in the streaming world, so obviously there’s a lot of remix singles being released nowadays. Limiting the remix of relationship to albums only seems like a weird delimitation IMO.
2 Likes
I don’t believe any editor is stating you shouldn’t use that for singles. I think what is being said is that relationship existing isn’t enough to imply that they shouldn’t ever be the same release group.
1 Like
This is already kinda clarified earlier, but to be extra clear: nothing restricts this to albums, except that we generally consider remix singles part of the same release group as the single itself, which means they by definition cannot be linked with a RG-RG relationship (the recordings themselves of course should be linked with the recording-recording relationship).
4 Likes
Is this your official opinion as Style Lead?
…and does this also include unofficial remixes, or just the “official” remixes?
1 Like
Seems crazy to me to be honest. There’s already misuse of the term “remix” when it’s really an arrangement/cover, and I don’t see anyone clamoring for arrangements and covers by third parties to share release groups with the original performance.
For example, the intent of the record label is that these are not versions of the same release:
Style also doesn’t say remixes go together, which I’d imagine would cause a revolt.
3 Likes
Singles have been grouped ever since release groups were introduced. That’s 15 years.
I find it strange this is suddenly problematic, controversial or wasn’t the intent of release groups.
After having read the old mailing lists and edit discussions I din’t get such an impression either.
4 Likes
In that case, clearly there’s intent to keep them separate so anything in the guidelines would seem irrelevant.
No, otherwise I’d have linked a guideline. It’s just what I’ve seen most people do and what has always seemed more sensible at least for the cases where the remix is “single with some remixes” - which is how singles used to look all the time before digital singles.
6 Likes
We’re definitely in agreement there, but the edit that sparked this renewed discussion was about a single titled after a remix (including on the front cover) that also happened to included the original (as the third and final track). This suggests to me, in the same spirit, that it should be a separate release group.
4 Likes
Why do the titles of the releases matter? Usually it would be the title of the first release
Other possible naming strategies I’ve seen are:
1 Like