Merging Single + Remix RGs into the RG for the Single makes sense and I’ve started doing this with a number of artists.
In the situation where multiple different remixes have been released, but no ‘vanilla’ single has been, what’s the best strategy for Release Groups? When it’s just one, the usual Single + Remix RG titled Song (XY remix) is fine and accurate. When it’s two or more, then perhaps:
separate Single + Remix RGs titled Song (XY remix) for each one?
one ‘container’ Single + Remix RG, titled Song (remixes), with the Releases inside it?
one ‘container’ Single RG, titled Song? (No fake single being added.)
First and second options feel correct. The second is tidier without implying the existence of a vanilla single which the third does.
Should the release group be of type ‘remix’ when the song is a remix, but the original version was not a single? I don’t know, but I think “yes” is simplest for most cases.
It could depend on the case, but if no set of releases in the group is the clear leader, “name (remixes)” seems like a fine name.
I generally go with option 1 in all cases (unless the release is original song + remixes), and if there’s an original single these can all be related to the original single
I generally go with 2 or 3. In these cases the remix is often of an album track. So I am likely to still call it a “single” RG, but other days I may call it “single”+“remix”. Depends what else I see in that artist as a pattern to follow. What I find a little illogical is when there are five separate groups for remix singles all released around the same time.
I’m one for liking to see remixes back in with the original singles. Especially remixes released within weeks\months of that original. I believe they should be one with the original single as artist intended. (And how singles charts count them)
If something is released years later then I’m more likely to consider a separate remix RG. It depends who is remixing it and why I guess.
With albums an anniversary release goes in with the original. Remastered, repackaged, extra tracks. Promos. All keep in with the original album. Don’t see why Singles would be treated different.
I don’t think it’s overzealous merging. This is already the same RG and the editor is trying to separate them out. There are so many remixes today that if we separated them all out, some artist will have 10 different release groups of remixes of the same single. It also gets very complicated on older 12" singles where every country has a different version with different remixes, etc. with sometimes overlapping tracks, but not all the same. I see no issue with just having all the remixes in the same RG as the original.
If I were a music collector and wanted to collect all release-groups of an artist, bundling all remixes together is problematic. If a single remix does not feature the original main track, or has different artists or is released more than a year later, I prefer a new release group.
The fact that this would lead to 10 different release groups for a single should be no issue, as we are aiming for correct representation and not convenient overviews.
My responses are also as a collector and I prefer the remixes in with the original singles so I can find them. Especially for stuff from the 80s\90s that are released in multiple versions on the same day. The artist would release a single and then to help the charts push multiple remixes would then appear in the following weeks. The official chart would treat them as the same single when scoring sales.
There was a phase where you get a 7", 12", CD1, CD2. Each with different variations of added remixes. Now we are in a digital world you get the chance to pickup separate tracks via the shop which is why this is now getting messier to follow.
In the Edit mentions a few posts above, the Vol1 and Vol2 releases look like like an older CD1\CD2 setup.
As the person who made these 2 edits, this is exactly why. If the releases included the original single, I’d be fine putting them all in one master album of sorts (Play + Remixes) or whatever, but that is not how it was released. Accurate data should always be the priority over the convenient overviews you mentioned.
I would also like to point out the second bullet from this section of the style guide as these are very clearly listed as volumes: Style / Release Group - MusicBrainz
I still maintain that’s for albums and not singles. How are volumes on singles any different than say CD1, CD2, etc. back in the day that are not separated into different release groups?
Like @tigerman325 when I look at “vol1, vol2” I just see the physical CD1, CD2 of the past. Digital Media is just reinventing how it packages the remixes of a single. Can’t call it “CD1, CD2” of course so “vol1, vol2”. But these are similar variations of the core release.
They aren’t, if they are still the single. These specific cases don’t include the actual original, so they are not the single, they’re remix releases that make sense in their own RG. I think whether it is volumes or “X (the remixes)” makes no difference really. Would a collector that has a bunch of remixes without the original track say they own the single?
Maybe we should treat releases from different era’s differently, as to best capture the intent of the artist. In the 80’s/90’s, these mixes were released to support the single and they were released within a short timespan. Let’s put those in the same RG.
In the ‘digital era’, remixes are released with different artists participating and sometimes years apart. Let’s put those in different Rg’s.
That may be true, but the edit above to separate into different RGs, the releases are only 2 months apart and could be argued to be in support of the single.
