Oh no. Many are radically different mixes.
1 Like
I don’t believe we should, tho I’m in favor of splitting in both cases instead of merging
2 Likes
Ah ok…
Well I’d rather split a release with only remixes, but I am not really strongly against merging.
If had had one of those remix or original singles in my collection, though, I would be more strongly against merging.
2 Likes
I still believe we should come up with a guidelines on this. How about if a single release has the the original single/album mix or an extended mix that’s not radically different just longer, it’s the same release group. If it’s a remix single that doesn’t have that (all tracks are new remixes), then separate release group. And all remix release group releases should share at least 1 recording (so, example above being 2 different volumes would be different), excepting extended mixes and original single mix/album mix (So, original single and extended mix 12" would still be same RG). I hope I’m making sense.
4 Likes
By the same logic, you wouldn’t consider these to be the same soundtrack, would you?
1 Like
I would remove the game from MB, now, IMO.
But they’re the same music.
I have both, the latter (soundtrack audio CD) is the music from the former (game CD), no remixes.
Update: Oh I remember why I added the game.
It was for the bonus audio CD.
Yes, they should be on different release groups, probably, as you can’t easily listen to the main game soundtrack.
That does not always work for 1990s UK singles. Often a CD1 \ CD2 \ CD3 set of singles released at same time. Not all have the original single, but are aimed to be sold as the “same” single for chart reasons.
3 Likes
Oh, ok. Didn’t realize they didn’t have the original single on them.
It is not common, but sometimes does happen. Example here:
https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/5763386d-1755-3d58-a41f-6a3646eeb976
Most of the time CD1\CD2 singles both have the title track. But here we have an example of three versions of the single released at the same time which don’t repeat the title track.
I don’t think these rare exceptions should be the reason to lump all remixes together.
2 Likes
Aren’t we still supposed to separate 1-track single release groups from multi-track “EP” release groups? The EP containing the original song shouldn’t override the entire concept of release group primary type to begin with?
1 Like
https://musicbrainz.org/edit/125802535
Folks, I know I’m just one editor and unfortunately this has happened on a personally bad week for me so I’m taking this more sensitively than I should. (I literally had a conversation yesterday about taking my dead relative’s CDs to ensure they were catalogued here before we find a new home for them, to give an idea of where I’m at. This isn’t MB’s problem but just providing context.)
It would be really helpful to me and presumably other editors if a guideline for this issue about singles and remixes could be codified.
I have had experienced editors tell me it is wrong to merge remixes with singles. I have had experienced editors tell me that it is correct (and was why I started doing so recently). I appreciate not all my edits get things right all the time, always room to learn.
I am a little upset that my changes have been reverted through auto-edits without chance for discussion. I likely wouldn’t have noticed if the editor hadn’t specifically called out one post from this thread onto my old edit. (Admittedly, I appreciate Style Leader is an authoritative voice but I think I have also seem them say before that their comments are usually strong opinions not Word of God unless explicitly stated?)
I have no issue with it generally - MB is a collaborative project, new edits change old edits - but I’d like just to push again for a guideline for this scenario to help editors broadly. I’d be happy to try and distill everything here into something if that would help.
7 Likes
I didn’t see a ticket about this (let me know if I missed it), so I’ve filed one:
3 Likes
This thread has been rolling for eight and a half years…
4 Likes
You do realize that this is part of an official Style guideline, right?
Be aware that attempting to group these releases can be quite controversial. If in doubt, these releases should probably be in separate release groups.
If you make a controversial “destructive edit” that had essentially zero community input, you should expect people to be upset.
2 Likes
I’d still like to learn how many release groups are needed for singles such as
6 Likes
What is the common specificity of these singles?
The original single. I’ve quit lumping them all together based on discussion above, but I will always think it makes more sense to just lump them all together because of the complexities of releases across different regions and track listings. But if editors want 20 different remixes as 20 different RGs, so be it.
2 Likes
If I look at the Set You Free release group, to me it is quite clear that some off them should be in a seperate release group:
- The 2k9 release
- The 2020 remix
- The Jase Thirlwall remix
If I walk into a record store and asked for the single Set You Free from N-Trance from 1994 and they would hand me the Jase Thirwall remix, I would be quite confused.
4 Likes
Let me quote the full section you copied there, with my emphasis added:
There are a number of situations where there is currently no consensus about whether releases should be grouped together or not. This includes the same album sung in different languages, re-recorded albums and remixed albums. Be aware that attempting to group these releases can be quite controversial. If in doubt, these releases should probably be in separate release groups.
My edits were open the full time that edits are required to be open, as I don’t have auto-editing rights, and I wasn’t in doubt that these were bad or destructive changes - though yes, very aware that some find them controversial. Experienced MB editors positively voted on these (examples Edit #125802945 - MusicBrainz and Edit #125897464 - MusicBrainz - both names I recognise and who have IIRC advised when I’ve made bad edits in the past), plus I both bumped and responded to discussion on this thread earlier in the year - so I take some offence at stating that these were done with “essentially zero community input” - the usual opportunity for input was there and they were done in good faith based on community input above in this thread.
Anyway.
I feel I owe some apology to you @yindesu as - in complete honesty - I barely remember writing the recent post here. I did lose my sister earlier that week, the email notification of your comment on https://musicbrainz.org/edit/125802535 came through, I felt it somewhat misrepresented the nuance of this ongoing grey area, and I suspect I reacted (and am still reacting) to you much more emotionally than was warranted. We’re all just here trying to our best and to do right by the community and the data. So, my apologies.
I’ll be following @derat’s ticket (thank you), and willing to put my money where my mouth is with contributing to it - if appropriate for me to do so - just let me know.
And somewhat cathartically, I now have an inherited collection of a 100 or so CDs to check for presence and accuracy on MusicBrainz, mainly albums so far away from any remix RG issues.
10 Likes