Should different remix singles be merged into one release group?

If we want to take a concrete step to codify this in Style/Release Group, then my first suggested option would be to add the following to What to group together:

Different editions of a single containing different b-sides or remixes alongside the main track.
Different editions of an album containing different b-sides or remixes alongside the standard album content (even if as additional bonus discs).

And add this to What not to group together:

Remixed albums or singles where the remix(es) are the main content of the release, and the original tracks are not included.

The wording could certainly be improved, and examples should be added. Happy to get suggestions for both. We can add exceptions for particular edge cases if needed as well.

13 Likes

It would be useful to get something in there about timescale of the release. When a batch of releases appear at the same time they are usually meant to be together.

An example that a pedant would say follows rule “what not to group” is here:

Common sense will say that CD1, CD2 and CD3 should be in that same RG together.

I would also personally reword the Album version in clause 1 to say “bonus content” instead of “B sides” as it feels more generic towards album releases.
Different editions of an album containing >different b-sides or remixes bonus content alongside…

6 Likes

What about when one release is classified as a Single but the other release is classified as an EP?* Is that still valid criteria to separate release groups?

* Sometimes Apple Music / labels classify maxi singles as EPs, but other sources clarify that they are not actually EPs.

1 Like

As we (unfortunately?) don’t have maxi-singles and mini-albums.

I usually set maxi-singles as singles and mini-albums as albums.

EP, for me, is something else, less common in my area.
It’s more a term used in urban music and in English, maybe?

1 Like

This is off topic and has been discussed to death elsewhere.

2 Likes

Isn’t that just a shop putting something on the wrong shelf? I’d trust the other source that says they are singles \ maxi-singles.

Generally I see a single as variations of the same track, with some B sides added. And an EP is usually a selection of different tracks. (I have a quote somewhere from Seal which sums it up well… but as you say, that is for another topic)

4 Likes

Not wording per se but hopefully the below helps with some edge cases? Sorry this is a bit of a ramble.

Remixed albums
These are uncommon enough and obvious enough that there shouldn’t be too many edge cases for these. These would always have separate RGs.

Remixed singles
My personal instinct is that where the title tracks would all be considered the same work and the release is somewhat close in time to the first release (usually the non-remixed vanilla track), they should be grouped in the same RG. But:

  • where the title track would be considered a new work due to an additional guest artist, substantial re-arrangement, etc, it should have its own RG
  • if the title track is a remix and substantially later (e.g. 10th anniversary remix) they should be kept separated.
  • if the title track is simply a re-issue, (e.g. 10th anniversary re-release, or due to a popularity spike like 2001’s Murder on the Dancefloor featuring in the 2024 film “Saltburn”), they should be grouped together, as is done with album anniversary re-issues.

Keep together: Skunk Anansie’s Brazen (Weep)
Ivan’s perfect example - these are released close in time (same day!), and clearly in support of one single Work, even though the vanilla track isn’t present on all of the discs.

Keep apart: Robbie Williams’ Angels - 1993 original and 2022 XXV re-recording.
Although the same Work, these are audibly different arrangements and released far apart in time. (Note that the album art doesn’t use the XXV differentiator, only the online metadata does.)

The issue with “close in time” could be subjective though. Six months after an initial vanilla (non-remix) release feels right to me as a rule of thumb for grouping remixes together with it as being in support of that release of that Work. Perhaps three months. A year feels too long. But this could depend on the artist’s own usual release schedule.

Another issue is determining ‘official’ releases versus folks creating ‘unofficial’ remixes. I initially believed Frou Frou had released 24 remixes of A New Kind of Love since the original was released in 2022, but given that the track was TikTok-viral this may not be their own doing, I don’t know. And should unofficial remixes be included in with the official vanilla track? I’d say yes if the close in time criteria is fulfilled.

It could be worth noting where acoustic, re-recorded and live versions fall as well. Live versions are practically always released some time after the original release but noting them here simply as a useful parallel:
Acoustic, re-recorded and live versions of albums
A live recording of a full album, an acoustic re-recording of a full album (Alanis Morrissette’s Jagged Little Pill Acoustic) or non-acoustic re-recording of an album (Swift’s various Taylor’s Versions) are all uncommon enough and usually quite far apart in time that I think these would practically always be separate RGs.

Acoustic / re-recorded singles
An acoustic version of a single isn’t that much different to a remixed version of a single, in that it’s a different version of the same work, so I believe it should be grouped in when released close in time, or a separate RG if released some time substantially later.

Live singles
Similarly, if a recorded-live version of a single is released close in time to the vanilla single, clearly in support of the same Work, I would group it in the same RG. If it’s much later, then keep it separate. For example, Due Lipa’s New Rules, with original in Nov 2017 and Live at the BRIT Awards release in Feb 2018 would to me be close enough to be in support of the initial work, but it’s on the cusp.

And finally… Remix EPs.
If the EP release is purely multiple remixes of one to a few tracks, with or without the vanilla versions, and released close in time to the main work, group it together with the single. (I tend to import from Spotify where the Single/EP designation seems arbitrary when it’s not explicit on album art.)

2 Likes

Why? That doesn’t jive with the standard Release Group guidelines nor what the Style Leader recently said on the subject.

Because the digital shops are usually just making packages of older items for sale. A bundle of all the separate single remixes. They just leave out the single as as they assume you already have that.

I’ve seen this with 1980s\1990s re-releases. Look in the Single Release Group and you’ll see all the tracks repeated. Usually still in the same order of the original singles combined. Just CD1, CD2, CD3 added together.

Fresh remixes - yeah, a new EP. Repackaging and reissuing old remixes - into the original Release Group. Just like you would with a reissued album.

The intent is supplying you with versions of the original single

2 Likes

I would say a definite NO on that, personally.

If the EP release is purely multiple remixes of one to a few tracks, with or without the vanilla versions,

I think that this looks like a prime example of a “RG-RG relationship” instead tbh :thinking:

3 Likes

That makes quite a bit of sense to me!

I think one possible exception might be when a remix single has the remix as the primary content of the release (release named after the remix) but sticks the original version at the end (e.g. to increase streaming numbers). I’d suggest that if the release title of the remix single references a specific remix, it ought to be its own RG.

For example, suppose these were the only two single releases of this song that existed:

The remix single technically has the original song on it, but the release name refers to the remix, and the original song is more there as an afterthought. So, I’d tend to suggest keeping those separate.

I might suggest wording like:

Remixed albums or singles where the remix(es) are the main content of the release, and the original tracks are not included, or releases where a specific remix is the title track of the release.

Just my two cents. :slightly_smiling_face:

3 Likes

That actually kinda fails the “would I say I have the single if I have one of them” check IMO, but I understand that we should still have an exception for this because it was a very particular way of doing things at the time in the market that was seen as a effectively a set.

After discussion, amended/expanded suggestions:

Add the following to What to group together:

Different editions of a single containing different b-sides or remixes alongside the main track.
UK singles released as a set of several single CDs, even if some contain only remixes.
Different editions of an album containing different bonus content, including remix discs, alongside the standard album content (even if as additional bonus discs).

Examples

  • Survivalism by Nine Inch Nails contains both a release with just the single track, and several releases with remixes and bonus tracks.
  • Brazen ‘Weep’ by Skunk Anansie was released in the UK as a set of 3 standalone CDs, with CD2 and CD3 containing just remixes, but the single release group contains all 3 releases.
  • What Sound by Lamb contains both 1-CD releases, and 2-CD releases including an extra disc of remixes.

And add this to What not to group together:

Remixed albums or singles where the remix(es) are the main content of the release, and the original tracks are not included.

Examples

  • Y34RZ3R0R3M1X3D by Nine Inch Nails is a remix album containing just remixes of Year Zero. It doesn’t contain the original album tracks, so it is a separate release group.
  • Juicy (Armand van Helden remix) by Doja Cat & Tyga is a remix single of Juicy. It contains only the remix and not the original track, so it is a separate release group.
  • Work (remix) by A$AP Ferg feat. A$AP Rocky, French Montana, Trinidad James & ScHoolboy Q is a release group for a remix single (including extra guest verses) of Work by A$AP Ferg. It contains only the remix and not the original track, so it is a separate release group.
2 Likes

I think this is the kind of edge case which could go both ways, and I’d like to see what others think. My worry is that by removing “the original tracks are not included” we water down the difference to a point where it becomes confusing, since “the remix(es) are the main content of the release” could otherwise also apply to a single “Song (remixes)” which is launched alongside the original and is just a “bonus-tracks version” of the main single (and I would expect we’d want to keep in the same RG). Stuff like Release “Chain My Heart (remixes)” by Topic x Bebe Rexha - MusicBrainz

Thanks for writing down some guidelines for this. Reading the proposed text, there are two things that are not immediately clear to me:

  1. Do remix-albums and singles that do not contain the original track get grouped together in a single “these-are-all-remixes-of-that-song” release group or do they get split into multiple mini-release groups?

  2. Under “what to group together” there is mention of the “main track“ whereas under “what not to group together“ you wrote “original tracks“. What happens when the main (popular?) version of a work is not the original version, like A Little Less Conversation? Is that considered to be an edge case?

I haven’t read the entire thread so I don’t know if there even is community consensus on this, but it would be nice to have unambiguous wording in the guidelines.

2 Likes

It was also how the charts saw them. Those three items would all score towards the same single in the singles charts. Part of the reason it was done.

1 Like

I think this might be where using the Works concept as a comparator might be of use - if the main track of a release, for either original or remix, would be considered the same work (and isn’t a cover version, and isn’t a much much later recording) then they could/should be grouped. But that would mean I’d group the Juicy and Juicy (AvH) remix from your examples together.

Personally I don’t think “has the same original track on it” is necessarily the best link; further edge cases are introduced if we consider that some singles have original and extended length versions, or original-length and shorter radio-edit versions - technically these could fail the ‘same track’ check but I don’t think there’s been any controversy in including extended versions or radio edit versions in with the original RG.

1 Like

I would expect these to be separate release groups.

I would probably not consider remixes of this song the same as the original single where the song was a B-side, personally - if others disagree, it’s a discussion worth having possibly. I’d say it’s indeed mostly an edge case.

2 Likes

it’s for this reason that I still don’t quite understand why we’re making an exception for these split releases, since we aren’t a chart authority, but if they’re explicitly called out as an exception to the rule, I think I can live with it


overall tho, the proposal above looks pretty good to me~

one thing we might want to clarify is remix EPs for a single track. it’s not too uncommon for these to include the original (especially in the realm of EDM), but due to it being called an EP, it can’t be grouped in a Single and still be technically correct

a good example of this is the Make It Bun Dem remix EP, which does contain the original track as track 1, but has a distinct release title and it would be a different release group type from the original release group

I feel like I have other examples, but search isn’t behaving for me right now

my vote is for seperating (as it currently is), due to artist intent, and maybe this should be an example release group for an exception?

2 Likes