Single digital file made of five "tracks"

Hi there

I have a troublesome release. It is distributed as a single digital file everywhere:

…but, as you can see on the Bandcamp page, or on the Discogs page, it contains five “entities” with their own titles.

Discogs has a nifty way to show that: the title of the track with its full length, and sub-sections for each entity, numbered 1.x.

Do we have that? Again, I looked at the doco but couldn’t figure it out. Sounds to me like something similar to “movements” in a classical release, right?

Technically, I keep in mind that ultimately, people will need to tag their music, and for the release to be recognised, it will have to fit with the most likely case: the user having the original file they downloaded or purchased, which is one big ~27-minute track.


In MB we would use Multiple title style:

thingy / second timing / Trichotillomania / codex borgianu / full fake deployment


You can give the pieces a x.y numbering, but there’s no additional intelligence grouping them. That thread may be of interest.

I think there’s also a bug report for track-grouping functionality, but I can’t find it right now.

(edit:) Until the grouping is implemented, I’d personally go with jesus2099’s suggestion.

1 Like

You can also add separate works for them.

Plus, if the whole has its own name (and is considered by the artist as a single work, just with multiple distinct parts), you can also use the “Whole: I. First Part / II. Second Part / III. Third Part / IV. The End” format.

And yes, do add separate works for each part (so that later separate appearances can be linked properly). Plus optionally a work for the whole, linked to its parts (for the case above; then the recording should link to that single work).


You can also add standalone recordings for each of the tracks and link them as compiled in…

1 Like

But they’re not available as standalone recordings, are they?

1 Like

I didn’t think that was necessary - see “Multiple songs in one track” in Standalone Recording - MusicBrainz


Thanks everyone for your input! I went with @jesus2099’s solution, and here is the corresponding release:

1 Like

Interesting. Learn something new every day.

Seems pretty counter-intuitive, though, as there’s nothing „standalone“ about these.


The file/track is a whole but the works would be standalone…

I’m all for creating five (standalone) works, and linking them all to the single recording.

But creating five standalone recordings, just as targets of „is a compilation of“, is, while backed-up by the style guide, most strange to me.

(Of course, if the parts where published seperatly in some location, that would change things.)

1 Like

I agree with you 100% I had just misunderstood your initial statement. :slight_smile:

Would you feel better if “standalone recording” were renamed to “recording not found as track on a release”? It’s a bit longer, unfortunately.

1 Like

’course not.

What I don’t like that much is inventing a recording that may not even exist in reality as a seperate artifact. And even if it does exist, it being unpublished makes it (IMO) a byproduct of the production process. Most studio recordings are produced by mixing a number of tracks. While we can be pretty sure of the existence of those on a harddisk somewhere, we still don’t add voice, guitar, piano, etc. tracks for everything.

I’d like to see the discussion that led up to the adding of this particular paragraph five years ago (see here).

IMO the only valid reason for a standalone recording is „Internet-only release“, and even then, you could just make a one-piece digital media release.

I’m not sure there’s a point unless you have song specific credits, in which case it makes sense to me. I have also used them where the same song is compiled in different tracks - this seems the only way to show that.

If we have song specific credits, they will be linked to each song (work), so it is not triggering the need for separate recordings, in itself, either. :slight_smile:

Oh but then OK maybe I was fooled by the term SONG. If we have specific arrange, recording, mixing, etc. (recording level) credits, then yes, we would need split recordings to link them. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yes, sorry, bad terminology. Specific performance, production, etc. credits.

what if you have say 30 or so tracks? The same thing?

I’d say yes, even though it can look a bit ridiculous.