Single recording DJ Mix

I have two single file DJ mix releases, that all can listen to free, but getting the files is not as free. I still believe they are releases as we all can listen. When I have a 50-60 minute file, how might I add that?

Do I need to break it down to “tracks”, or do I add a single “track”?

1 Like

if they are one file, you should generally add them as one track

here are a few examples i’ve submitted (at various stages of completion)

these two are part of larger single-file DJ-mix series i’ve added:


Thanks for the examples, I appreciate the time put into the reply. I have one that is a bit complicated, the 20th anniversary mix for Snoop Dogg, Doggystyle: The Samples. I added this back in 2015, and I am not sure I did it correctly. I recently dug out the 25th anniversary of the same, and it made me question what I did on my add.

I am sorry if my question seems “silly”. I care about the edits I make and my attitude towards edits changed from when I started. I want to make sure that all I add is useful to the majority, whatever that may be.

1 Like


Overall it looks fine to me. What do you have misgivings about? Here are a few things I noticed that might improve it:

If the download had no geographical restriction, then “[Worldwide]” is more appropriate than “United States” even though it was released from the US. Do you know the download URL? Even if the URL no longer works, you can still add it and mark it as “ended”.

Discogs says that the album is “partially mixed”. For any tracks that are beatmixed, you can add a “DJ-mixer” relationship to the recording and credit Snoop Dogg as the DJ (even though he’s already credited at the release level). If he talks over a track, you can add a “spoken vocals” relationship. These relationships are safe to add since the recordings are unique to this album.

The disambiguation comment “Hosted and Mixed by Snoop Dogg” seems unnecessary; I think you can delete it.

This album doesn’t seem to be a “mixtape/street” release as defined in the wiki. Take a look at the definition there and see what you think.


To start, I used Discogs as a main reference for the add, vs what I have. Looking at it, I mirrored Discogs vs looking at the release and documenting it.

First, when I first experienced the release, it was a single, non-stop mix, single file if you downloaded it. I believe this was the actual official release of it: Stream Doggystyle: The Samples [20th Anniversary] by Snoop Dogg | Listen online for free on SoundCloud. If you look at it, there is a track listing provided, but it is a single piece, not separate files.

As seen on the release above, there is a link to a video: Doggystyle 20th Anniversary - Mix by DJ Snoopadelic - YouTube. I personally consider this video to be a part of the release. It is mentioned on the SoundCloud release, and to me, making it like a booklet. The video description also links to a second SoundCloud: Stream Snoop Dogg | Listen to Doggystyle: The Samples [20th Anniversary] playlist online for free on SoundCloud. On this reference, there is no track listing. Just a note of a single recording. Note that the download for both SoundCloud links is the same as far as I can see.

Honestly, I do not recall ever seeing a 17 file release of this. It might be there, but as the one adding it to MB, I cannot say I can verify what was added. I do have a 38 file release, which includes the full recordings of the songs used, but that is more of a bootleg comp release? Off topic though. Point being that the release here does not have all of the samples, such as the use of Billy Joel.

I see you have changed the annotation, and well done too. I still question the points I made prior.

I am thinking I add the SoundCloud link and remove the multi track listing. That is just not how it was “officially” released. Please share your thoughts.

@teethfairy You have shared some very useful examples. I will try to add all of my releases in a single track. I will share to get the solution to any problem.


Sorry, I wasn’t able to reply yesterday. I see what you mean now. Actually, you should leave the 17-track version there, just change the release status from “Bootleg” to “Pseudo-Release”. Then you can add the single-track version as another new release in the same release group. But, only link the SoundCloud page from the single-track release.

1 Like

Could you explain the logic with this in more detail? Is this because the track listing changes from individual tracks to single track? I am not sure where the individual file version Discogs lists was ever released, as it was released as a non stop mix by the artist directly. Given that, I cannot really comment much on it.

The released I have and only one I know of was released as the SoundCloud download.

‘Pseudo-release’ applies if the album was never released as individual tracks. This lets us document the tracklist even if it wasn’t released in that form. It’s also useful to MusicBrainz users because it enables people to split the single file more easily, or even to make cue sheets for use with the single-file version.

If you’re not sure, you can just leave the Status field blank. As for the single-track version, I’m not sure whether that’s an official release, a bootleg, or a promo. Lots of DJs release mixes for free, but I don’t know whether that automatically makes them “promotional”. “Bootleg” doesn’t seem to apply since it is a real release from the album artist.

1 Like

I have been asking myself this as well as of late. I have a few thoughts based on my experiences. I believe a “promotional” release is one where the licensing is restricted, meaning it is not just implied with the release as in you own it, you can use it personally. For example, there are a lot of DJ service provided type releases that require a license to broadcast the contents, even when you have purchased (have it in your possession) the CD. While it is possible for the regular person to acquire these “DJ Oly” releases, technically there is no license attached to it (as far as I know), thus why it is labeled as such… DJ/professional use only, not for resale, etc. Same as releases such as those back in the day where radio stations and music promoters would receive a CD clearly marked as promotional, not for sale, etc… I have one that states the CD is the property of the label and can be recalled at any time. I dont know how to put that into simple terms, but that is a long explanation.

I consider a release by a DJ to be “official” as long as the DJ has made “significant” changes to the recording(s) in question. In general terms, at this point I believe the onus to be on the DJ to have the rights to use the “samples” in their remixes or creations. If the DJ simply takes recordings and blends/mixes/fades/etc the endings to the beginnings of the recordings to be bootleg, as there has not been any “real” changes or modifications to the recordings.

When I look at sites like DatPiff, I consider those bootleg if the release is not from the artist of the recordings and the release is just a collection of said recordings. This is most of what I have seen on there, second being artist direct releases, then followed by those that so small things like releases where a DJ “presents” a mixtape.

I could me mistaken on the above, but that is the opinion I have developed.

Thank you for the explanation here. I read again the MB page where this is defined, and I did not walk away with this answer you have presented.

Can I ask you this? So if I am adding a release by say DJ Rectangle (if you do not know who this is, please just ask), the releases are typically a nonstop recording. If on a CD, here are index points (tracks), but there is no red book required 2 seconds… it is just an index point. So…

Does this mean I add the CD as 2 releases? One as a single recording and another as pseudo?

I am asking this as I have a few releases I have not added to MB (not DJ Rectangle) that are created in a very similar way. The CDs are in a sense one long and continuous recording, however there are tracks via indexes.

EDIT: These releases I refer to are real pressed CDs. They come in a jewel case with some real neat graphics printed on the CD, no verbiage, just graphics. The fronts are the same, one side graphics. Most have a back, with a sort of track listing, which is usually accurate.

are you talking indexes like the rarely used subtract-type index, as described here?

if so, I’d say yes. and of course, annotate what you did, as using pseudo-releases this way is non-standard, but allowed.


That’s definitely one case for “promotion” status. As you note, those releases are not intended for the general public. The other, slightly fuzzier case is not-for-sale releases that are distributed to the general public, as giveaways with a magazine or with purchase of some other release. One example in my collection is Astro Sheen, a sampler promoting a bunch of then-current Geffen releases. It came in a magazine (I believe, it was a long time ago) but is labeled “Promotional Copy, Not For Sale”.

1 Like

According to whom? Pseudo-releases have a very specific use-case. This is not one of them.

Pseudo-releases are to be superseded by alternative tracklists. This will need lots of cleanup as there are still editors who add stuff to the wrong release, duplicate or even conflicting data:


This is very similar to what I had outlined, where I noted the CDs provided to promoters, radio station, etc… also marked “promotional” as you stated in your example. It is good that you point out that such releases are also distributed to the general public.

Your example also reminds me of such releases where the artist provides a free download to fans.

Note that a release being free doesn’t make it ‘promotional’ by default - or a lot of legitimate albums would be hidden from the default MB Artist pages :scream:

Promo status needs to be a special case, where you wouldn’t consider that release to be a ‘proper’ release, if that makes sense. Don’t know how else to say it.

(not aimed at you thwaller, just want there to be clarification in the thread)

1 Like

I thought I read somewhere that it was not disallowed, I should say… at least as a stopgap until we get alternative tracklists.

granted, I forget where I saw this, could be mistaken…

1 Like