# Soundtrack Release Group naming convention

**URL:** https://community.metabrainz.org/t/soundtrack-release-group-naming-convention/535978
**Category:** Style
**Tags:** videogames, musicbrainz, style, soundtracks
**Created:** [May 31, 2021, 11:43pm UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/soundtrack-release-group-naming-convention/535978 "2021-05-31T23:43:24Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![jesus2099](https://community.metabrainz.org/user_avatar/community.metabrainz.org/jesus2099/32/36_2.png) [@jesus2099](https://community.metabrainz.org/u/jesus2099)
#### Post date: [June 1, 2021, 8:48am UTC](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/soundtrack-release-group-naming-convention/535978/6 "2021-06-01T08:48:45Z")

</div>

> [@aerozol](#):
>
> > [@jesus2099](#):
> >
> > If the releases inside are in majority having the same subtitle, it’s better to keep it.
> 
> What would you do if they’re all different?

An example would help.

> [@aerozol](#):
>
> The name of the first release doesn’t always seem to be best (see ‘soundtrack book’ example in op), it can just as easily be something wacky and unhelpful as later ones.

Sorry it was not linked so I did not see it, yet:

[https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/bb0d1486-50f5-49fd-9dd6-8223d78f22ae](https://musicbrainz.org/release-group/bb0d1486-50f5-49fd-9dd6-8223d78f22ae)

Soundtrack book, why not. If it’s not enough explicit, we can always explain in release group annotation that it is a soundtrack album (although there is already the RG type that says that), and not an (image) album.

But here anyway, the soundtrack book release group (36 tracks) may not have been reused for the other two releases (apparently, extracts).

> [@Karaoke versions of albums](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/karaoke-versions-of-albums/379494/3):
>
> With the “do I have this album?” implicitly question posed on the [Release Group definition page](https://musicbrainz.org/doc/Release_Group) I’d say that the two versions are not replacements for each other.

It seems they should not share the same release group.  
I don’t remember if we include full length and extract of operas in same release groups, for instance.

But, well, if we choose to include full length and extracts in same RG, there is no real difficulty choosing the RG title, it’s the full length release title.

* * *

> [@aerozol](#):
>
> > [@jesus2099](#):
> >
> > if one has to rip audio from the game, I don’t think we can consider that as an OST release.
> 
> This is a massive can of worms that I don’t know if we will find ever consensus on. Interesting to talk about though…
> 
> A game does have audio in it. It is a release of music, with a date, art, publisher etc, that someone has written and someone has performed. It’s the same with a film release.

Most games don’t contain _sound test_ menus nor audio CD tracks.  
Games that contain Audio CD session (some Saturn and PSX games, for instance), I agree they can be considered releases.

Games that contain a _SOUND TEST_ menu, well, erh, ach, it’s already a little bit far-fetched to consider them releases.

But the other games, really… I don’t think we can consider them as music releases, as you cannot buy it to play its music without playing the game throughout, each time you want to hear the final boss tune.

This is still not a release, it could be a recording series, or a bootleg release, if there is one

---

_[View the full topic](https://community.metabrainz.org/t/soundtrack-release-group-naming-convention/535978)._