Splitting a Release Group?

Tags: #<Tag:0x00007f31bf87d8c0> #<Tag:0x00007f31bf87d7a8> #<Tag:0x00007f31bf87d6b8>

so, I’ve decided there’s a release group that needs to be split, and I wanna be sure I’m doing it right…

The RG in question:

how I’m planning on doing it is creating a new RG and moving the applicable releases to the new group. would that break anything? I know there’s special steps for spitting an artist, but I didn’t find anything on other entity splits…

some background on why three release groups, for those interested...

listed in the order released:

  1. "The End is Near": only available at shows on the band’s farewell tour.
  2. "The End is Here" (2-discs): includes the above release (with 1 bonus track) and a live album of their last show (at that time), titled “The End is Here”, which was also on the cover of the release.
  3. "The End is Here" (live album only): they digitally released both discs separately as “The End is Near” and “The End is Here” (the same as the disc titles from release 2) after they got back together. I’ve already created this RG (here).

I’ll be splitting 1 and 2, and will add the proper “Includes” relationships.


a couple follow-up questions on the 2-disc release group, since one of the discs is live, should it have that as a secondary release type, or not?
should it be a compilation too, even though disc 2 hadn’t been previously released?

I’m thinking yes and no, respectively

1 Like

No, this will not break anything. Generally all secondary types that apply should be added to the release group, at the knowledgeable editor’s discretion. Based on your descriptions, I would include the compilation type on the two disc version. I think it’s a good split: one album, one live album, and one live + compilation album.

1 Like

The spirit of the release group is to group “editions” of the “same” release. So in general, we don’t consider the “bonus disc” content in defining the release group’s type. (And it’s not one of the criteria defined under What should not be grouped together?)

In Japan, the “same” single/album is often released in a DVD/BD-less version and a more expensive version that includes a DVD/BD containing live concert videos. Separating these editions into different release groups would go against the spirit of the MB definition IMO.

1 Like

In this example, Wikipedia claims,

double album titled The End is Here (stylized as The End is Near Here)

So maybe that should be considered a 2-in-1 release.

1 Like

alright, thank y’all for your input~

I’ve entered the edit.

edit: with related edits here and here~