Style Guidelines for BBC Radio 1 Essential Mix


I’ve been adding some essential mix recordings[1] I have over the weekend and having reviewed what others had done I see a lot of inconsistency so I was wondering if I could get some consensus on how the should be done.

For some background here’s some links I’ve been digesting for this:

I don’t think reviewing existing entries is much use because they’re all so inconsistent so I’ll try break down my understanding and I’m hoping for some feedback on whether people agree this is the right style for the tags:

Release (Group) Name: YYYY-MM-DD: BBC Radio 1 Essential Mix, [: Location]
(based on broadcast notes)
[Edit 28/2/21 - removing DJ, [DJ] from the name as per discussion below]
Some mixes have multiple DJ’s and some are special events from a certain location. Here’s the full list of episode’s from Wikipedia so I think this matches up nicely with the information there:

Artist: DJ Name[, DJ Name] or DJ Name[ btb DJ Name] or DJ Name[ / DJ Name]
[Edit 28/2/21 - Adding alternative separators as per comments below - typically if a live set then btb make sense, otherwise the / should be used, unless explicitly stated as something else.]
I’ve seen some people set it to Various Artists, but this is a DJ performance by this artist, so I don’t think Various Artists makes sense. It sounds to me like all DJ Mixes should have the artist as that DJ unless the DJ is not known or a prominent feature of the release.

Primary Type: Broadcast

Secondary Type: DJ-Mix[, Live]
[Edit 28/2/21 - Updating to include Live when the show is performed live in a club/venu.]

Status: Bootleg
[Edit 28/2/21 - So after a lot of back forth and discussion it seems like this should be set to Bootleg, since there’s not an official “Release” - but there is an “Official” Event, the broadcast.]

Country: United Kingdom
As per it shouldn’t be Worldwide, even if the broadcast is now also streamed online

Both should blank.

[Edit 28/2/21 - Updated based on discussions below]
There should be one release for the broadcast. The format should be “Digital Media”, unless there is a clear physical copy that has been more officially released.
It should be one track and the title and artist credits should be the same as the Release Group. Length should be 2:00:00, unless it was an extended show, in which case it should match the time.

On the Release Group add it as a part of the following series:

On the Release:

  • Add the Show Notes -ideally should be a link to the official BBC page, but for some older ones that are no longer online uses link instead.
  • Add Streaming/download online to any soundcloud/mixcloud/youtube/etc links
  • Add all DJ’s as DJ Mixer
  • Where possible add a link to the recordings using the DJ Mix of AR like here:
Old notes for tracklist - not applicable, but kept for historical purposes, see comments in thread below for why.

Reading the guidelines here:
It sounds like there should be 2 releases in the release group. One of them is the full tracklist that the DJ played.
The second is a single track of the digital media version and a link to the stream/download if available.
So that leads to 2 releases for each Essential Mix. The full tracklist version named the same as the Release Group Name above: YYYY-MM-DD: BBC Radio 1 Essential Mix, DJ Name[, DJ Name][: Location]
The second one: YYYY-MM-DD: BBC Radio 1 Essential Mix, DJ Name[, DJ Name][: Location]: Continuous Mix
The second one would also have the the track titles and respective artists entered into the annotation.

Thanks for reading this far and I’d love to here any feedback on the above!

[1] Reference to what this show is all about if you’re not familiar:


I don’t really see the benefit of having such a separate release with the full tracklist in the database, especially if it consists of newly created recordings like e.g.
OTOH, I do see the benefit of somehow linking existing recordings to the continuous mix.

The obvious alternative to having that separate release is to use the “DJ-mix” recording-recording AR to link the individual recordings to the continuous mix recording.
As an alternative to that we could have a recording series that contains all the individual recordings and link this to either the RG or to the release with a new AR.

In all cases, it may be difficult or even impossible to identify the correct individual recordings - e.g. specific remixes - that were used for the continuous mix.
A not so satisfying solution is to link the corresponding works instead with a “medley of” AR like in

1 Like

As I said, it’s not my preferred solution but if that separate release with the full tracklist should become a standard then the best choice for the release status is probably pseudo-release.

This is something I often find a headache when trying to get these kinds of mixes linked. Especially as the little edit listbox that pops up when trying to do this is next to useless on a popular track.

What I usually do is go find the single or album version and paste that link in as a “best assumption” unless I can hear something specifically different.

It would also be really handy if these mixes get Disambiguration comments added. As they are being adjusted \ trimmed \ mixed that comment helps keep them apart from normal unmixed versions. One of them unofficial standards that isn’t in the guidelines.

Fully agree but I’m not sure if this is meant here.
My understanding is that this extra release is just a list of the unmodified original recordings that were used for the continuous mix.

OTOH, I do see the benefit of somehow linking existing recordings to the continuous mix.

I agree - if there’s a good way to do this then I’d be happy to go through and fix up the ones I’ve done. The Depeche Mode example you gave could work, but being new here I’m not sure what would work best.

In all cases, it may be difficult or even impossible to identify the correct individual recordings - e.g. specific remixes - that were used for the continuous mix.

I’ll have a look at updating the ones I created already to match with the existing recordings where possible. @MeinDummy Thanks for adding to the Nero one as an example of what to do.

I’m really not sure what to recommend here.

The example shows how I am currently handling this but this is not really a solution that I am happy with.
It may look ok in my example because the DJ-mix consists of only few (7) works and Depeche Mode is the performer for the DJ-mix as well as for all source recordings.
In your example if you link the works to the continuous mix recording then you’ll have to link 40+ different works. Many of these would have to be created first. And Nero would show up as a performer even though he’s just the DJ-mixer.

However, for your release, the source apparently provides info about the specific mixes that were used for the DJ-mix. So you may be able to follow the 2 alternative approaches that I outlined above, i.e. do something like this:
And I suggest to remove

I’d like to hear other opinions on what to do if the specific recordings / mixes were not known:

  • link generic recordings (7" version, radio edit, album version, …) to the continuous mix recording
  • add generic recordings to a series and link it
    • to the RG or
    • to the release
  • put the complete tracklist into the annotation
  • link only the works to the continuous mix recording with “medley of” ARs

Thanks for the feedback @MeinDummy. Let me try changing some of the others I’ve entered recently to follow that approach.

I’ll let others with more experience comment on the question about unknown recordings and for now I’ll omit them but keep the tracklist in the annotation.

@MeinDummy I started adding the relationship to recordings to a release today like you did for Nero.

It looks like the big downside here is that there’s no ordering, they’re all listed alphabetically. Is there a way to have them ordered in the way they were played? Or would that have to be just in the annotation?

1 Like

I guess you are talking about recording-work ARs? Yes, that’s one of the two big downsides. The other one is the absence of a performer. That’s why, this works ok for single artist DJ-mixes like the Depeche Mode example but not so well in your case.

Thanks @meindummy - I’ve had a go at adding a mix in a different way using just the “DJ Mix of” relationship:

I’m happy to go through and try update them as best I can to match this instead of adding a secondary release.

Is it worth me filing a JIRA ticket to add support for an track number to the DJ Mix of AR if there isn’t one already? It sounds like if that field existed then it would solve a lot of these issues (aside from knowing which actual recording a DJ may have used).

An ordering option for the DJ-mix AR would definitely be helpful. I’d vote it up if you submit the request :slight_smile:

Looks like someone already filed one:

I’ve added a comment to this thread and some examples, and add my own vote.

1 Like

And it’s been implemented and released already! I just updated this mix to use it:

Looks so much better! If people are happy with it, I’ll rework the ones I added to follow this structure and delete the extra release with all the tracks.

1 Like

Perfect for me (the rework as well as the removal) :+1:t3:

I added quite a few mixes in the past and none of them followed these title guidelines. I would strongly oppose putting the DJ (already via artist credit and relationships) and especially “continuous mix” in the title. Having continuous mix in the title is just noise, of course it’s a continuous mix if the release type is set to DJ-mix. There’s no reason at all to have it in the title field.

1 Like

And also, I would set all of these to bootlegs unless there’s an artist sanctioned release.

Thanks @finalsummer. I agree with you on all 3 points actually now I’ve added some more. If you look on the release series page the artists in the title are just redundant:

Similarly “Continuous Mix” seems superfluous. Given that the DJ mix proposal I linked initially is not an official standard I don’t see a reason to keep it.

As for bootleg - agreed. Now I think about it whilst the radio show is “Official”, the digital copies laying around should really be bootleg recordings.

I’ll go through and tidy up the ones I’ve added. Thanks again for the feedback.

For artist credits I would do:
DJ, DJ & DJ for mixes where two or more DJs collaborate.
DJ b2b DJ b2b DJ for mixes where the DJs play a back to back set.
DJ / DJ / DJ for recordings that contain more than one mix, by different DJs

Can you explain the difference between these 2? For example this one looks like the artist credit should be Tino Jugano b2b Simon Gibb b2b Colin Patterson

I’m just not clear when to use the third one you’ve proposed? Perhaps this one where it’s not a live set at a venue: