I hope that is not being suggested here. That is a must to keep re-recordings separate. Can’t have cover bands in with officials. I don’t think anyone is asking to mix Beatles Covers with original Beatles.
Isn’t this just format shifting? The original audio is as on the original media. Be that a game or a DVD of a movie. Someone then just lift this audio and converts it to a different format. They don’t add to it.
I can’t listen to it as I don’t own it. But this is two official releases from the official label. One is a single CD edition, the other a new edition with new tracks, new track list, total renaming of most of the tracks. Just looking at those two I can’t see the visual links. Almost every track has a star to say it is a new version. This is why my confusion lies on that one and would have probably left them separate.
I’d personally feel a bit differently, as there might be people who are looking for a particular version of the recording. as an example, for the MLP:FIM soundtrack, there are (at least) two recordings in my mind, the officially released version and the show rip, which includes sound effects from the episode and whatnot. there’s possibly even 5.1 channel mixes of the show rip out there, which of course would be seperate recordings anyways.
I wouldn’t have much of an issue with having these be the same recording (save for the possible 5.1 mix, as mentioned), but I think we should maybe consider keeping them seperate?
note,I haven’t dared sort through this soundtrack and it’s releases yet, as it’s simply a massive task. even my examples seem to be a mess, lol
I believe he’s referring to re-recordings by the original artist, like Taylor Swift has done with nearly all her albums (for example, Red and Red (Taylor’s version))
But those are separate RGs. Which is kinda the point. A fresh set of Recordings by anyone is clearly separate RG. I think some of this discussion is more about format shifting and re-editing the same audio? (Maybe I am getting confused. Not sure why we are talking about re-recording)
If a recording is being edited in such a way to remove parts of it, then that is a fresh recording. If you take a vocal track off, or remove sound effects then this is usually termed a different recording. If you are are just slicing it up in a different way, then the whole collection of recordings would still equal the same release, but made of unique recordings?
It is this latter example that I can see how the Dunkirk and Dodgeball examples could be in the same RGs, but made of totally independent recordings. If you played them back at the same time you could mostly make them sync up.
In my mind that’s what it is. If nobody has re-recorded any new instruments/vocals I don’t think it’s a new RG. Only talking in the context of video game rips here.
Files on a disc + those same files being played through the game and then someone recording that = same release group imo
Sorry got the misunderstanding, I’m only talking in terms of how we define release groups.
The recordings themselves should of course be different if they sound really different or include different stuff… that’s where the terminology of ‘recording’ starts to get tricky in terms of soundtrack rips. Generally speaking new recordings = new release group, but I think that serves no practical purpose for these releases
That was my argument and, while it’s not a bad one, I don’t exactly know how these bootlegs get assembled. My guess would be there’s two big categories (at least), but, like you, I’d love to know exactly.
I’d guess there’s those that get leaked from the studio/recording sessions and then those that get assembled by someone ripping audio tracks from dvd’s/blu-rays. Does that sound right?
I still think samplers / “mini soundtracks” should be kept separate from full soundtracks. I would be unhappy with a guideline that doesn’t explicitly cover this case, and would vote against any attempts to merge the release groups in the linked example.