Talk:Release Group

From MusicBrainz Wiki
Revision as of 17:47, 15 September 2009 by PavanChander (talk | contribs) (→‎I have a "pop" soundtrack, a score, and an expanded score from a movie, should they be merged?: 'score' and 'expanded score' should indeed be merged.)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Additional scenarios


Transliterations and psueduo releases would be merged, because it's essentially just the packaging around the album that has changed. But what about different audio translations, do they deserve their own release group? e.g. If an artist records an album in English, and then the same album in French. What if the "translated" release also has additional/new material? --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I really hope that pseudo-releases (either for translation or transliteration) will be a non-issue with NGS. Currently, they probably should be in the release group. (subgrouping would be really nice :(). An album released in different languages is obviously a separate release with a separate release group -- lyrics would be different, so we can't group those. pronik 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added both of these to the merged page now. Let's see if there's any debate on the lists? Voiceinsideyou 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I've removed your example, I think perhaps the discussion/debate should take place on the discussion page instead of on the (un)official guideline. The text has been placed in the "Issues unde debate" section.
"2 in 1" releases

Is it worth mentioning that when two separate albums are reissued together for their 20th annivesary that it would form it's own third release group, and not be merged with one of the two earlies release groups? --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

We'd have a perfect solution if one release could be assigned to several RGs. Otherwise, yes, mention it. Could be easily confused. pronik 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, as the one in FAQs section I guess is only about reissues on 1 disc, I'd like to find out what to do, if two (or more) albums are later reissued within one package? Add them each in its own group, or create RG for the package and place them there? Each reissued album in the package is on its own CD. For example 2 CD release "Album1 / Album2". Should CD1 be in group "Album1", and CD2 in "Album2", or should both these CDs from the group "Album1 / Album 2" with "Album1 (disc 1)" and "Album2 (disc 2)" in it? And do we need (disc X) parts? --Atedos 15:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


Is it worth mentioning that each release of a musical would probably be a different release group, unless we are sure it's the same cast/year and it' only a re-issue/remaster. --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a really important remark. We probably need to make this more general -- where do we put a re-recorded release, which is not just remixed or cleaned, but really re-sung and re-played)? I'd think it'd be a separate RG, just like Musicals pronik 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Do you have any examples of this? At first glance I wouldn't have thought we would even keep the releases separate, but just add the release event information and merge the two. --navap 17:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick comment on Pronik: Remixed releases should not be included into the same release group unless it's e.g. a bonus disc coming with the normal release. Otherwise they don't have much to do with one another. Example: Puscifer - V Is for Vagina and V Is for Viagra: The Remixes Prodoc 19:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I think re-recorded releases should be in the same group as original one, as they still keep the same concept. Same goes to remixes. I don't see why Prodoc want to keep them all separated. Remixed albums still bears "remix" mark in its release type, and it is also a part of the same work, of the same concept. So they should be kept in original's RG, similar to how navap pointed on Demos section on this page (I tend to agree with that). Once again, if we keep each variation of the same work as a separate RG, we lose all the advantage of such implementation. Here are some examples I worked with: RG with re-recording (edit) and RG with remix (edit) - these are all the same work, these are all in the same release group. --Atedos 20:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't have much experience with re-recorded releases to really argue for or against merging them. But when it comes to an artist releasing a "Foo Remixed" album after releasing "Foo", I do believe they should be kept separate. Down the road we will have release group-release group ARs and just like we currently make release-release ARs to specify that an album is a remix of another, we will be able to do the same at the release-group level. I would also like to provide my own example of a "remixed album", Tiësto's "Elements of Life" and it's remix "Elements of Life: Remixed". Given my curent understanding of what a release group is, I stronly believe that these two albums belong in separate release groups.
I'm glad you agree with my remarks on demos, hopefully you also agree with the following. When it comes to demos, they're usually a part of the process in issuing an official album, they're not "new" material nor are they created an extended period of time after the official album (I think this also applies for promos). When it comes to a remix that that is released at the same time as the official album (neither of our remixed albums are examples of this), then perhaps I would agree that the remix belongs with the official album, but all the remixed albums I've seen have been released at a later point in time. The remixed album was not created as a part of the process in releasing the original official album, but is usually created after the fact, and (I think this is important) may have it's own promos or demos. --navap 08:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why would you merge a 10 years later album remastered version with bonus tracks into its RG, and would not merge a 2 years later remix? Demos are often not a "a part of the process in issuing an official album", but a much later (re-recorded/remastered) reissue, or as additinal material on some other release (this is a question of miltiple titles though). Demos may be heavily re-worked, but still they remain the same in the meaning for being a composition (like different plays of same classical work). Remixes wouldn't exist without it's original, which is the source to it and separate them would be wrong. If we make RGs be so narrow, it won't be much better, than it was before. --Atedos 12:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree (with Atedos' comment above); these are "Release" Groups, not "Concept" groups. Why would you merge two entirely different and distinct releases into the same RG, simply because they have the same title and tracklist? Should not the RGs be explicitly kept *separate*, to distinguish precisely that they are *not* the same release? --BrianFreud
I completely agree with the current concept on bootlegs (as mentioned in the example section), that different recordings be kept distinct. The exception - and perhaps best left in comments, rather than cluttering the guideline - I would suggest is for bootlegs where the recording is the same, just with different release titles or other sufficiently different enough things to justify our having more than one listing for what is otherwise the same release (*and* original bootleg recording source(+generation info?)). Whether releases that are the *same* recording, but different in terms of generational info, should be merged into the same RG... there I'm not entirely convinced either way. --BrianFreud
When two recordings are identical such that they go into the same RG, but the title of the 2+ releases differs, what title should be used for the RG? This occasionally happens for bootleg CDs/vinyl, if very rarely for official releases. --BrianFreud

Would different "versions" of the soundtrack belong in the same release group? e.g. One version is the "pop song" soundtrack, one is the score, and one is the expanded score. --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say none, since it's not a version of another album. It's rather a Film<->Sound AR which every soundtrack release could have. Then you could easily group those releases, but via AR, not via RG. pronik 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Good point, I think we need to make use of are release-url ARs better, instead of saying "Has an IMDB page at" maybe we should make the user aware that any other releases that have stemmed from that movie can be found by clicking "here", and that same thought could be applied to quite a few release-ARs that get multiple releases attached to the same URL. --navap 17:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see that the pop soundtrack should be separate to the score; but score vs. expanded score? Surely those later two could part of the same release group? Voiceinsideyou 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they should form one release group, as all those expanded, complete, remixed scores they all are variations of the same work (the soundtrack itself), and are released just like some reissues with bonus tracks for example. --Atedos 06:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Again, this is turning the RG into a "Conceptual" group. This is not what RGs were intended to be, or to do. CGs are a good idea, but let's not use RGs in an entirely different way for a special subset of releases. "Variations of the same work" could just as easily be used as justification for merging all singles released in support of an album into a RG with that album - all the simgles and the album are variations on the same album work, right? Just as we wouldn't merge that, or want to, I don't belive the argument really is any different, or any more justified when moved to a soundtrack (or concert recording) context. --BrianFreud

Popular books are sometimes read by multiple narrators, and in various languages, take a look at Harry Potter's J.K. Rowling's page for a good example. If an author releases a new book, is that the same as a band saying that they're releasing a new album? An author can be considered an artist, and here at MB we definitely already do by accepting audiobook submissions.
It's a little abstract, but the various readings of an audiobook we have in the database all contain the same "lyrics" (words), and "tracks" (chapters), the only difference is the artist who is doing the vocal performance. Sure there are abridged versions of a book that would contain different lyrics and tracks, but then there are also "abridged" albums (promos and such). I think audiobooks should be merged, although I'm not sure about cases where the translated version of the book has been narrated. --navap 19:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion with respect to Rowling's audiobooks in edit #10678956. The conclusion was to merge all the release groups into the 7 books, regardless of narrators/translations. --navap 04:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Additional documentation

The last paragraph talks about only needing to merge releasegroups, is an article needed to explain the process, or is the process pretty self explanatory? --navap 15:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd removed this comment (but it has been re-added now); it would sit better inside edit documentation IMO. Voiceinsideyou 04:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
FAQs section

What about changing (or removing?) second paragraph on FAQs section? There were achieved some concensus on soundtrack merging edits and Style Mailing List. I think this section should be changed to avoid confusing. I'd also changed the first paragraph, making a note of real reasoning to keep such releases in a separate RG (current technical impossibility of linking them to both RGs). --Atedos 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the reasoning behind the point that says to keep a "2 in 1" release separate from it's individual releases; we should be keeping it separate because it is in fact a separate album from the other two, not just because there is a technical "limitation" (I say "limitation" because I believe the limitation is by design). It's like having a mashup track that is comprised of two other tracks, in order to display the fact that there is a relation between the mashup and the two other tracks — we create an AR, as that is the best method of displaying that kind of information. Similarily, we will have release group-release group ARs down the road to display this kind of information.
As for the second paragraph, from what I've seen people haven't been following it at all. Additionally, I think just in case someone does follow it, it can't do much harm while the discussion is being debated on the mailing list, as it's easier to merge release groups later on when the debate is finalized, then to unmerge them. I am open to suggestion though, if you still feel that it should be removed I'm willing to do so (or you can remove it yourself :) ). --navap 08:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've just removed it, just wanted to hear some opinion(s). What about first point, perhaps you are right; and perhaps such releases should be (also) listed under both RGs to ease searching/navigation, and because those works are indeed parts of that 2-albums-on-one-reissue. --Atedos 12:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the releases should not should show up under the same release group, instead what should show up is an AR that points to them. --navap 12:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


How should these scenarios be incorporated into the main article? A Q/A section perhaps? --navap 09:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd personally rather they were incorporated into the lists of "what this is for" and "when not to use". FAQs, IMHO, tend to become unstructured, wordy and difficult to read, and should be reserved for corner cases. Voiceinsideyou 08:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I found an extreme case of a release group of many different international release versions (one disc, two disc, bonus disc, etc.) of the compilation album Best of Bowie (Wikipedia link) which all share one release group. Maybe this one can be used as an example? --MightyJay 12:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)



One short question: should different releases of singles be merged? Because there are many singles that have different releases, with more tracks, less tracks or totally different tracks. alvareo [speak to me]

Yes, for the most part the various versions of a single should be merged, there will be documentation coming that will address this. --navap 23:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Beaten to the answer but I'll add what I had. I agree single sets should be under one release group e.g. UK singles are often marketed as a '3-disc set', sold separately in CD, vinyl, download form but are still part of the same basic 'release' entity. However, some singles are re-released at a point in the future, these shouldn't be merged into the original release group as they aren't part of the same 'set', instead they're a release group in their own right.
An example I've been editing recently: Maxïmo Park - The Kids Are Sick Again has 3 formats under one release group, they were all released as part of one marketing campaign so should be grouped. Apply Some Pressure was released twice in 2005 (February and October), as two campaigns (different catalog numbers), so I don't think these should be merged. -- Jarvo 23:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite agree with you, Jarvo, based on the wikipedia page I see no reason why the different release campaigns of the single should be separated. After all, one of the main advantages behind having a release group is the ability to view all the (re)issues of a particluar "Album", "Single", "Soundtrack" etc. Being reissued at a later date is something I see as a normal part of a releases' life. If I've missed something about this particular case, please do correct me. --navap 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with them all being under one release group, it's by far the simplest option and it makes sense the way you've described. -- Jarvo 21:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

What to do with demos, which later were released as full-lenght albums (with addition of some tracks, bonus tracks, or eve without)? Should they share the same group type (i.e Album or Other), or we should keep them as separate groups? What about converting Demos from Other, Official to Actual type (ep/single/album), Promotion (which may be more correct for demos)? Perhaps this could help in resolving this. --Atedos 10:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem in a demo sharing the same release group as it's official release, I feel that is one of the benefits/features of using a release group - all the related material of an album or single are collected on one page. Additionally, I don't think demos should be marked as promotional, as I don't think they're used as marketing material when promoting an artist, I think they're usually found as a bonus track or two on a full length album, or on bootleg releases. --navap 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So which release type will such release group have? Other, as the first demo was, or Album/EP/Single, as a later release is. --Atedos 12:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the Album/EP/Single release types should take priority over Remix/Live/Other, I feel that the latter types are more "modifiers" to the former types. For example we could have two releases in the database, one marked as "Single", one as "Remix", the remix is infact a remix of the single, and so the overall release group type should be single. If you look at the question on remixes below you'll see an example of that. --navap 12:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Should a remix release that is released a few months/years later than the original single release and contains a completely different set of tracks be merged into the original single's release group?

No, that is usually an entirely separate "Album" and should belong in it's own release group. For example, it's a separate entity on the artists discography page. --navap 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

And another question: I've got a set of 4 releases containing remixes of a track. 2 of these releases don't contain the original track so their release type is "Remix". But the other two do contain the original tracks so their release type could also be "Single". The track wasn't released as a single before. Should the type of the merged release group be "Remix" or "Single"? vinyl without the original track: digital edition including the original track:

I would merge those two as they're both "Singles" (from the artist's point of view, not the publishers), and the first link is just marked as "Remix" because it contains primarily remixed material (which is when the guideline says to use the "Remix" type). --navap 11:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
So I should merge this (digital), this (vinyl) and this (unknown, maybe CD) release into one "Single" release group. But what about this vinyl? It was released the same day the other vinyl was released and contains the same two tracks only as "dub" version and "instrumental" version. I don't know wether to regard this as a completely different release or only as some kind of "bonus disc" that is sold separately.
Yes I feel that it should also be merged into the "Moan" release group. If you look carefully it's somewhat similar to the vinyl release you're already planning on merging, in that the release only contains remixed materal — the original "album version" or "vocal version" is not present. --navap 13:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Live Recordings

This artist has three official releases of the same comedy programme. Each one was recorded during a live performance at different places (Germany, Austria, Switzerland). Should those be merged or should they be considered separate release groups? Related edits are: [1] and [2] --Rmoser

I think these should be merged. Arits present it as the work, not as live shows themself (those edition parts). --Atedos 18:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I would disagree, for the same reasons given when you've suggested the same reasoning above. These are quite distinct in all but their shared concept. Using the same logic you present, one could theoretically merge every live show for a tour in support of a particular album into one huge RG. This isn't, imho, what RGs should be used for. --BrianFreud

Issues still under debate

I have a "pop" soundtrack, a score, and an expanded score from a movie, should they be merged?

No, just because they are all related to the same movie doesn't necessarily mean that they should all belong in the same release group. Using "The Matrix" as an example, the database has it's score, it's deluxe edition (a.k.a. expanded score), and it's "pop" soundtrack; they should all be kept separate.

Why? I can see people wanting to keep the "pop" and the "score" releases separate, although even that may not bee too clear distinction. However, why should the score and "deluxe edition" be kept separate? What makes it different from any other album and its deluxe edition? Ssundell 12:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I agree Sami. The whinging has come on the mailing list from very limited but vocal corners; and it's the usual "different standards for soundtrack/classical" coming about, IMO. --Voiceinsideyou 03:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking as the unmentioned, but likely intended person on the lists making these points...  ;) "Whinging" you may consider it to be, but what I'm arguing is actually that soundtracks (and classical, though I'm not sure why classical would be involved here) *not* be treated differently. A "pop" soundtrack and a "score" soundtrack, though for the same movie, almost never share any tracks in common. They are entirely different and distinct releases. Were they non-soundtrack albums, there doesn't seem to be any question that we would even consider merging them. The only reasoning here for merging them is that they share the same concept - they both are a soundtrack for the same movie. By the same reasoning, something like this could be merged into one big RG, even though each is entirely distinct, sold separately, and contains no shared music - only a shared concept. It's the bootleg "extended" soundtracks that make this at all messy; I'd suggest, though, if we have to merge those into either at all, that they be normally merged into the "score" RG, not the "pop album" RG, as these releases almost always are "extended" in terms of score, not in "pop" tracks. (Though these should likely be treated on a case by case basis, as you do occasionally have the "bootleg fan created" soundtrack of pop songs - the season music bootlegs for House spring to mind.) --BrianFreud
Looking at the edit history I think I wrote the initial question/answer, but looking at it now I don't know why I thought separating the 'score' from the 'expanded score' was a good idea. As for which RG to merge them into, I think it makes sense to merge them into a RG titled with the name of the movie, usually that will be the score version but there might be a situation where the title will have to be edited. --navap 17:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding translations

If there are multiple versions of a release in different languages; each language would be its own release group, e.g. Shakira's Laundry Service and Servicio de lavanderia.

Why would these be kept separate, but pseudo-release translations would be merged in with the "original language" release's RG? They seem different only in the status, not the content? --BrianFreud