• schtel over 12 years ago

    I can't see that this is correct, adding remixes to a MR. Originally released in 1988, this now has all the remixes added up until 2007. Can someone please confirm that remixes are to be treated as the original release, thx.

    http://www.discogs.com/Humanoid-Stakker-Humanoid/master/32355
  • SeRKeT over 12 years ago

    niks quote from the MR thread
    Belongs in a Master Release

    Different language versions
    Instrumental versions
    Remix versions
    Same release with bonus material
    Same release with bonus formats
    Video and audio versions of the same event

    Doesn't belong in a Master Release

    Samplers of a full release
    'Extracts from' a full release
  • schtel over 12 years ago

    OK, thanks. I was away the day MR was implemented and it seems I have a big thread to read, sorry if I ask some obvious questions. btw, could you give me a link to nik's comments on this, appreciated. :)

    Funny though, that remixes/intrumentals are to be classed as the original release? I don't get that?
  • mawiles over 12 years ago

    I think this MR is wrong. This track had several new issues, which are even reflected in the title: original, 92, 2001, 2007
    So these should actually be 4 MRs.

    The remixes rule seems to be misinterpreted resp. vague. It actually means that all versions on an issue, i.e. those that were released together, should be bundled.
    If a new musical production and/or a remix pack is released several years after the original, it's for sure a new release, which is mostly reflected in the title as well.
  • SeRKeT over 12 years ago

    didn't nik use a Madonna song as an example that had loads of remixes in different formats?? , i am sure that explained it well enough
  • mawiles over 12 years ago

    Were the remixes in nik's example released years after the original?

    If it would be as you think, then we wouldn't need any human input in Master release, since then all records with the same title would always be bundled in one MR each.
  • swattan over 12 years ago

    SeRKeT
    Remix versions


    I hope this rule will be changed soon... it's wrong obviously

    This morning i've done some MR here

    http://www.discogs.com/artist/Atahualpa

    Surely this (1990)

    http://www.discogs.com/Atahualpa-Ultimo-Imperio/master/33642

    and this (1999)

    http://www.discogs.com/Atahualpa-vs-Commander-Tom-Ultimo-Imperio/master/33703

    are different...

  • mawiles over 12 years ago

    It's not wrong, it's vague.
    I will invite nik to this thread for clarification.
  • SeRKeT over 12 years ago

    ok, for example if i made 10 versions of a song and released 1 version then another 1-3 months later then 2 more 6 months later then some more a few years later how does that differ? the timespan should not be what defines as acceptable for the MR as its essentially the same song , just different versions/mixes
  • swattan over 12 years ago

    swattan edited over 12 years ago
    I forgot to add also this (also different)

    http://www.discogs.com/Atahualpa-Ultimo-Imperio-The-Remix/master/33647

    Well,as far as i know, in electronic dance music the "remix" could be a totally different version of a track, now i think the Deep Dish Remix of Sandy B, but there are a lot of other examples..
  • mawiles over 12 years ago

    SeRKeT
    ok, for example if i made 10 versions of a song and released 1 version then another 1-3 months later then 2 more 6 months later then some more a few years later how does that differ?


    If new material is released several years (at least 2 years) and mostly with a special title (year in the title), then it's obviously intended by the label to be a new release.
  • consort over 12 years ago

    Agree with mawiles on all above. Don't think the guideline necessarily needs to be less vague or that a time frame could be defined, but a new release with a tweaked title and new content is ... a new release.
    * Shaker Humanoid
    * Shaker Humanoid 92
    * Shaker Humanoid 2001
    etc.
  • SeRKeT over 12 years ago


    mawiles
    If new material is released several years (at least 2 years) and mostly with a special title (year in the title), then it's obviously intended by the label to be a new release.

    so how about (Unreleased mix) as a title, in that case it may have been made years earlier as suggested by the title, its still not a new release though, its a different version of ''the same song'' being released, also sometimes stuff like the date
    Humanoid '92 (not the best example) but sometimes these ''new versions'' have the same artwork just with the numbers like '92 being the only difference, obviously it is used sometimes as a way of being able to identify it from the other versions , one more thing about Humanoid '92 it has a (Cobain Mix '94) which is strange given the release is supposed to from 1992, the fact these versions may not have been done years later is also something to wonder about especially when conflicts like i have just pointed out exist
  • PeterDeVilbis over 12 years ago

    I think that guideline should be updated ASAP.
    Because (apart from the title) this release
    http://www.discogs.com/Karen-Young-Hot-Shot/release/73512
    has absolutely nothing in common with
    http://www.discogs.com/Karen-Young-Hot-Shot-97/release/832059

    I'd hate to see these combined into 1 MR - and we all know it's only a matter of time before someone decides to do so.
    This sort of misinterpretation could lead to many MR edit wars.

  • rassel over 12 years ago

    I'd go with
    RSG
    However, releases shouldn't be forced into a Master Release - if the addition of a release to a MR is contentious, confusing, or difficult, then it should probably not be part of the Master Release in question.

    As Hot Shot '97 has nothing to do with Hot Shot it should'n't be forced into the same master release.
    If you fear, that someone will do it without knowledge, put this in the submission notes of Hot Shot '97 as a comment.
  • PeterDeVilbis over 12 years ago

    rassel
    if the addition of a release to a MR is contentious, confusing

    Too vague.
    Some people will simply see it as a remix of the original, therefore an alternative version of the original = MR.
    http://www.discogs.com/Taylor-Dayne-Tell-It-To-My-Heart/master/29263
    There's already too much going on and most submitters don't even bother to explain their actions.

  • fisonic over 12 years ago

    mawiles
    I think this MR is wrong. This track had several new issues, which are even reflected in the title: original, 92, 2001, 2007
    So these should actually be 4 MRs.

    [...] it's for sure a new release, which is mostly reflected in the title as well


    I 100%-ly agree to this.
    It might not always be easy to decide, but in general I'd split such cases.
  • KrissO over 12 years ago

    So what about Ligaya (The Hardstyle Remixes) and Ligaya (The Remixes)? They are currently in the Gouryella - Ligaya MR (which is the only MR for that track). But both releases were released two years after the original release with two new remixes. Seperate MR? Look at the Gouryella profile, looks great.
  • simfonik over 12 years ago


    schtel
    Originally released in 1988, this now has all the remixes added up until 2007

    That's correct.

    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/186906?page=3#2357242
  • fisonic over 12 years ago

    Sorry, simfonik, but I don't think that post of nik's helps us much here. His list of examples seems to be focused on albums. And even if we try to take those examples that are not explicitly dealing with albums:
    A 20 year anniversary issue (which seems to be what gets closest to this discussion) is still very different from a 7.43 years-after radically-different remixes release.

    But: nik gave some insight into his opinion in this posting: http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/186906?page=4#2357899
    slur
    All mixes of
    http://www.discogs.com/Soft-Ce...d-Love/release/56309
    would be really huge, especially including the 1991 mixes too and this variaton
    http://www.discogs.com/Soft-Ce...d-Love/release/49159

    As far as I looked all of them would at least fulify
    # Has the same release title (including translations)
    # Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, or other such variations
    nik
    That seems ok, don't fear the large Master Release!


    However... in the end the Soft Cell fans seemed to have decided to put only the original and the 1991 mixes (which included original mixes as well) together, but keep the 1999 Club 69 mixes separately.
  • KrissO over 12 years ago

    fisonic
    However... in the end the Soft Cell fans seemed to have decided to put only the original and the 1991 mixes (which included original mixes as well) together, but keep the 1999 Club 69 mixes separately.

    Wow, that wasn't my suggestion at all (if you remember my post).
    Perhaps I suggested too many MR's, but I didn't expect to see them all in one single MR (except the 1999 one).
  • mawiles over 12 years ago

    Sorry, simfonik, but we need nik's opinion on the specific cases we're discussing here.
    We're not talking about the Madonna example given in the guidelines.
  • schtel over 12 years ago

    In one way I can see a reason to group 'similar' releases that form part of a concept, but I don't think original + remixes should appear as an MR unless they were released sequentially as part of a concept series and/or if the mixes/remixes are by the same artist as the MR.

    Artist releases a 12" tomorrow, next year some other artists remix them = 2 different releases and not the same. MR should be for same release variants, not track variants. IMO
  • Unint over 12 years ago

    Somebody should figure out Energy 52. You could probably decide how to handle anything else from there.
  • schtel over 12 years ago

    lol
  • KrissO over 12 years ago

    lol, not today Unint :/
  • KrissO over 12 years ago

    DJ Ton T.B. - Dream Machine 2009 remixes inside DJ Ton T.B. - Dream Machine MR or not? :s
  • SeRKeT over 12 years ago

    there's more one way round this argument, if the MR notes are used to explain some things for ex :
    this track was remixed in 1990-1995 etc, and maybe a little more info about some copies that have a bonus track (saves going into each sub to see which ones differ slightly)
    method 2 :
    use hyperlinks to link the remix versions (i'm not certain this is possible yet)
    i'm all for seeing all the different versions in one MR but that's just my opinion here so i can see why people would prefer the data presented differently
  • swattan over 12 years ago

    My interpretation of MR is this:

    http://www.discogs.com/artist/U.S.U.R.A.

    On that page there are more examples

    Open Your Mind (12"), Open Your Mind (Remix) (12"), Open Your Mind '97, Open Your Mind (Album)
  • paris75 over 12 years ago

    paris75 edited over 12 years ago
    Unint
    Somebody should figure out Energy 52. You could probably decide how to handle anything else from there.


    lol.

    also an example for a mess imo Cübik.

    I don't think all releases belong to one MR only. Cübik and Cubik:98 are different and often it is not logical to put all mixes/remixes into one MR.

    swattan
    My interpretation of MR is this:

    http://www.discogs.com/artist/U.S.U.R.A.


    This looks GOOD to me. I agree with you! This is how it should be.

  • PeterDeVilbis over 12 years ago

    And another one:
    http://www.discogs.com/Freddie-Mercury-Living-On-My-Own/master/37919
    Wonderful! (note sarcasm)
    The 90's eurodance mixes were not released together with or shortly after the original 1985 poprock version.
    Is it really SO awful to create more than one MR?
  • zevulon over 12 years ago

    I think most of the time, there will be quite simple, but variating uses of MR.

    If there are obvious different releases periods;
    Original >> 95 rmxs >> 2002 rmxs
    Just let them have different MRs, BUT advocate this in respective MR - (Me? I'd put a link or two as well:)

    I would never call for "common sense" cause I will disagree with many of you (no names), but at the end of the day, it will probably be better this way/MR.

    Again, I think this comes down to differencies that can't be sorted by too simple rules.

    I find it a bit more tricky that different countries often use different B-sides/side-kicks - sometimes that'll be an album track - is it therefore a double A-side release, even if the front advocates just one? Like, if that "B-side" is also released, in other countries, as an A side?
  • zevulon over 12 years ago

    ...love the Energy 52 example - that artist page is already a MR!

    ;) A good example of that 20 years will pass and all remixes will sound basically the same! 50 remixes!
  • KrissO over 12 years ago

    zevulon
    ...love the Energy 52 example - that artist page is already a MR!

    ;) A good example of that 20 years will pass and all remixes will sound basically the same! 50 remixes!

    lol! Well I think I'm gonna give it a shot...
  • KrissO over 12 years ago

    Look at that, I think Energy 52 is done!
    Each master has NEW remixes for that time period, and the notes of each master describes what new mixes were released.
    Time periods for the masters are roughly 1993 / 1997 / 1998 / 2002-2005 / 2006-2007 / 2008
    Note for example that the 1993 master has 1994, 1996 and 1999 releases.... but these are only reissues of the original releases. No new mixes. The same applies to 2002.

    hypernova and Lambada beat me to a couple of the masters (which I tweaked a little bit). Good work!
  • djindio over 12 years ago

    djindio edited over 12 years ago
    Question: Do two track compilation 12"'s containing two different artists really belong in the master release of the first listed artist?!?

    Example, this master release:
    http://www.discogs.com/Apotheosis-O-Fortuna/master/33687

    now contains this Compilation 12":
    http://www.discogs.com/Apotheosis-Moka-DJ-O-Fortuna-Start-This-Record/release/423013

    If so, then EVERY compilation CD in discogs should be added to the master release that contains the 1st track listed on that release!?!

    EDIT: never mind, answered here:
    http://www.discogs.com/help/forums/topic/186906?page=6#2359496
  • simfonik over 12 years ago


    zevulon
    If there are obvious different releases periods;
    Original >> 95 rmxs >> 2002 rmxs


    nik
    release date should not be a consideration for whether something is eligible to be in a MR.
  • fisonic over 12 years ago

    Original >> 95 rmxs >> 2002 rmxs

    I think, when those constellations (as far as they are clear) are merged, the loss of information is greater than the gain.
    The way zevulon proposed it, with mutual links between the separated MRs, could be an overall gain, in my opinion.

    But maybe trying to achieve this would make the guidelines too complicated and ambiguous? I'm somewhat uncertain whether it's practicable.

    schtel
    releases that form part of a concept
    [...]
    same release variants, not track variants

    That sounds like a good approach to describe it?

    That said, I'd like to add, that I believe, all in all the rules are working really good. Especially how effective this 2-out-of-4 rule turns out. :)

  • KrissO over 12 years ago

    simfonik
    zevulon
    If there are obvious different releases periods;
    Original >> 95 rmxs >> 2002 rmxs

    nik
    release date should not be a consideration for whether something is eligible to be in a MR.

    Yes but what I think nik meant here was that a single release shouldn't be excluded from an MR just because it was released some years after.
    But if there were 15 versions in the original release year, and then three years later 10 versions all containing brand new remixes were released... then they should be concidered seperate MR's.

    But maybe this should depend on how many singles and albums an artist has done.
    If an artist has released 30 different singles, all with multiple versions.
    Wouldn't you rather just have one MR for each of them?
    But in Energy 52's case Cafe Del Mar was (almost) the only track they ever released... so making just one MR would really make no difference at all.
  • hmvh over 12 years ago

    mawiles
    If a new musical production and/or a remix pack is released several years after the original, it's for sure a new release, which is mostly reflected in the title as well.

    Most certainly so.

    The re-hashed version should be considered a different "body of work" (simply cannibalising a previous release).
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 12 years ago

    swattan
    Surely this (1990)

    http://www.discogs.com/Atahual...Imperio/master/33642

    and this (1999)

    http://www.discogs.com/Atahual...Imperio/master/33703

    are different...


    They are fine for the same Master Release.

    SeRKeT
    the timespan should not be what defines as acceptable for the MR as its essentially the same song , just different versions/mixes


    I agree.

    KrissO
    what about Ligaya (The Hardstyle Remixes) and Ligaya (The Remixes)? They are currently in the Gouryella - Ligaya MR (which is the only MR for that track). But both releases were released two years after the original release with two new remixes. Seperate MR? Look at the Gouryella profile, looks great.


    I agree, it makes sense in the context of the artist page, and is listed correctly on the remixers page, for example Colin Tevendale.

    schtel
    In one way I can see a reason to group 'similar' releases that form part of a concept, but I don't think original + remixes should appear as an MR unless they were released sequentially as part of a concept series and/or if the mixes/remixes are by the same artist as the MR.

    Artist releases a 12" tomorrow, next year some other artists remix them = 2 different releases and not the same. MR should be for same release variants, not track variants.


    The focus of MR should be on the artist page - what makes the most readable grouping of releases? I think remixes of singles / maxis do belong under the same MR as the original single, the time difference between releases shouldn't matter.

    Unint
    Somebody should figure out Energy 52. You could probably decide how to handle anything else from there.


    From what I can see, all versions of Cafe Del Mar should go in one MR.

    KrissO
    DJ Ton T.B. - Dream Machine 2009 remixes inside DJ Ton T.B. - Dream Machine MR or not?


    That belong in the MR.

    SeRKeT
    there's more one way round this argument, if the MR notes are used to explain some things for ex :
    this track was remixed in 1990-1995 etc, and maybe a little more info about some copies that have a bonus track (saves going into each sub to see which ones differ slightly)


    Yes yes yes please :-)

    Master Release notes are a gift of a function, I don't think enough of us realise that we can really make everything nice and usable with some short words in the notes.

    swattan
    My interpretation of MR is this:

    http://www.discogs.com/artist/U.S.U.R.A.

    On that page there are more examples

    Open Your Mind (12"), Open Your Mind (Remix) (12"), Open Your Mind '97, Open Your Mind (Album)


    Open Your Mind (12"), Open Your Mind (Remix) (12"), and Open Your Mind '97 belong in the same MR.

    PeterDeVilbis
    The 90's eurodance mixes were not released together with or shortly after the original 1985 poprock version.
    Is it really SO awful to create more than one MR?


    Time doesn't matter. That MR looks fine to me. The artists pages are concise Freddie Mercury Carl Ward.

    zevulon
    this comes down to differencies that can't be sorted by too simple rules.


    I'm trying to keep them simple. The guidelines will be reviewed and updated as needed, but I want to try to not have them cluttered - even at the moment, some folks don't read / absorb the short guidelines that are there :-) Ultimately, for MR, it is a subjective function, and I'll need to make a call on any problem examples on a case by case basis.

    fisonic
    I think, when those constellations (as far as they are clear) are merged, the loss of information is greater than the gain.
    The way zevulon proposed it, with mutual links between the separated MRs, could be an overall gain, in my opinion.

    But maybe trying to achieve this would make the guidelines too complicated and ambiguous? I'm somewhat uncertain whether it's practicable.


    Links between MR is a nice idea, but in practice, how many will go to the effort? In any case, the focus has to be clean artist discographies, as clean as possible I feel. The information isn't lost, it is just grouped for display and other purposes. this display can and very likely will be manipulated further down the line, either at Discogs, or via the AIP. Aiming for maximum use of MR is the best way for this, because the information can then be parsed out on certain criteria later on, creating sub groupings of Master Releases. If instead we are too particular about the MR function (and specifically I feel WRT singles / maxis and their remixes), the function is not as useful in this regard, as well as not cleaning the artist pages as well.
  • swattan over 12 years ago

    Ok, so this is the master release.

    Now i don't want open any flame, but what's the sense of it? How we can have "cleaned artist discographies" when he appears in 10000 compilations? How it could help me in a search? How it can help new buyers that come here to buy records?

    I can find it useful when there are more identical releases that was pressed in different countries, or promo/whitelabel with the same tracklist, but merge all releases under a 'similar' name it's not really nice to see... especially when some artist has done more tracks with the same name (i've seen it!!!)

    Well, i can accept it, i haven't problems at all, but what about new "buyers"? I think this is a thing a bit underestimate...
  • rhythmoflife.se over 12 years ago

    swattan
    but merge all releases under a 'similar' name it's not really nice to see... especially when some artist has done more tracks with the same name (i've seen it!!!)

    If they are different songs, they don't belong in the same MR. Give an example if you have found a faulty MR.

    swattan
    Now i don't want open any flame, but what's the sense of it? How we can have "cleaned artist discographies" when he appears in 10000 compilations?

    Don't really understand this? 10000 compilations? Who?

    swattan
    How it could help me in a search?

    Well I for one would find it perfect if I just bought a record that had 10+ different pressings, and searched for the title and got the master release as the top result. Then it's simply a matter of checking the list for the copy i bought, and add it to my collection. (Don't know if this actually is the case though)

    swattan
    How it can help new buyers that come here to buy records?

    Not sure, but I guess it doesn't make it harder for them. And discogs isn't all about buying/selling records anyway.
  • schtel over 12 years ago

    nik
    I think remixes of singles / maxis do belong under the same MR as the original single, the time difference between releases shouldn't matter.

    Yes, time difference not an issue. But I see remixes, especially by other artists, as different releases. I didn't know this was going to be the function of the MR. I thought it was for releases variants, different countries / represses / other editions, not track variants by other artists. Different edits by the same artist would be acceptable, although I understand the logic of grouping "all" associated releases, I don't agree with it. Just my opinion though.
  • SeRKeT over 12 years ago

    rhythmoflife.se
    Well I for one would find it perfect if I just bought a record that had 10+ different pressings, and searched for the title and got the master release as the top result. Then it's simply a matter of checking the list for the copy i bought, and add it to my collection. (Don't know if this actually is the case though)

    search for a title of a song then click on the first one that matches the artist , then you have the option in right hand corner to ''show all versions''(if its not the Key release)
    its only 2 clicks away, a great timesaver when there are 54 different copies of the release in question :))
    edit : typos LOL
  • -Ik- over 12 years ago

    is there a way to change the MR name?
    i have here an example of 2 remix versions of a song whose remix is indicated by the title => is it possible to change MR name to "Untitled"
    Blackjoy - Untitled (Original & Kerri Chandler Remix)
  • marcelrecords over 12 years ago

    I unfortunately do not see any possibility... Perhaps such a MR should be voted ''incorrect'', since it has a wrong title?
  • mawiles over 12 years ago

    Ok, nik, I see the reason of keeping the guideline simple, but I think putting issues together with years between just confuse and don't help. If someone looks for the new issue, he looks for that year on the artist page and doesn't find anything, because it's hided inside the original issue. I bet this will cause needless dupes.
  • fisonic over 12 years ago

    fisonic edited over 12 years ago
    nik
    The information isn't lost, it is just grouped for display and other purposes. this display can and very likely will be manipulated further down the line, either at Discogs, or via the API.

    The gain of information is the grouping itself. So, a different grouping inherently changes the information.
    If it would be possible to automatically decide which groupings made sense, there would be no necessity to manually compose MRs now.

    I don't think a computer system will ever be able to reliably retract that kind of sub-grouping information we are thinking of. (*)

    (I'm only mentioning it so that it can be taking in consideration. I'm not trying to change your mind, cause I really see the benefit of of a simple guideline on the other hand.)

    mawiles
    If someone looks for the new issue, he looks for that year on the artist page and doesn't find anything, because it's hided inside the original issue. I bet this will cause needless dupes.

    That could be solved with an optional flat-view.

    Edit:: (*) In contrast to schematic information, like sub-grouping by format, etc.
  • mjb over 12 years ago

    Based on nik's post above, it's looking like I shouldn't have been so conservative with some of the Master Releases I set up :

    The Beloved - Your Love Takes Me Higher = 1988-1989, standalone pre-Happiness album release; unremarkable artwork
    The Beloved - Your Love Takes Me Higher = 1990, post-Happiness release (same mixes +2 more; Happiness-style artwork)

    This kind of division seems natural to me. I feel like the label said in late 1988 "let's put out this song as a single", and soon there were several editions on the market in the UK & Europe and in the USA & Canada. Then a year later, after having released at least one other single and an album, they said "let's put this song out as a single again! We'll throw in a couple extra remixes on one or two of the records and we'll use the same kind of artwork as on the album. It'll sell twice as many as last time!" And so that's what they did, with editions appearing in the UK & Europe only.

    That said, it's just my first inclination. I don't feel particularly attached to this separation. If told to merge them, I will.

    A more drastic separation of dates made me feel even more like having the same kind of separation with these MRs:

    Beloved* - The Sun Rising = 1989-1990 releases
    The Beloved - The Sun Rising = 1997 re-release with new remixes

    ... but when I sought feedback from fellow Beloved collector fisonic, he said something to the effect of "I feel the same way, but I can't put my finger on a rule or even a guiding philosophy that justifies it."

    I have a feeling nik would say for each pair "these could go in the same MR" ... but should they? If yes, then I'll merge them immediately. I just want to make sure this is the way I'm supposed to be thinking about them.

    It gets tougher for me with "West End Girls". Here we have one composition which was recorded twice, with different producers:

    Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls = 1984 Bobby O production, mainly on Bobcat Records & ZYX
    Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls = 1985 Stephen Hague production, mainly on Parlophone/EMI

    I feel pretty strongly as a PSB collector that the two productions should be kept separate, and in fact I moved things around a bit to create this separation; it had originally been created with no such separation. But is this opinion shared by everyone?

    I'm increasingly indifferent about these, which are their own MRs or individual releases for now:

    Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls '86 = 1986 remixes of Bobby O production
    Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls (Mixes) = 1992 remixes of Bobby O production
    Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls = 1995 & 2001 reissue of Bobby O production & remixes
    Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls 2002 = 2002 remixes of Stephen Hague production, unofficial
    Paid Show Boys* - West End Girls = 2004 remix of Stephen Hague production, unofficial

    I know I could merge them into the groups above, but should I? Say the word and I will.

    I stumbled across this MR sjcee created:
    Robin Stone (2) - Show Me Love = every release/remix/reissue except the 2002 remixes

    He didn't include this release in the MR:
    Robin S* - Show Me Love (2002 Remixes) = the 2002 remixes

    I suspect he kept the 2002 remixes separate because the Robin S. profile says "Show Me Love" and "Luv 4 Luv" where [sic] re-released in 2002 with original mixes and new remixes. But these don't seem to be any different than any of the other mixes, conceptually. AFAICT, with the exception of a recent production that add extra vocals (non-Robin S) on top, they all just take the original 1990 vocal and add a new backing track. The 1992 mixes were the hit versions and tend to show up on the subsequent re-releases.

    I'm kind of afraid to step on toes and shove the 2002 mixes into the other MR without seeking consensus first, especially if there are people who would much rather see the main MR split up rather than being all-inclusive. So for now I only corrected a couple of errors and added the Notes to the first MR to explain all the waves of releases. Advice? Which way should we go with this? I assume the answer is going to be merge the 2002 mixes into the main MR, but I kind of want to be told that outright.
  • KrissO over 12 years ago

    mjb, so right now you have made four West End Girls MR's.
    They have quite a big discography... so they are an artist I would focus on creating as few MR's as possible.
    Reissues I would definately NOT give seperate MR's as the content doesn't have anything new. So rather put them in the Bobby O production and remix MR's respectively.
    But as far as I have seen so far we try to merge singles regardless of the year they were released (so this includes new remixes).
    I believe that would also make sense for Pet Shop Boys without it being forced.
    I could never force you to merge the two main MR's though, because I would assume the recordings sound quite different?
    Hopefully nik would want at least those two MR's too which I don't see impossible, let's wait and see :)
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    Hmm, tbh. I'm not a PSB specialist, but for me it seems quite difficult to understand why
    West End Girls (Extended Mix) and
    West End Girls
    are not folded in the same MR as
    - they have the same artwork
    - they have the same cat#
    the only difference is the mix on track A.

    Of course, for a PSB fan it's a crime to merge both versions in the same MR, but as a "regular consumer" of this site it would be logical for me to put them into the same MR.
  • SeRKeT over 12 years ago


    rassel
    it would be logical for me to put them into the same MR.

    especially when the notes can be used to explain the differences in some of the release contained in the MR like the mix on track A
  • fisonic over 12 years ago

    rassel
    why
    West End Girls and
    West End Girls
    are not folded in the same MR as

    Hmm? Strange: They are in the same MR, as far as I can see. And according to both release versions' histories they are since 3 days. (?)
  • maxxyme over 12 years ago

    fisonic
    They are in the same MR, as far as I can see.

    Can see this too.
  • rassel over 12 years ago

    Hmm, that's correct, probably I didn't pay too much attention, sorry.

    So this means, that Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls released 1986
    is in the same MR Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls as Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls (Extended Mix), all released 1984
    and not in this MR Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls (1985 and later) because it's just a reedit from the 1984 recording, and not a remix, correct?
  • mjb over 12 years ago

    Correct, but to clarify...

    As far as I know, the 1984 Bobby O production was one recording session, and the 1985 Stephen Hague version was another... they completely re-recorded the vocals, instruments, effects, everything from scratch. The Stephen Hague version isn't a remix or re-edit of the original. It's basically the same composition (although they did omit a verse from the new version), but it's not the same recording.

    After the Stephen Hague production became famous, ZYX cashed in with reissues & remixes of the Bobby O version. The question is just whether to include all of those ZYX reissues & remixes in the same MR as the original 1984 ones. (Although, I'm keeping the "West End - Sunglasses" medley separate...)
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 12 years ago

    -Ik-
    is there a way to change the MR name?
    i have here an example of 2 remix versions of a song whose remix is indicated by the title => is it possible to change MR name to "Untitled"
    Blackjoy* - Untitled (Original & Kerri Chandler Remix)


    No, the name has to be selected from one or other of the releases.

    I would venture that those two releases don't really need to be in a MR together, the artist page Black Joy isn't going to be clogged up with 2 entries rather than one there.

    fisonic
    The gain of information is the grouping itself. So, a different grouping inherently changes the information.


    I agree. That is one reason I felt the largest reasonable grouping is the best, because its then possible to extract smaller groups based on whatever criteria at a later date.

    fisonic
    If it would be possible to automatically decide which groupings made sense, there would be no necessity to manually compose MRs now.

    I don't think a computer system will ever be able to reliably retract that kind of sub-grouping information we are thinking of. (*)


    We did consider an automatic system, and users such as hmvh did extensive studies of this. It was ultimately decided that the manual method is the only way we could really get the most optimal groupings. Automatic methods were looked at for initial creation of the MRs as well, but this was ultimately too involved to program.

    mjb
    Based on nik's post above, it's looking like I shouldn't have been so conservative with some of the Master Releases I set up :

    Beloved, The - Your Love Takes Me Higher = 1988-1989, standalone pre-Happiness album release; unremarkable artwork
    Beloved, The - Your Love Takes Me Higher = 1990, post-Happiness release (same mixes +2 more; Happiness-style artwork)

    This kind of division seems natural to me. I feel like the label said in late 1988 "let's put out this song as a single", and soon there were several editions on the market in the UK & Europe and in the USA & Canada. Then a year later, after having released at least one other single and an album, they said "let's put this song out as a single again! We'll throw in a couple extra remixes on one or two of the records and we'll use the same kind of artwork as on the album. It'll sell twice as many as last time!" And so that's what they did, with editions appearing in the UK & Europe only.

    That said, it's just my first inclination. I don't feel particularly attached to this separation. If told to merge them, I will.


    I can see why you felt like you wanted to make the distinction, but I am not sure that the division works well on the artist page The Beloved. It feels fragmented to have two MRs of basically the same title, even if one grouping is the 'second bite of the cherry'. I don't feel making the distinction for re-releases is of benefit on the artist page, and I'd recommend merging those MRs.

    mjb
    A more drastic separation of dates made me feel even more like having the same kind of separation with these MRs:

    Beloved* - The Sun Rising = 1989-1990 releases
    Beloved, The - The Sun Rising = 1997 re-release with new remixes

    ... but when I sought feedback from fellow Beloved collector fisonic, he said something to the effect of "I feel the same way, but I can't put my finger on a rule or even a guiding philosophy that justifies it."

    I have a feeling nik would say for each pair "these could go in the same MR" ... but should they? If yes, then I'll merge them immediately. I just want to make sure this is the way I'm supposed to be thinking about them.


    They look fine for being in the same MR.

    mjb
    It gets tougher for me with "West End Girls". Here we have one composition which was recorded twice, with different producers:

    Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls = 1984 Bobby O production, mainly on Bobcat Records & ZYX
    Pet Shop Boys - West End Girls = 1985 Stephen Hague production, mainly on Parlophone/EMI

    I feel pretty strongly as a PSB collector that the two productions should be kept separate, and in fact I moved things around a bit to create this separation; it had originally been created with no such separation. But is this opinion shared by everyone?


    :-)

    I'd have them as one Master Release as well. Again, I can understand the reasons for wanting to separate them, but these are outweighed by the result on the artist page. The notes sections have been used well in those examples, and can simply be merged as well. This way we have one container for the whole thing, a good explanation of the differences, and a clean artist page.

    FWIW, I did feel a few months back that splitting off altered recordings would be the thing to do (the example I had in mind was the first two Ozzy albums, which have had their drums + bass re-recorded). Ultimately though, I took this out the guidelines, and I am glad I did. Master Release is a lumping function at the end of the day, and although it may make us think twice, generally the bigger lumps I feel serve the function better in most all cases.

  • KrissO over 12 years ago

    nik so what about artist pages like Energy 52 or Age Of Love? I would see no purpose of making one single MR when they have made only one single (well pretty much), because their artist pages are already one big MR from before.
    I already MR'ed Energy 52 (along with someone else) in a way I thought made sense. Is that fine or shouldn't artists like these with only one release have MR's at all?
  • Unint over 12 years ago

    KrissO
    I would see no purpose of making one single MR when they have made only one single (well pretty much), because their artist pages are already one big MR from before.


    I had more thoughts about this as well. Quoted from other thread:

    nik
    Just to make this clear; Master Release is not designed for the cognoscente, it is designed for the man-on-the-street that is interested in looking up and finding out more about a specific work.


    Wouldn't the man-on-the-street prefer to get some expert guidance on how these releases break down into 'groups' throughout the years, so as to, for example, get as many unique remixes as possible without overlap?

    There's the notes, sure, but you can hardly write useful notes for fifty or more releases in one MR.
  • mjb over 12 years ago

    Thanks for the guidance, nik. The single re-releases I can understand, despite their differences, so I'll make sure those get merged into a single MR.

    But I thought for sure you'd agree that the original recording of "West End Girls" deserved its own MR separate from the total re-recording. On the artist page there'd just be two "West End Girls" MRs. That doesn't seem at all troublesome to me, so long as the Notes explain what they are. What I don't like about merging is they don't integrate very cleanly; the different recordings will be somewhat haphazardly jumbled together. The notes will have to train people how to tell the difference between the recordings. But since you think it sets a bad precedent to keep them separate, I'll merge them.

    Now I'm wondering about how to handle La Bamba '87. It's like a remix (original vocals, new backing band), so that's not the problem. It's just that the original singles put "Donna" on the A-side. "La Bamba" was a B-side until much later reissues which swapped the sides. Funny, I'm starting to sound like Kergillian here, but which is correct?

    1. Three MRs:
    MR for "Donna / La Bamba"
    MR for "La Bamba '87"
    MR for "La Bamba / Donna"

    2. Two MRs:
    MR for "Donna / La Bamba" and "La Bamba / Donna" combined
    MR for "La Bamba '87"

    3. Two MRs:
    MR for "Donna / La Bamba"
    MR for "La Bamba '87" and "La Bamba / Donna" combined

    4. One MR:
    MR for "Donna / La Bamba" and "La Bamba '87" and "La Bamba / Donna" combined

    #4 & #2 seem bad because they eliminate "Donna" as a single.
    #3 seems iffy but more in line with past discussion.
    #1 seems safe but isn't as inclusive as you'd like.
  • mjb over 12 years ago

    Bumping this as I'm still unsure what to do about Donna/La Bamba. I'm inclined toward #1 and will proceed with that if there are no objections.

    KrissO and Unint, re: artists which have only one single, I think it's a good idea to go ahead and create a Master Release because of the effect it will have on the artist pages of any other people appearing on those releases.
  • Staff 3.4k

    nik over 12 years ago

    I'm ok for #1 there mjb

    I think the artist page Ritchie Valens needs some attention though, as those singles look like they are all double A sides

Log In You must be logged in to post.