• brandejo 3 months ago

    I've been watching a few users go back and forth with the recent pressing of the Andrew Weatherall mixes of the Warpaint "The Fool" album. Curious what others think about adding this to the master release vs it being its own separate release?
    link: https://www.discogs.com/Warpaint-The-Fool-Andrew-Weatherall-Mix/release/19109644
  • Violent-Power 3 months ago

    I have no idea, but Fabmar44 removed it twice from the MR without explaing why and they should chime in here.
  • allerhande 3 months ago

    Looks like they are the same recordings, but different order and mix: same Master release.
  • G.t.D. 3 months ago

    RSG §16.2.1. -> The guidelines are clear about this. Warpaint - The Fool (Andrew Weatherall Mix) MUST be added to the master release Warpaint - The Fool. If user Fabmar44 continues this ridiculous game of back and forth, he should be reported.
  • Pheenixx 3 months ago

    Should be separate IMO. If it was the original album with a bonus disc of remixes added on extra then, fine, same MR. But this has, for all intents and purposes, completely different tracks on it and is quite clearly a separate entity. Other remix albums on the db get separate MRs, why should this be different?

    Massive Attack V Mad Professor - No Protection
    Chapterhouse Retranslated By Global Communication - Blood Music: Pentamerous Metamorphosis
    Goldfrapp - We Are Glitter
    Soulwax - Nite Versions
  • brandejo 3 months ago

    The main reason I don't think those examples can be used here is that those are albums where someone external to the original recording remixed the tracks. Andrew Weatherall mixed the original album and these were basically unreleased mixes of the tracks he did that they are releasing for the first time. So this would be akin to a directors cut of a movie, rather than a remix album.
  • ZJ_AJ 3 months ago

    So it seems to me that the guidelines are vague. In my way of thinking, they apply mainly to singles, where two singles issued close to each other with different remixes on them should be part of the same MR, but incorrectly to albums, where (as in this case) what is effectively a remix album should likely not be part of the same MR. They're really different beasts. I'd vote for keeping this out of Warpaint - The Fool.

    G.t.D.
    RSG §16.2.1. -> The guidelines are clear about this. [It] MUST be added to the master release

    In fact, the guidelines are nowhere near that clear, and there is no reasonable way to interpret "will probably be eligible" to mean "MUST."

    Pheenixx
    Should be separate IMO.

    +1
  • ZJ_AJ 3 months ago

    brandejo
    The main reason I don't think those examples can be used here is that those are albums where someone external to the original recording remixed the tracks. Andrew Weatherall mixed the original album and these were basically unreleased mixes of the tracks he did that they are releasing for the first time. So this would be akin to a directors cut of a movie, rather than a remix album.

    The reason I don't like this line of argument is that Weatherall was not in fact the "director" of The Fool - only two of his mixes were used in the original release, whereas other people mixed the other seven tracks. I will concede that this new offering consists more of "different mixes" than traditional "remixes" perhaps, but this goes beyond bonus tracks, or remastering - I'm assuming they sound different enough to be worth releasing separately.

    It's nice that they wanted to honor Weatherall after his death with this release, but I still think it veers closer to "remix album" than "remastered album."
  • Pheenixx 3 months ago

    brandejo
    The main reason I don't think those examples can be used here is that those are albums where someone external to the original recording remixed the tracks. Andrew Weatherall mixed the original album and these were basically unreleased mixes of the tracks he did that they are releasing for the first time. So this would be akin to a directors cut of a movie, rather than a remix album.

    Don't agree, sorry.
  • Damien_DiAngelo 3 months ago

    Remixes of albums have always been allowed in the same MR. The Genesis and The Beatles Remixes are two examples right off the top of my head.

    They are still the same recordings, just remixed.
  • themagictouch 3 months ago

    ZJ_AJ
    In my way of thinking, they apply mainly to singles, where two singles issued close to each other with different remixes on them should be part of the same MR, but incorrectly to albums

    This doesn't have any basis in the MR guidelines.

    Let's look at the RSG §16.2.1 criteria.

    Has the same artwork (including derivatives); --- the artwork is a derivative
    Has the same tracklisting (the same recordings or versions, not totally different recordings); --- these are remixed versions of the same recording
    Has the same release title (including translations); --- the title is essentially the same (in fact, I'm not even sure that Andrew Weatherall Mix is part of the title based on the images on the release page - what appears on the spine?)
    Is a re-release, promo, colored vinyl edition, special edition, instrumental version, remix, multilingual release version (for example, Kraftwerk's Computer World) or other such variation. --- it's a remixed version

    It clearly fulfills three of the criteria and probably should be considered to fulfill all four. I think these should be in the same MR.

    However, looking at the page, Warpaint - The Fool / Exquisite Corpse Ep actually doesn't belong in the MR due to RSG §16.2.3. "If a release partially belongs to two or more Master releases, it should not be added to them." This should be removed from the MR.
  • hatfulofelt 3 months ago

    I vote same MR.
  • needle_damage 3 months ago

    As stated prior this clearly meets the existing Discogs guidelines as I read them:

    It has the same title -- there is no mention of Weatherall anywhere on the artwork (front, spine or back). It's only on the hype sticker (which is marketing, not official title) and in the liner notes.

    The artwork is derivative of the original album art.

    Contains the same tracks (though a slightly different order)

    Is indeed remixed versions of the songs -- and these are not reworks (dance style remixes) or reimagined tracks, they are from the same sessions. Simply a different mix of the same album. Anyone that knows anything about how records are made would see this is nothing more than an alternate mix that at the time was deemed not as good as the first release -- likely by the label.

    Per all of that I can't see why not to add to Master Release, not to mention the next guideline reads: "16.2.2. Master release is intended to contain as many releases as reasonable."

    Which I read as if there's any question we err of the side of adding not excluding from the MR.
  • themagictouch 3 months ago

    needle_damage
    Per all of that I can't see why not to add to Master Release, not to mention the next guideline reads: "16.2.2. Master release is intended to contain as many releases as reasonable."

    Then it breathes cold air on that in the next sentence by saying that "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," so who knows which side you're supposed to err on. The MR guidelines are terribly written in general. Still, this seems like a case where same MR is clearly the correct answer.

    Do I understand from your post that you have a copy? If so, you should add a picture of the spine to the release page. I think the title should just be The Fool unless Andrew Weatherall Mix is written on the spine. We usually don't derive titles from stickers, and even if we did, Andrew Weatherall Mix doesn't appear to be part of the title as it's written on the sticker.
  • ZJ_AJ 3 months ago

    ZJ_AJ
    In my way of thinking, they apply mainly to singles, where two singles issued close to each other with different remixes on them should be part of the same MR, but incorrectly to albums

    themagictouch
    This doesn't have any basis in the MR guidelines.

    I never said it did. Re-read what I wrote - I am not disputing the application of the guideline, I am disputing its value when applied to albums like this.

    themagictouch
    quotes entire guideline unnecessarily

    Don't be snide. I clearly read the guideline. What I'm saying is that even if it fulfills x% of those criteria, maybe it shouldn't be in that MR regardless. The guideline is vague enough to allow for that.

    needle_damage
    "16.2.2. Master release is intended to contain as many releases as reasonable." Which I read as if there's any question we err of the side of adding not excluding from the MR.

    If you're going to quote something, be complete, please. RSG §16.2.2 also states, "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." Which is incompatible with your interpretation above.

    If I bought The Fool (Andrew Weatherall Mix), I would not look in the same MR as The Fool to add it to my collection, and I would be surprised to find it there. I'm not the only one.
  • hatfulofelt 3 months ago

    themagictouch
    The MR guidelines are terribly written in general.

    There's a recent project to change this, we'll see.

    In general, there's no right or wrong answer to this specific topic as it pertains to this release.
  • needle_damage 3 months ago

    Well, as others have suggested we could also have a lively conversation about the actual title of this album, as the only place it says "Andrew Weatherall Mix" is on the hype sticker and in the fine print/liner notes inside. I could easily argue *that* should be removed, which perhaps would make all of this a bit easier for folks. I will indeed add a photo of the spine (is anyone in this thread who doesn't have the album in hand??). I have no idea why anyone would describe this as contentious or confusing. This is a remixed album, as opposed to a 'remix album'. This release meets 4/4 of the listed requirements and according to the (somewhat poorly written) guidelines only needs 2. So I honestly don't know what the issue is.
  • themagictouch 3 months ago

    ZJ_AJ
    Don't be snide. I clearly read the guideline. What I'm saying is that even if it fulfills x% of those criteria, maybe it shouldn't be in that MR regardless. The guideline is vague enough to allow for that.

    I find this post pointlessly rude. I analyzed the release in the context of the listed criteria because that's what the guidelines tell you to do. Here we are, with it fulfilling 100% of those criteria, and you're putting an enormous amount of weight on the "probably" in RSG §16.2.1 - far more weight than it can bear. Sure, that "probably" leaves just enough room for you to insist that a release should not be in an MR based on nothing but your personal preference, but I am very doubtful that the point of the "probably" is to leave room for people to assert that their personal preferences should trump the guidelines.

    needle_damage
    (is anyone in this thread who doesn't have the album in hand??).

    I've never even heard of this band before.
  • hatfulofelt 3 months ago

    needle_damage
    (is anyone in this thread who doesn't have the album in hand??).

    Ha, I don't own it - perhaps I should.

    needle_damage
    So I honestly don't know what the issue is.

    Hence the existence of this thread, since clearly there's some opposition.
  • needle_damage 3 months ago

    I'll rest my case on the fact that the hype sticker says:
    (in gold)
    WARPAINT
    The Fool
    (in black)
    LIMITED EDITION
    ANDREW WEATHERALL MIX
    RECORD STORE DAY 2021

    In other words there is a clear difference on the label hype sticker between the album artist/title, and the marketing copy.

    And if anyone has any best practices for taking a photo of the spine I'd love to hear it. My attempts so far have been less than satisfactory.
  • hatfulofelt 3 months ago

    Most things here are spineless. *groans*
  • ZJ_AJ 3 months ago

    themagictouch
    I find this post pointlessly rude.

    Touché, I guess.

    themagictouch
    You're putting an enormous amount of weight on the "probably" in RSG §16.2.1 - far more weight than it can bear. Sure, that "probably" leaves just enough room for you to insist that a release should not be in an MR based on nothing but your personal preference

    I might agree with you if it was only my personal preference. But it clearly isn't, so let's not delegitimize it so casually.

    I don't own this recording so I can't see the spine, but I do know its history and reason for being, and I feel like it's intended to be its own thing, similar to The Beatles - Let It Be... Naked. The problem is that the guidelines are vague enough to support both interpretations, which is something people seem hesitant to admit for some reason. I wouldn't move it out of the MR if I saw it in there, but if I were creating it myself, I wouldn't put it in there.
  • hatfulofelt 3 months ago

    ZJ_AJ
    The problem is that the guidelines are vague enough to support both interpretations, which is something people seem hesitant to admit for some reason.

    I think things are often, not always, written to be open for interpretation. Which is why I feel some won't be as "updatable" as others, because any attempt at clarity will only create more confusion. Hence these forum debates.
  • brandejo 3 months ago

    needle_damage
    So I honestly don't know what the issue is.


    I own the record, both original and the RSD version and the only reason I created this thread was because I saw the edit war going on and generally the forum is the place to go to resolve edit wars. I don't honestly care whether it's part of the MR or not, but my general opinion was that it should be under the MR.

    I find these discussions about the guidelines pretty funny given how badly written the guidelines generally are, but I enjoy reading them nonetheless.
  • aldoxzx 3 months ago

    Same MR imho.
  • Relvet 3 months ago

    No doubt in my mind, same MR
  • brandejo 3 months ago

    Upon completion of the recording of The Fool, Andrew Weatherall was given access to the album's master tapes to work on mixes for the finished record. The track "Baby", along with Warpaint's iconic single "Undertow", were both mixed by the Guv'nor and appeared on the finished album that was released in 2010. For the first time ever, this Record Store Day edition brings together all the mixes Weatherall created while working on the project, including a never released before, finished version of "Jubilee".
  • Relvet 3 months ago

    brandejo
    Upon completion of the recording of The Fool, Andrew Weatherall was given access to the album's master tapes to work on mixes for the finished record. The track "Baby", along with Warpaint's iconic single "Undertow", were both mixed by the Guv'nor and appeared on the finished album that was released in 2010. For the first time ever, this Record Store Day edition brings together all the mixes Weatherall created while working on the project, including a never released before, finished version of "Jubilee".

    Yes, exactly. It goes in the same MR.
  • Silvermo 3 months ago

    I would place it in the same MR
  • ZJ_AJ 3 months ago

    OK, it seems like most people who feel like weighing in feel that it belongs in the same MR.

    Does the same logic apply to The Beatles - Let It Be... Naked then? Do all of those entries belong in The Beatles - Let It Be instead? Directly derivative artwork, remixed versions of the same recordings, essentially the same title...?

Log In You must be logged in to post.