Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <123> |
| Author | ||
Slartibartfast 
Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
 Posted: July 13 2008 at 07:07 |
|
OK, what wise guy admin has done gone and altered the name of my dad-gummed thread?  I was thinking of changing it to "Where do I stick it?" Since I have the power, I may just have to do that.  Well, let me toss out this thought. Should the first CD version of TFTS be given a separate entry from the LP as the omission of Closet Chronicles was quite a serious one? I mean, if they'd left off Carry On Wayward Son, that wouldn't have been too bad, but I find that a severe alteration from the original LP. Still, I sit here in limbo. I did my 200th album review of the 30th anniversary edition of TFTS under the original album entry. I suppose I'm just going to be left hanging here. I'd really like my 200th to go some place definitive, even if I don't get first reviewer's honors. I'm almost satisfied with my solution of putting it both places. Hey, glad I could spark a broader debate though when my simple post was just about how can I delete a review (or have someone with higher authority delete if for me) that may have not been placed where it belongs? Maybe I should lay my weary head to rest and just go and enjoy the album. Edited by Slartibartfast - July 13 2008 at 07:34 |
||
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
||
 |
||
|
Angelo
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: May 07 2006 Location: Italy Status: Offline Points: 13244 |
Posted: July 13 2008 at 13:26 |
|
|
Personally, as a former (albeit short lived) E&O collab, I think we should stick to past policy here. The arguments so far haven't convinced me - yes, there are bonus tracks, and yes the release has a gotten a new number from the record company, but it's still the same album. With a full CD of bonus tracks, that's as much a slack as I would take on this.
Having two separate entries is incosistent, as M@X and others have been trying to avoid, and I find it a bit silly to see TFTS 30th anniversary as a the only(!) 5.00 star album on the front page, while it consists of old material that is rated at 4.01 stars, plus some unreleased and unreviewed bonus material. That must be some unreleased material the guys found in the basement....  Haven't checked (yet), but I think Joolz has written down the policy in the Album Data Standards (available as a sticky in the collab zone) - almost two years ago. Edited by Angelo - July 13 2008 at 13:28 |
||
|
ISKC Rock Radio
I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
||
|
||
|
Tuzvihar
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 18 2005 Location: C. Schinesghe Status: Offline Points: 13536 |
Posted: July 13 2008 at 13:44 |
|
|
Let me quote my post. It was the last one on the previous page so it might have gone unnoticed.
|
||
|
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."
Charles Bukowski |
||
|
||
|
ClassicRocker
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: March 02 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 894 |
Posted: July 13 2008 at 16:28 |
|
Angelo, IMO it's not exactly "silly" that this completely overhauled album has been receiving much better reviews than the previous ("incomplete") issue. It seems to be just that the change is truly significant, and your observation is evidence of a necessity for different entries. This is the same point I was making earlier, with The Who's Live At Leeds. Yes, some "basement" material really can be that eye-opening and experience-changing.  IMPORTANTI think it is interesting to note that (our other overlord) ProgLucky doesn't seem to have an issue adding multiple releases to the database, even with just a few bonus tracks tacked on to the end. I'm surprised this discussion didn't pop up sooner, considering we have The Best Of Kansas and then The Best Of Kansas! BTW, that is neither a typo nor the same entry . ... Well, I guess we have a precedent now, don't we?  Edited by ClassicRocker - July 13 2008 at 16:33 |
||
|
||
|
||
|
Tuzvihar
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 18 2005 Location: C. Schinesghe Status: Offline Points: 13536 |
Posted: July 13 2008 at 17:26 |
|
When someone adds an album through the admin zone and doesn't input his/her name in the box then Proglucky is put by default. Edited by Tuzvihar - July 13 2008 at 17:32 |
||
|
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."
Charles Bukowski |
||
|
||
|
ClemofNazareth
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk Researcher Joined: August 17 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4659 |
Posted: July 13 2008 at 17:33 |
|
ProgLucky may not have actually added those albums himself, since his name is used by default in some cases. That said, there are others precedents, such as the Klaatu, Spirit and Babe Ruth albums that were reissued verbatim as 'double' albums. We had another with ‘Wee Tam’ and ‘The Big Huge’ from Incredible String Band that was released in combined form in the U.S. and as separate albums in the UK. These were originally listed separately here, then combined, and then separated again. And what about Bo Hansson’s albums, which are listed separately under their Swedish and their U.S. released. And what about Genesis ‘From Genesis to Revelation’ and its 1998 counterpart ‘The Original Album’? So I don’t think there is really a firm policy enforced, even if one was written at one time. A better comparison though IMHO is ‘A Candle for Judith’, which is listed under the band ‘The Way We Live’ in its original form, and under Tractor in its reissued form (with some additional tracks). In this case I agree with the two listings for the same reason I stated earlier for ‘Two for the Show’ – the resulting reviews and ratings should be completely different since the intent of the two issues and their content are pretty distinct. I think maybe there should be some deference shown to the few Kansas fan members here who are probably the best ‘judges’ of the relative merits of these two releases. |
||
|
"Peace is the only battle worth waging."
Albert Camus |
||
|
||
|
debrewguy
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: April 30 2007 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 3596 |
Posted: July 13 2008 at 18:59 |
|
|
It's a good thing that AC/DC is not on this site. Some people would be arguing that any one album's reviews could essentially be applied to the rest of their output just by changing titles
.
|
||
|
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
||
|
||
|
ClassicRocker
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 02 2007 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 894 |
Posted: July 13 2008 at 19:52 |
|
|
Thanks for the heads-up Tuzhivar and Clem, I had no idea that "Proglucky" isn't always Proglucky!
Anyways, I wasn't really looking for doubles specifically, I just happened to stumble upon those entries while looking at the Kansas page. When it comes down to it with all of those examples, Clem, it sounds like this whole issue is just a case-by-case basis. I guess the double entries are acceptable only when they either A) go unnoticed, or B) seem to have sufficient reason for whomever decides this shtuff. I suppose it is also much easier to make a policy that doesn't provide for double entries, rather than a vague one that has some grey area with the conditions... |
||
|
|
||
|
||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: July 13 2008 at 22:54 |
|
Under the present system you can't. You have to throw out the earlier one for the latter. Which is my compliant about the policy. When an album changes so much that the earlier review becomes irrelevant to the new release we do our readers a disservice.
|
||
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
||
|
||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: July 13 2008 at 23:29 |
|
I would suggest you listen to the first one and then listen to just disk one of this even without disk 2 and tell me you think reviews of the first were relevant to the second. However Disk two was found on the same master real as the first so in essence it is a whole different album. The original was really 1/2 an album. These tracks do not have less quality in fact in some cases it is way more. Glixman had far more leeway from those tracks on disk 2 than he did form the first. Yet still there are vibes and guitar and keyboard parts you can't hear in the original mix on disk 1. There are even firecrackers in Dust in the Wind that I thought was someone on stage dropping a hand held percussion instrument on the original mix.
 If I can hear those with these 50+ year old damaged ears than someone much less hearing challenged could hear even more.
 But I will never convince anyone unless they listen to both. I fear we lose this arguments people that pick up the old version on eBay will be mightily disappointed and people may steer clear of the new one based on the old reviews.
|
||
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
||
|
||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 08:41 |
|
|
I still stand behind my position of there not being a new entry for this version (weakly). I can't go back and listen to the original LP version, I didn't buy and won't bother with the first CD version. And I must say how pleasantly surprised I am how well this new release is doing. It will probably go down in history as the most impressive reissue of an album simply for the sheer volume of bonus tracks that should have been included in the original album in the first place. I'm guessing that a four disc set from the band at that time would not have done too well.
|
||
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
||
|
||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 11:03 |
|
|
^ 4 album set. I can't think of any groups who did that except maybe Chicago. Three seemed to be the limit. Besides the Label wanted a "Greatest Hits" live package which explains some of the disjointed song order.
On to your point but you know both the band and album so you would know what to look for. I look at higher service to people who may be researching the band (or any band for that matter) for the first time. I think a re release of this significance should give its own slot.
I will repeat this if something just goes under a re-master and throws 1-4 bonus tracks that are (probably of questionable quality anyway) on there then no that should not get its own selection. I would say that for all the other remaster series in Kansas set except this one. Take Song For America for example, brilliant remix but two bonus songs. One a live Down the Road and the other the single remix of the title track by Don Kirshner (sounds like a record skipping). Does this change the original in any way other than better sound? No and it should not receive a new slot.
|
||
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
||
|
||
|
jimmy_row
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 11 2007 Location: Hibernation Status: Offline Points: 2601 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 11:49 |
|
|
I don't have it yet
 (I'll order today I promise), but my opinion is that any time the material is doubled (close enough here...someone said 2 minutes short?) this warrants a new release...in addition I agree with Garion's point that the remix changes the overall sound (again...haven't heard it yet but my experience is that remixes can completely change one's view of an album...especially those who are more particular about things). On it's own, that probably wouldn't be enough, but since there is so much new material, and what was actually there sounds different, you will see a significant change in opinion which has shown in the rating difference between the two versions (I can't tell you have great it is to actually see KANSAS in the most popular spot...at this site? ). So...tally me up with Bob and Garion.
|
||
|
||
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15585 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 12:41 |
|
|
Tuz, Re the Sylvian/Fripp collaboration. The conclusion in the past has usually been that such albums should be listed as being by a separate band. The site policy is certainly to only lsit an album once, so unless one is the dominant partner here, I think that's the way we should go.
|
||
|
||
|
Tuzvihar
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 18 2005 Location: C. Schinesghe Status: Offline Points: 13536 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 14:01 |
|
Then we should delete the current entries (saving the reviews somewhere in case the reviewers want to resubmit them) and introduce a "new artist", Robert Fripp and David Sylvian, and add their joint albums into this new entry, right? What subgenre would you suggest for them? Xover?
Yes, I think that noone is overly dominant here (although I suggested Sylvian in my previous post). Regarding the policy you mentioned (one entry for an album) I think that we've got to sort this issue finally Any other ideas? |
||
|
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."
Charles Bukowski |
||
|
||
|
Easy Livin
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: February 21 2004 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15585 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 14:39 |
|
|
Cheers Tuz. Perhaps the genre team(s) responsible for Sylvian and Fripp could comment on whether they are happy for the two together to be added to one of those genre(s). |
||
|
||
|
rushfan4
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2007 Location: Michigan, U.S. Status: Offline Points: 66264 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 15:08 |
|
|
I would like to add another album to the discussion that falls under similar circumstances. In 1993, the Moody Blues released A Night At Red Rocks with the Colorado Symphony Orchestra as 1 CD and 15 songs. In 2002, they released the deluxe edition which now includes all 23 songs from this concert. I believe that the PA listing for this CD only includes the original release information for the 15 songs instead of all 23 songs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 17:46 |
|
Angelo, IMO it's not exactly "silly" that this completely overhauled album has been receiving much better reviews than the previous ("incomplete") issue. It seems to be just that the change is truly significant, and your observation is evidence of a necessity for different entries. This is the same point I was making earlier, with The Who's Live At Leeds. Yes, some "basement" material really can be that eye-opening and experience-changing. IMPORTANTI think it is interesting to note that (our other overlord) ProgLucky doesn't seem to have an issue adding multiple releases to the database, even with just a few bonus tracks tacked on to the end. I'm surprised this discussion didn't pop up sooner, considering we have The Best Of Kansas and then The Best Of Kansas! BTW, that is neither a typo nor the same entry . ... Well, I guess we have a precedent now, don't we? [/QUOTE] That album should never have been entered twice. I reviewed the first copy of it and updated my review to include info about the remaster release with 3 added tracks on them. Ironically enough one of them was the track left off of the first Two For the Show CD.
I really think we need to address these things on a case by case basis.
|
||
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
||
|
||
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam Joined: April 29 2006 Location: Atlantais Status: Offline Points: 29630 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 19:04 |
|
|
I don't think "best of" albums should be entered at all, no matter how much I like the artist.
.
|
||
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
||
|
||
|
Garion81
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: May 22 2004 Location: So Cal, USA Status: Offline Points: 4338 |
Posted: July 14 2008 at 19:32 |
|
|
^ Perfect.
But to be clear "best of" as opposed to other compilations.
|
||
|
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
||
|
||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Policy Discussion(was-Kansas Two For The Show30th)
Topic Options
Easy Livin wrote:
