Policy Discussion(was-Kansas Two For The Show30th)
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Site News, Newbies, Help and Improvements
Forum Name: Report errors & omissions here
Forum Description: Seen a mistake in a band bio etc then please tell us
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=50066
Printed Date: November 30 2024 at 09:23
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Policy Discussion(was-Kansas Two For The Show30th)
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Subject: Policy Discussion(was-Kansas Two For The Show30th)
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 19:08
|
I reviewed this one under the original album. Just saw that a separate entry was made for the 30th anniversary edition. I copied my review over to that one, so please delete the one under the original album.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Replies:
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 20:24
|
Actually, on the same subject, there is a minor error with the album entry. It's not track #9 (Down The Road) that was on the LP and then omitted from the original CD release, rather track #8 (Closet Chronicles). Minor error, so I didn't think it warranted its own topic. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 20:37
|
^Plus the thread title was loose enough for that to make perfect sense.
I, of course, never make errors when I post albums, yeah right.  ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 22:28
Yes, thank you for letting me sortakinda hijack your thread. (And of course not!  )-------------
|
Slartibartfast wrote:Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 22:44
And while we await our corrections, here's something funny from Jen Sorensen... ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 23:25
|
I added the album and sorry for the reference to track 9 you are correct it was track 8. I think the release was significantly changed to warrant a new release. If I am incorrect please change it but I think the major additions to the album warrant a new release rather than adding to the existing release. If anyone disagree I will listen?
In other words let the reviews of the first one stand and review this one as its own entity.
------------- 
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 10 2008 at 23:33
I would suggest you review this one on its own with the 11 song bonus disk with the remaster on the first cd. The comparison to the original is not even close.
 -------------
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: E-Dub
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 09:09
|
I picked it up yesterday and the quality is top notch. I'll spin the second disc here shortly, but you can't deny that first disc...with "Mysteries And Mayhem" being one of the best live tracks I've ever heard. Cool to see that old album art again, too. Also like the fact that there was no post-production tinkering or overdubs for this. E ------------- 
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 11:10
I could have worded that a little better. I reviewed the 30th Anniversary Edition under the original album's entry before you added the 30th as a new entry. I went back and blanked out my review under the original album. I suppose I could go back and review the LP. Oddly enough I still show up as having 201 reviews. Wonder if that will correct itself? I am a little cheesed that you got first review honors when I was actually first. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 13:18
|
We've been quite strict on this in the past. mailto:M@x - M@x ruled that re-issues of albums should nto be listed separately, but that bonus tracks should simply be detailed in the original entry. For example, Jethro Tull's "This was" was recently re-issued in deluxe form with a second disc, and this has simply been detailed as part of the original entry.
My concern is that we are setting a precedent here, which others will cite for future additions. How do we distinguish when a re-release is different enough to warrant a separate entry. By the number of bonus tracks, their length, their quality, their relevance, etc.?
I'm happy for this to be debated here before we come to any final conclusion though.
|
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 13:27
|
I'm with you on that. That's why my I placed my review under the
original TFTS entry. Is there much difficulty in merging the new
reviews under the new entry into the old one?
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 13:44
Bob,
here is my take on this.
If an album has been retitled as this has i.e. new catalog number and has sufficiently changed that the reviews of the original become irrelevant then I think a new entry is warranted.
You cannot in all good conscience review the first release and say you know what this one will sound like and vise versa. In fact I think it is misleading to review the first CD and link it to this release.
If the album undergoes a straight digital conversion and throws a few songs in the mix then no because it is not changing the original significantly. This one where they brought in a producer to remix and remaster plus add an entire new disk to the mix is. The "bonus tracks" were taken form the same tape that had all the originals on it so in my mind this is a new release.
I also added another one in Kerry Livgrens Collectors Sediton because he actually re rerecorded the entire CD changing it significantly. There is no way you can listen to the first and say oh yeah it is just like this one. I feel the same about this one.
I think you can make a case for Who's next because they placed all the Lifehouse material on that disk as well. That Tull CD is another good example. Maybe a case by case is warranted.
-------------
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 18:45
|
I'm going to have to take an opposing view for these reasons: 1. The reviews of the original aren't irrelevant to this release as it has all the tracks from the original LP and when or if they get this version, they can certainly update their review. 2. The minutes of bonus material don't exceed minutes of original album material. 3. Nothing in the cover art or on the CDs labels identify it as anything other than Two For The Show, you have to go into the booklet before it gets referred to as the 30th Anniversary Edition 4. Steven Wilson remastered and remixed Porcupine Tree's Up The Downstair, even replacing the drum machine with a real drummer, added a bonus disc of material that wasn't included on the original and still both versions only have one entry. To me this is an expanded and certainly the definitive edition of TFTS, since Closet Chronicles was omitted from the first CD issue (boo!). Well, at least I waited until this release to get it. But it's still TFTS. Man, don't you wish they had filmed a concert on one of those tours that the album was made from? As far as I know the earliest filmed concert was the one with Elefante replacing Walsh. What do you know bro? Anything lurking out there in some vault? Garion my wayward son. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 19:46
You have the right to your opinion even if it is wrong.
  I don't think the orginial even sounds like this one anymore. It is like comparing a Blackberrry to rotary dialed phone.
My ansewer to 2 is that the bonus material is 2 minute less than the original cut version (if that makes any sense
). You do make a good point about Steve Wilson although in my opinion it should be added separately.
Yes I am surprised it wasn't filmed at some point considering how big they were from 76 ot 78. This must have been one of the most unfilmed bands of the decade. The only thing they have from the 70's is already out there on Sail On. It is sad that the only live concert footage is the Kirshner shows.
There is that one from 1980 Audio Visions tour that could be cleaned up and released but I don't know what the legal issues are with that material. It is a complete concert in Houston Texas with a half way decent set list. They also play mask of the Great Deceiver and some lame song from Schemer Dreamer.
The bootleg that is out on it looks like it was taken from a video tape machine that bounces all over the place. It is terrible. -------------
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 11 2008 at 21:11
|
Well, to heck with it! I've got my review back in both places, bwahahahahah! You have made a precedent that surely destroy this site and the universe. But you know I can't seriously go back and do a different review for the LP version, I haven't heard it in years and I am quite happy with what they've done with it. If I were only allowed to own one Kansas album, this would be it. Consider the case of Nektar Live At The Roundhouse. They dropped what was on the second side of the original LP (recorded live in the studio) and then added a s-load of stuff that was never on the original LP or CD. There's one that was certainly worthy of getting it's own entry. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date Posted: July 12 2008 at 02:55
I apologize in advance for my late entry to this discussion, the length of my post, and any errors... upon posting this it's 2am over here 
I see your concerns Bob, but I must say that I am glad this is open for discussion  . I do not own Jethro Tull's new deluxe release of This Was , but, if I may make a point with it, here is the product description on Amazon.com: Product Description 2008 two CD 40th Anniversary collector's edition of Jethro Tull debut album. Disc One contains the mono version of the album, which has never been available on CD, plus nine BBC tracks from sessions which relate to the album. Disc Two features a new stereo mix of the album plus four bonus tracks from rare early singles: 'Sunshine Day', 'Song For John Gee', 'Love Story' and 'Christmas Song'. This release also features new liner notes and anecdotes from the band members. This Was originally reached #10 in the UK charts, partly thanks to great airplay from BBC Radio DJ John Peel. 35 tracks. EMI. Note that the 4 rare early singles are the only tracks referred to as "bonus tracks". These were all previously released (although rare, they were available as singles at one time). With the rest of the album, we have a brand new, unreleased mono mix included, and a new stereo mix. IMO, a remix is much more significant than a remaster (they appear to me at least to be two different terms). To me, a remaster refers to something more simple, such as removing hiss/odd noises or increasing/decresing volume levels of the original recording. A remix is an overhaul; the song actually sounds noticeably different to someone who is familiar with the original, which can include minor to major changes in specifics such as speed or equalization (making some instruments "come out more" that were previously "in the background", for example). Although I realize there is some grey area, hopefully you can understand the general guidelines with which I'm trying to split the two. Back to Tull. So I'm also unsure if the BBC tracks are all unreleased (could be some, or none at all...), but assuming they are all unreleased, that means out of the 35 tracks of this edition of This Was, 31 of them are brand new. Even if the BBC have all been available before, the original album is included in two totally new sounds/masters, which in all fairness could easily impact one's rating on the album and how/what they hear within the recording. IMO, other albums such as PT's Up The Downstair, with all the drums entirely replaced sounds like a big enough change alone to affect one's rating. 5.1 remixes also offer a different perspective on the music, and could easily warrant their own entries (although I suppose that could always be limited to the video section as DVD Audios). The release that sticks out in my mind the most as necessary for multiple entries is Pink Floyd's http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=1433 - Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. In this one entry, we have not two, but FIVE different track listings. Even just the two original releases (along with other bands such as the Beatles' albums Rubber Soul & Revolver - we already see it with Help and A Hard Day's Night), it is necessary to distinguish between the UK and Us releases as they are actually different original albums with different track listings. Therefore, they do not provide the closest of listening experiences. Then with these 40th Anniversary editions (both of them), one of the mixes (I believe it was the mono) has not been widely released (if at all). Several tracks on the 3rd bonus disc were also previously unreleased (to my knowledge). And on top of that, we have all these releases (especially Piper) with deluxe packaging, liner notes, and other extras (such as the Piper notebook-style bound package with the reproduction Syd Barret diary). I acknowledge this is not the biggest selling point, although i have seen a fair share of reviews between this site and others that have either upped a rating or downgraded it by a point or two due to the quality of the packaging. It's the type of thing that buyers notice. Especially since PA is a site that promotes the purchase of music, and certainly not its stealing or pirating, then it is important to consider the packaging of said music for we often do not pay just for the sound. I hope I don't sound like I'm getting ahead of myself here; my intention has not been to overwhelm anyone. Bob, although some of your questions may have been rhetorical, I'll go ahead and say we definitely cannot gauge this decision off of the "quality" or "relevance" of extras. It goes without saying that we are a bunch that often don't see eye-to-eye in terms of those descriptions. As far as maybe the length or number of bonus tracks are concerned, I think as I said before it is important to look at how much, and which material, has been previously unreleased. My (final) example that comes to mind in regards to this point is the Who's Live At Leeds, which has now been significantly expanded/re-released 3 times. The original LP release had 6 tracks, running about 40 mins. Then in 1995, the length of the album was essentially doubled in length, making for a totally new experience. Most recently, in the deluxe edition, that 1995 length itself was doubled, adding a brand new performance of Tommy that had never been released. Each successive release changed how the album sounded and functioned for the listener. Different experiences warrant different opinions, and let's not forget what's important here, different entries! Congratulations! You have made it through my post!  That's all I got... for the moment. (Now's the reply... if you dare!  )- BTW Brian, ("Slartibartfast" is sooo unwieldy) great pun you threw in there! ("Garion my wayward son".) just had to mention that -------------
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: July 12 2008 at 03:39
| I've altered the name of this thread a bit, in the hope of drawing in more opinions. |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 02:02
|
You might want to start a whole new thread Bob. The name Kansas doesn't draw a whole lot of response here whatsoever. Yet at progressive ears the thread on this album has reached its 11th page.
Sad really.
 -------------
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: ClemofNazareth
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 06:23
|
Was planning to respond but am way too occupied enjoying listening to my copy of this new release. Will get back to you later. One comment though; the root cause of this thread had to do with how to manage reviews between the two versions of this album. I went back and read my review of the original ‘Two for the Show’. It still applies to the 1978 release, but is woefully inadequate for this version. So if we don’t have two separate entries for the albums, how does one reconcile their reviews to account for both versions? ------------- "Peace is the only battle worth waging." Albert Camus |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: July 13 2008 at 06:52
Let me throw in to the discussion another similar issue. What about albums that came into being as a result of a collaboration of two (or more) artists both of whom we have added to our database? Like this case:
1993 ../album.asp?id=8136 - The First Day (with David Sylvian) 3.61 (8 ratings) 
1993 ../album.asp?id=6713 - The First Day (with Robert Fripp) 3.35 (13 ratings) Should we place the album entry in both discographies like in the above example? As for me, I really don't like the idea of a single album having two entries and two different ratings. It basically seems to be David Syvian's album with just a participation of Fripp. So, maybe the entry from Fripp's discography should be deleted and replaced with a mention in his bio (with a link to the entry in the Sylvian's discography), what do you think? But there's also the problem of both entries having reviews... As for the original issue I agree that there should be separate entries for different editions of the same album when they differ significantly. And that's what I did when adding Marek Grechuta to the database with his album "Droga za Widnokres". The original album was issued in 1972: 
1972 ../album.asp?id=14611 - Droga za widnokres 3.75 (4 ratings) but in 1991 he rerecorded it with some different musicians and altered the cover: 
1991 ../album.asp?id=14689 - Droga za widnokres (rerecording with ANAWA) so IMO it deserved a separate entry. ------------- "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 |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date 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. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Angelo
Date 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. ------------- http://www.iskcrocks.com" rel="nofollow - ISKC Rock Radio I stopped blogging and reviewing - so won't be handling requests. Promo's for ariplay can be sent to [email protected] |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date 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 |
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date 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 http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=3211 - The Best Of http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=3211 - Kansas and then http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=3220 - 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? -------------
|
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date 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. ------------- "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 |
Posted By: ClemofNazareth
Date 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 |
Posted By: debrewguy
Date 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. |
Posted By: ClassicRocker
Date 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... -------------
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date 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?" |
Posted By: Garion81
Date 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?" |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date 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...
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date 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?" |
Posted By: jimmy_row
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date 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. |
Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date 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 |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date 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). |
Posted By: rushfan4
Date 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.
http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=1954 - http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=1954
------------- 
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date 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 http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=3211 - The Best Of http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=3211 - Kansas and then http://www.progarchives.com/album.asp?id=3220 - 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?" |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date 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...
|
Posted By: Garion81
Date 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?" |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 15 2008 at 08:39
| I do have a confession to make. A CD rather than Vinyl Confession. (Sorry, bad joke, sometimes I can't help myself.) I do have one "best of" album in my collection, Procol Harum (1972). For me the rule is if an artist is worth having in your collection it's worth your while to go for original albums. Also, if a live album is worth having in your collection, the songs should not be duplicates of the studio tracks. Although, maybe that's a way around my first rule or something. |
Posted By: M@X
Date Posted: July 18 2008 at 01:02
|
To confirm, in all cases where albums are re-released
with extra tracks, the details should be added to the original entry.
Only one entry per album please, regardless of extra material added.
Cheers, mailto:M@x - M@X
------------- Prog On ! |
Posted By: Garion81
Date Posted: July 21 2008 at 13:11
|
Thanks mailto:M@X - M@X . While I certainly disagree with this being unitlateral I will submit to your rule.
Admins I have updated the original entry as prescribed and took the liberty to contact the prog reviewers about updating the review of the original CD with a suggestion on how I did mine. You can see it there: http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=21833 - http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=21833 http://www.progarchives.com/Review.asp?id=21833 -
There are one or two other reviewers that probably can't edit theirs and was wondering if someone in the Admin team would contact them about this please? After that is done please remove the new entry for Two For the Show 30th Anniversary Edition.
Cheers Brian -------------
"What are you going to do when that damn thing rusts?" |
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: July 21 2008 at 14:19
| Cheers Garion, will do. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: July 22 2008 at 20:47
|
I really hate to bring this up, but I'm about to review it and I think this may be where the line needs to be drawn. Where I opposed the second entry for Two For The Show, I support this one: Nektar's Sunday Night at the London Roundhouse. The original was from 1974, later released in CD in 1990: 1. Desolation valley (9:50) 2. A day in the life of a preacher featuring the birth of oh Willie (11:30) 3. Oop's (unindentified flying abstract) (6:37) 4. Mundetango (6:25) 5. Summer breeze (2:40) The Two tracks were actually live at the Roundhouse, three tracks were actually live in the studio. I'm pretty sure that #5 is also live in studio rather than live in Roundhouse, which it certainly is on the newer version. And this version released in 2002: Disc 1: 49:44 1. Crying In The Dark / King Of Twilight (12:10) 2. Desolation Valley (8:58) 3. A Day In The Life Of A Preacher including the birth of Oh Willie (19:50) 4. Summer Breeze (3:04) 5. Cast Your Fate (5:42) Disc 2: 56:44 1. Remember The Future Part One (18:47) 2. Odyssey (Ron's On) (11:15) 3. 1-2-3-4 (12:31) 4. Remember The Future Part Two (Let It Grow) (5:14) 5. Woman (6:09) The live in studio tracks were completely stripped off and the entire concert at the Roundhouse in now included in remastered form. The first review of the second version dates back to 2005 (the first review of the former version 2004). Maybe it's too late to put the toothpaste back in the tube. Nektar did completely new album cover art as well. I think they should have named the new one "The Complete Sunday Night at the London Roundhouse" or something to clearly distinguish it from the first version and then I just could have reviewed the dang thing and not brought it up here. Oh, M@x, I know you're probably busy with more important things, what say ye? ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Easy Livin
Date Posted: July 23 2008 at 03:37
| Personally, I'd say that's two completely different albums with the same title. |