| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Fassbinder 
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
 Topic: Radio Session Albums Type?
Posted: November 11 2006 at 19:30 |
Following the recent discussion between Joolz and myself in another section, I'm copying here the full text of it, for the purpose of the further discussion on both themes:
1) A possible creation of a new albums category (or, in general, a resolving of a problem with radio session albums);
2) a possibility to close the free access to the album type changing.
Please, follow the text below:
 Fassbinder wrote:
Joolz wrote:
Fassbinder wrote:
According to the reviews to this album (which I've never heard), it seems to be a "BBC Session" album. Some of such albums are classified as "Live", and some as "Studio Albums". The same thing is with the "Peel Sessions" albums.
I think that there's a need for a consistent rule or opinion about this kind of albums -- whether they should be considered "Live" or "Studio". |
Agree to a point, but it is not a clear cut choice as there can be differences -
- music recorded in a 'closed' studio
- music recorded before a studio audience
- an entire performance recorded in a single session
- an album compiled from different sessions
Maybe we should have another category for this type of album?
-- You're right when speaking about the differences -- therefore I would like a discussion on this issue to be opened (maybe, not in this particular thread, though; -- I just wanted you (everyone, in fact) to pay attention to this kind of problem / controversy). This discussion might lead to a reasonable conclusion.
Having an additional category is quite an option.
The other one is to check the circumstances of each album recording process, which is an ant's work (and, for many (if not most) cases, requires some special knowledges about a particular band history).
There are may be other different options (not mentioned).
Fassbinder wrote:
By the way, the album type changing doesn't require any special permission and can be done by any member of a forum. |
-- From the other hand, maybe, even this opportunity should be closed, in order to prevent some wrong (both deliberately and by mistake) information insertion from some irresponsible visitors (hopefully, there are not many here). In such cases, the wrong (or controversial) information about the album will be simply reported in this "Errors and Omissions" section, like it occurs with wrong song titles, names, instruments played etc.
|
Your thoughts? |
So, your thoughts?
|
 |
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: November 11 2006 at 19:34 |
|
for a start, i'm saying these albums shouldn't be called "studio albums". there's more to the definition of a studio album than the place where it is recorded ( a studio vs. an open stage); it's the production aspects that count.
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: November 12 2006 at 17:43 |
|
No-one (except for andu) has an opinion?
|
|
Joolz
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377
|
Posted: November 13 2006 at 07:44 |
Not exactly inundated with ideas .......  For me, the way to go has to be a new 'category' because none of the existing ones are satisfactory. You need first to define the existing categories: A - live album - recorded by all members playing as a unit in front of a paying audience, with or without subsequent overdubs B - studio album - any new body of work specifically presented as such by the artist that isn't A C - compilation - album compiled from more than one source that isn't A or B Notice the definition of B is tricky. If these definitions are correct, then do the 'radio show' scenarios fit them? * music recorded in a 'closed' studio - none * music recorded before a studio audience - probably not [possibly A if the audience paid] * an entire performance recorded in a single session - probably not [could only be A] * an album compiled from different sessions - probably not [could only be A or C]
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: November 13 2006 at 08:14 |
i'm not happy with your definitions, joolz. their logical structure goes like this: 1. A; 2. non-A; 3. non-(A and/or non-A). it doesn't make sense.
my definitions would go like this:
1. studio album = music recorded (in a recording facility, preferabely) following standard producing procedures. standard producing procedures = separate recording of each instrument & sound source + sound processing (if necessary) & mixing. the final result comes in the final audition not directly from musicians, but through a production desk.
2. live album = music recorded (in any type of facility) as a whole. all the sounds are performed together and come together in the technic desk (for mixing and recording). public is optional. [later editing/processing should be minimal, but no category has been developed for recording which do not respect this  ]
there is still one aspect that i can not figure the way it's covered by these definitions. the best example is the case of contemporary DJ sets. all the sound sources are grouped in one desk; the DJ performs, processes and mixes all the sounds that are captured separated and get released as a whole and at the same time get recorded. is that a live album, as we usually think? it does fit the items of my "studio album" definition.
|
|
Joolz
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 24 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1377
|
Posted: November 13 2006 at 08:29 |
andu wrote:
i'm not happy with your definitions, joolz .... |
Just trying to get people to think & contribute ..... 
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: November 13 2006 at 10:56 |
andu wrote:
my definitions would go like this:
1. studio album = music recorded (in a recording facility, preferabely) following standard producing procedures. standard producing procedures = separate recording of each instrument & sound source + sound processing (if necessary) & mixing. the final result comes in the final audition not directly from musicians, but through a production desk.
2. live album = music recorded (in any type of facility) as a whole. all the sounds are performed together and come together in the technic desk (for mixing and recording). public is optional. [later editing/processing should be minimal, but no category has been developed for recording which do not respect this ] |
According to these definitions Radio Sessions albums should be considered "Live" ones.
The original question raised from the fact that there's an album which consists of the pieces already presented in previous band's works -- the first and natural reaction is to call this album a compilation (which is right anyway), but after that it was revealed that all those pieces are taken from the live (or radio sessions, don't remember exactly) performances, which, eventually, led to the current discussion.
The other question is what should be calles a "compilation". I think that if an album was intended by an artist (or a band) as a compilation of, say, different pieces from several different radio sessions or live performances made in a reasonable period of time (say, made in several adjacent days, or, at least, within the certain period of activity), it shouldn't be classified as a "compilation" type of an album. Hence, in order to be classified as such, a compilation should be made from the pieces, completely unrelated in terms of time.
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: November 13 2006 at 12:30 |
Fassbinder wrote:
According to these definitions Radio Sessions albums should be considered "Live" ones. |
indeed that was my intention to say.
Fassbinder wrote:
The original question raised from the fact that there's an album which consists of the pieces already presented in previous band's works -- the first and natural reaction is to call this album a compilation (which is right anyway), but after that it was revealed that all those pieces are taken from the live (or radio sessions, don't remember exactly) performances, which, eventually, led to the current discussion. |
interesting situation. i think it all depends on the amount of re-published material. if you have several new songs on an album and also a few re-mixes or live takes (of those songs or of others from past albums, it doesn't matter), then the album is just a studio album with bonus tracks. if the re-mixes and/or the live takes outnumber the new material, now that's interesting (and rare)! i think there is a cathegory in the PA for this: Singles/EPs/Fan Club/Promo. it's not the great, but it's acceptable "compilation" might also do the job. but if the PA should further define the added releases, there's more to discuss. if the whole album consists of live takes/re-mixes of previous released songs, there may be three possible sub-cases: 1. it's all re-mixes; for this there should definitely be, i think, a new (sub)category. "compilation" would be the best. 2. it's live&re-mix combined; compilation would fit this, too. 3. various live songs, from different performances. i haven't made up my mind: "live" album or "compilation"? (this is the case for PF's Live at Pompeii for example, partly live on site, the other part live in studio.)
Fassbinder wrote:
The other question is what should be calles a "compilation". I think that if an album was intended by an artist (or a band) as a compilation of, say, different pieces from several different radio sessions or live performances made in a reasonable period of time (say, made in several adjacent days, or, at least, within the certain period of activity), it shouldn't be classified as a "compilation" type of an album. Hence, in order to be classified as such, a compilation should be made from the pieces, completely unrelated in terms of time. |
in the case you describe the best tag would be "live album", not "compilation". in order to call "compilation" a release containing live takes, it should also have some studio or re-mix stuff. i don't think live takes "completely unrelated in terms of time" would make a "compilation", that would still be a "live" album; imo, a "compilation" needs 1. songs from different studio albums or 2. songs from at least one studio album + songs from at least one live performance (previously released or not, it doesn't matter).
 i've got dizzy myself.
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: November 13 2006 at 16:52 |
There we must decide, which one of the definitions is stronger -- a "live" one or a "compilation" one.
Semantically, any album, compiled from the tracks taken from different (in time)albums/sessions/performances, is a compilation, automatically. A live album also may be a compilation of the live recorded tracks. This is the situation I described above. Therefore I'm saying that there should be an agreement about this type of albums -- "live" or "compilation".
|
|
Sean Trane
Special Collaborator
Prog Folk
Joined: April 29 2004
Location: Heart of Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 20429
|
Posted: November 14 2006 at 04:22 |
Albums such as BBC sessions were definitely recorded in a live mode (even when there was no public for applause), the group played the track in a live situation.
Nothing to do with studio recordings where drums are laid out and then the bass. The group does not really record together, they just play over what's been done.
|
|
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: November 14 2006 at 10:42 |
|
Again, how do you call an album containing a compilation of some live recorded tracks -- a live album or a compilation? Which definition is stronger?
|
|
Neil
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 04 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
|
Posted: November 14 2006 at 10:47 |
|
As regards BBC sessions I used to work at Maida Vale and can confirm that the BBC sessions were recorded "as live". There was not normally an audience but the tracks were recorded in one piece with no overdubs. Usually to 8, 16 or 24 track and then mixed down to stereo in the bands' presence after recording. Then the masters were usually re-used for the next session so normally only the stereo mix remained.
|
|
When people get lost in thought it's often because it's unfamiliar territory.
|
|
andu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 27 2006
Location: Romania
Status: Offline
Points: 3089
|
Posted: November 14 2006 at 11:17 |
Fassbinder wrote:
Again, how do you call an album containing a compilation of some live recorded tracks -- a live album or a compilation? Which definition is stronger? |
my vote goes for "compilation". i may get in contradiction with my previous post, but i won't bother re-reading them, sorry 
|
|
Fassbinder
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 27 2006
Location: My world
Status: Offline
Points: 3497
|
Posted: November 14 2006 at 11:45 |
We have a rather interesting (kind of private) discussion, but I would like to see other people also joining it. Your word "vote" remind me of polls. We need more opinions about the discussed issue. Maybe, we should open a poll. It saddens me a little bit that there is no attention to this question. However, maybe there's an inambiguous answer (say, "compilation", or "live"), and everybody but me knows it... 
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Radio Session Albums Type?