Policy Discussion(was-Kansas Two For The Show30th)

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.

Slartibartfast wrote: ^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.

Yes, thank you for letting me sortakinda hijack your thread.
(And of course not! )

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. 

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

We've been quite strict on this in the past. 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.

Easy Livin wrote: We've been quite strict on this in the past. 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.

Slartibartfast wrote: 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.

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

Easy Livin wrote: We've been quite strict on this in the past. 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.

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 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 

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. 

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
The First Day (with David Sylvian)
3.61
(8 ratings)



1993
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
Droga za widnokres
3.75
(4 ratings)

but in 1991 he rerecorded it with some different musicians and altered the cover:


1991
Droga za widnokres (rerecording with ANAWA)

so IMO it deserved a separate entry.


Edited by Tuzvihar - July 13 2008 at 06:53