Policy Discussion(was-Kansas Two For The Show30th)

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?


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 22 2008 at 20:52

Thanks 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:

 

Cheers

Brian

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. 

Edited by Slartibartfast - July 22 2008 at 20:53

I don't think "best of" albums should be entered at all, no matter how much I like the artist. .

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.

Easy Livin wrote: 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.

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?

Easy Livin wrote: 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.

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?

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.

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.

ClemofNazareth wrote: 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?

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.