Best Ever Albums

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

albummaster — Thu, 12 Oct 2023 04:28:52 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 10/12/2023 08:28

Just to state BEA's position remains unchanged due to reasons outlined earlier in the thread. This has been discussed a lot already and many factors have already been considered. Romanelli has summarised this pretty well. If Discogs change their position, this could possibly be reviewed.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

Romanelli — Wed, 11 Oct 2023 13:26:40 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 10/11/2023 17:26

baystateoftheart wrote:

For the record, RYM no longer considers this a bootleg. Here's the explanation from their edit log:

Quote:

Also, this cassette cannot be filed as a bootleg since it was released under a label in which Nang Nang and several other Shan artists released their albums, see https://www.discogs.com/Various-%E1%81%...e/13257375

"According to Nang Nang, the company that released this tape didn't get her permission, nor gave her any compensation." Even if there is any evidence that she ever said that, there are countless albums released by recognized labels in which they don't give any royalties to their signed artists.

Even in RYM doesn't consider it unofficial (I could not find the comment you referenced), Discogs still does. The trust factor with Discogs is, I believe, much higher than RYM. It may be on a label with other official releases, but there is also no proof that this was done not just with or without the artist's consent, but also in line with whatever contract exists. Also notable is the fact that outside of this album, the artist has no other releases with this label, other than an appearance on a various artists compilation.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

hwex9000 — Wed, 11 Oct 2023 12:14:18 GMT

Author: hwex9000

Posted: 10/11/2023 16:14

baystateoftheart wrote:

For the record, RYM no longer considers this a bootleg.

Since I'm the one who started this thread, I'll weigh in to say that given this change I'd be more than happy to see the album restored to the database.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

baystateoftheart — Mon, 9 Oct 2023 12:00:06 GMT

Author: baystateoftheart

Posted: 10/09/2023 16:00

For the record, RYM no longer considers this a bootleg. Here's the explanation from their edit log:

Quote:

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

MadhattanJack — Thu, 27 Oct 2022 17:37:27 GMT

Author: MadhattanJack

Posted: 10/27/2022 21:37

albummaster wrote:

If we had to have case-by-case debate putting forward reasons for each bootleg, the site wouldn't be able to function as effectively as we would require arbitrary debate about each release, taking into account new factors such as whether a bootleg was released under 'blanket censorship' (whatever the definition ends up being), and then whether the release was authorised by the artist who performed the material and not a pirate etc, and who's going to be the judge and jury of that? (I can guarantee we'll then end up having leeway in certain circumstances etc to allow other albums onto the site, and the flood gates will then be open with few controls left in place).

Perfectly understandable concerns! This is a complicated issue and I don't want to cause "drama" or draw this out any longer than you probably do, but I do want to be clear on three things, and then I'll shut up (unless I'm specifically asked to respond to something).

First, I'm not suggesting that you change the site's current policies and procedures for this at all. Nothing would actually change. You'd continue to justifiably kick all bootlegs out of the database as you always have — it's just that maybe once every few years, someone might post an "appeal" in which they say, "this studio album was recorded by an artist living under a total censorship regime, so our conventional definition of 'bootleg' maybe shouldn't apply." And maybe there'd be a forum discussion like this one, and we'd all check this out, and maybe you'd say, "okay." If it happens more than, say, once a year, I'd be extremely surprised, and then I'd say go back to having no exceptions.

Second: This exception should only apply to studio albums. That should eliminate the vast majority of other potential cases/scenarios immediately. (I regard the Naang Naang album as more of a "promo" than a bootleg anyway, in case that helps...?)

Lastly, I'm not exaggerating when I say this will only happen once every few years, maybe once a year at the most, and I'd like to explain why I say that. I might even say that doubt this has happened before, and it might never happen again. As for verification, I don't recommend that anyone ever use Wikipedia as a source, but they do maintain an historical list of music censorship incidents and regimes by country.

Many countries on that list don't really belong there, including the US and the UK, but there are only five countries listed that have ever imposed blanket censorship on pop music, and these countries are Afghanistan (Taliban eras), Burma (1962-88 ), Iran (1979-ca. 2000), North Korea, and North Vietnam (during the war). I'd also add a sixth, namely Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge (and this is why you should never completely trust Wikipedia, by the way). Those are the only countries that would be covered by this exception, and how many albums of any description have come from those countries? Hardly any, for obvious reasons. Now, there was also some censorship practiced in South Africa during apartheid, and Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe, as well as China and Malaysia at various times, but even this wasn't blanket censorship; you could still record, sell, and perform as long as you didn't criticize the government in the process.

Which leads me to point out that Burma was practically unique among these countries, because they still allowed pop music to be recorded and performed somewhat freely — they really only banned public sale and distribution (mostly because they were concerned that seemingly-harmless-looking domestic pop cassettes or LPs might be falsely labeled and actually contain super-dangerous black-market Western pop content). The other five countries banned everything, full stop. So, if a situation like this ever comes up on BEA again, it's very likely to be another Burmese pop album.

So will this Naang Naang album somehow lead to a sudden wave of global popularity for 1970s Shan Burmese stereo pop music, and a subsequent surge of minimally-distributed Burmese-pop cassette albums being added to the BEA database? The answer is no, of course not — there's been plenty of time for this to happen already, and it hasn't. The Naang Naang album is a viral oddity. It first appeared in 2014 on this blog, and first appeared on Youtube in 2016. The earliest RYM reference to it seems to be this comment from BEA's very own SuedeSwede, also from 2016. It's been small-scale viral since mid-2019, but only about two or three other artists, like Sai Hsai Mao (whom Hayden mentioned), have benefited at all from the "reflected exposure."

Even then, I myself hadn't heard of any of this at all until last month, and I keep up with this kinda stuff probably more than 98% of music fans. So... my conclusion? It's just not that big a deal. I could be wrong, but like I say, I'd be really surprised.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

albummaster — Thu, 27 Oct 2022 02:50:49 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 10/27/2022 06:50

MadhattanJack wrote:

I agree, and you're right — I guess the problem here, in terms of site policy, is that there's a miniscule chance (I would say around 0.1%) that the artist didn't want this material to be heard at all, [snip] That's why my idea was (and still is) that we could "work around" the miniscule-chance problem by making an exception for stuff recorded by people living under blanket-censorship regimes. These could even be case-by-case exceptions, as I don't think anyone would seriously object to that. To me, that makes more sense than saying "we're going to make an exception in just this one case," because that's arbitrary, which can often be a bad thing. But what makes sense to me isn't always what makes sense to everyone else. 🙁

Tbh, in terms of site policy, pretty much the only factor BEA considers is whether a release is a bootleg or not (regardless of why that bootleg exists). If we had to have case-by-case debate putting forward reasons for each bootleg, the site wouldn't be able to function as effectively as we would require arbitrary debate about each release, taking into account new factors such as whether a bootleg was released under 'blanket censorship' (whatever the definition ends up being), and then whether the release was authorised by the artist who performed the material and not a pirate etc, and who's going to be the judge and jury of that? (I can guarantee we'll then end up having leeway in certain circumstances etc to allow other albums onto the site, and the flood gates will then be open with few controls left in place). In terms of this release, it was flagged as a bootleg on very credible sources including RYM and Discogs (who also commented, as per previous post, the release was not authorised by the artist).

I totally understand the no bootlegs policy can be restrictive, and I'm a music fan as much as anyone else, but the site has to have a line somewhere to make the site as easy to understand as possible to ensure consistency and help the site to run (fairly) smoothly most of the time. (I appreciate that sometimes it doesn't, but the resource constraints the site runs under are considerable.)

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

MadhattanJack — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 20:38:16 GMT

Author: MadhattanJack

Posted: 10/27/2022 00:38

Hayden wrote:

I agree, and you're right — I guess the problem here, in terms of site policy, is that there's a miniscule chance (I would say around 0.1%) that the artist didn't want this material to be heard at all, and we have to decide if that miniscule chance is enough to overcome the 99.9% likelihood that they did want it to be heard. I'd say "yes it is," but it's not my website. Though one might even argue that if the artist objected to the sale/distribution of these cassettes at a time when blanket government censorship was still in place, the artist could not have responded any other way than to object, at least not without significant personal risk of being fined, arrested, imprisoned, or even forced to become a parrothead or something.

That's why my idea was (and still is) that we could "work around" the miniscule-chance problem by making an exception for stuff recorded by people living under blanket-censorship regimes. These could even be case-by-case exceptions, as I don't think anyone would seriously object to that. To me, that makes more sense than saying "we're going to make an exception in just this one case," because that's arbitrary, which can often be a bad thing. But what makes sense to me isn't always what makes sense to everyone else. 🙁

One thing I would add (or reiterate, really): If it were a live boot or a rehearsal demo where someone just ran a tape recorder in the corner and then made copies without the artists' knowledge or consent, then this would be an easy call, right? But it's not that, it's a studio album, for all intents and purposes — again, meant to be at least heard, and 99.9 times out of a hundred, distributed too. And I know there have been cases where people have made completed albums that never got released, usually because their record company didn't think they would sell sufficient units, but this isn't one of those situations either.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

Hayden — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 18:04:00 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 10/26/2022 22:04

Thanks for all the write-ups MadhattanJack. I think you've made the best points (particularly the first two posts).

Quote:

Assuming that's true, then that would override most (if not all) other considerations.

I don't see why. People post music that doesn't belong to them all the time. It still exists.

Le' Ywei Sin Tei Mya exists. It's a tape, that existed, that the artist made. In fact, I think it's actually a rather important one.

While I 100% understand the no-bootlegs rule, I genuinely believe this is a different circumstance. I think this is more along the lines of an undocumented lost tape being posted online 35-ish years later. The fact it has a release date at all is something. Most other Burmese tapes from the time don't even have that. I think most albums by a contemporary like Sai Hsai Mao were released similarly.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

MadhattanJack — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 16:39:50 GMT

Author: MadhattanJack

Posted: 10/26/2022 20:39

albummaster wrote:

EDIT: FWIW, in the Discogs mod history- "According to Nang Nang, the company that released this tape didn't get her permission, nor gave her any compensation."
Source: https://www.discogs.com/release/6973864

I'm gonna have to set up an account on that site one of these days, so I can see stuff like that... 🤡

Assuming that's true, then that would override most (if not all) other considerations. The only counter-argument I could think of might be that the cassette used as the source for the sold copies and the digital uploads (on Youtube and elsewhere) is probably a dub from one of the original cassettes — i.e., the original cassette was authorized but copies made from it by a third party, and then presumably sold, were not. (It's a common problem for cassette albums in general, obviously.) As long as the packaging is identical though, there's probably no way we'll ever know. The digital transfers/uploads themselves are probably unauthorized too of course, but that's a side issue since they're not specifically listed on Discogs or the other websites.

If it were my site (and I do realize it isn't, I swear!), I would still make exceptions for material produced/released under what could be termed "blanket censorship conditions." BEA isn't actually distributing the material (i.e., the music) itself, so there shouldn't be an objection on that basis, and I'd still maintain that the original tapes in this case must have been authorized to whatever extent was possible in Burma/Myanmar at the time. Of course, that's also putting aside the fact that the term "authorized" barely has any meaning under blanket censorship conditions.

In any event, situations like this are likely to be extremely rare, and the term "blanket censorship" should work to circumvent any future arguments in favor of putting various conventional bootlegs in the database...

The theoretical risk, though, would be that some guy who's a 70s Burmese pop aficionado might come along and insist on adding large numbers of censored Burmese pop cassettes into the database as his 100 Greatest Albums of All Time, and it would be difficult or impossible to verify if any given entry is real (though you could at least require a Discogs entry, which would help). I'd say it's a fairly minimal theoretical risk, but if the policy here is to avoid theoretical risks altogether, then I guess you'd have to go with the policy...?

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

Repo — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 08:05:19 GMT

Author: Repo

Posted: 10/26/2022 12:05

MadhattanJack wrote:

I'm taking it upon myself to move a more recent discussion from this other thread over here to this one...

This album is not a "bootleg," and it's only "unauthorized" in that the Burmese government wouldn't allow it to be manufactured and sold the way pop records in the West were. The word for this album is underground, in the truest possible sense of the term.

After the military takeover in 1962, the Burmese government became extremely anti-Western, ultra-nationalist, and isolationist, banning all imports and exports — not only of LPs, but everything from the West, including any form of audio/video technology. By the early 1970s, wealthier Burmese citizens and businesses were able to buy some hi-fi and recording gear manufactured in China and other non-Western countries, but it was still illegal to sell any music, literature, films, etc., not approved by the military government, which included all pop music. (Dead Can Dance didn't exist at the time, otherwise their heads might have exploded.) There were no record labels, and all facilities for pressing or tape duplication were nationalized and government-controlled.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio..._Pop_Music

So by 1978, what pop groups like Naang Naang had to do was to go into a "music production shop," where they were allowed to record pretty much whatever they wanted on whatever gear was available. Once they had a finished tape, the shop would then make a few copies of it, and the band could then give (not sell!) those copies to whoever they wished — typically, owners of tea-shops and diners that had stereo hi-fi systems. Most people couldn't afford anything more than a cheap transistor radio, so they'd hang out at tea shops just to hear music through a decent hi-fi. If you could get a tea-house owner to play your tape, someone who heard it might hire your band to play at a party or a wedding, and you could maybe make some money.

https://turnaround.home.blog/2019/05/22/grieving-in-stereo-the-fall-of-burmese-psychedelic-rock/

Le' Ywei Sin Tei Mya is one of those tapes. For most people accustomed to Western pro recording standards, it's practically unlistenable, barely reaching the level of a 4-track Portastudio demo or In the Aeroplane Over the Sea. But considering the risk and effort that must have been required to produce it, it's quite a remarkable achievement, and to de-list it simply because it wasn't manufactured and distributed by a Western-style "record label" would be a terrible injustice.

It would be nice if there were a way to recompense these musicians directly after all these years, but first you'd have to find them, and many of them are probably deceased by now. Regardless, they'd probably be happy knowing that people can still listen to this material and enjoy it.

https://www.isupportmyanmar.com/

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

လက်ရွေး�...ဉ် တေးများ [Le' Ywei Sin Tei Mya] by Naang Naang

For this AMAZING write-up alone, Naang Naang should persist!

Save Naang Naang!!!

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

albummaster — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 05:51:13 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 10/26/2022 09:51

Happy to debate this further as might help to improve the guidelines. A general release in my mind would be the release of material authorised by the artist and/or copyright holder to the general public in a format that can be owned by the consumer. A release could be self-released, as in the case of the band themselves releasing the material, or the release could be performed via a third party, such as a record label. In either case, the method of distribution could be physical or digital.

The fact that the album was authorised by the band, and publicly distributed (in a limited way) might possibly override the unconventional release channel. However, it's still classified as an unofficial release on both RYM & Discogs, so something still feels a bit wrong about not classifying it as a bootleg here (normally, an 'unofficial' designation on both of those sites would preclude an album being listed here) .

On the first point made, if an album becomes hard to find over time, it doesn't make it a bootleg, nor does it stop it becoming an album. If Bandcamp ceases to exist in 20 years, it doesn't mean the material never existed, nor that the band themselves, or the holder of the rights, can't re-release the same material somewhere else (in whatever format they choose). Likewise, plenty of record labels have come and gone over the years, but their music is still available to purchase second hand on Discogs, eBay etc (or the material is re-released on a different label etc) and evidence of those releases (even if they can't be purchased easily due to their rarity) can be found all over the internet (and offline), and not likely to go away any time soon.

EDIT: FWIW, in the Discogs mod history- "According to Nang Nang, the company that released this tape didn't get her permission, nor gave her any compensation."
Source:

Code:

https://www.discogs.com/release/6973864-%E1%80%9C%E1%80%80%E1%80%9B%E1%80%85%E1%80%89-%E1%80%9D%E1%80%99/history

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

MadhattanJack — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 04:20:07 GMT

Author: MadhattanJack

Posted: 10/26/2022 08:20

albummaster wrote:

...available for general release...

What does that actually mean, though?

I don't mean to be difficult, but it sounds like you might be saying that if an album eventually becomes so rare and hard to find, with no one clearly holding the rights to "release" it, then it stops being an album. Or, what if it's so old that it enters the public domain? That's going to start happening for lots of BEA albums during the next ten years.

The word "release" shouldn't imply that there must be an entity which at all times is doing the releasing. "Release" should only refer to the publication of the material — that can happen once for a particular album, or it could happen a thousand times with different cover art or media each time, but each time it happens, it's a discrete event, right? So when Naang Naang handed out copies of their cassette to tea-shop owners (and maybe sold a few under the table to their customers), wasn't that a "release"? The fact that you couldn't buy it in stores shouldn't make much of a difference, should it?

I can see how someone might want to compare this to a typical demo tape that's given away for promotional purposes and then gets leaked to the public, or maybe something like a fan-club cassette... but plenty of albums on BEA are collections of demos, and plenty of albums on BEA are free, too. And it's clear that this group wanted this material to be heard by as many people as possible — to me, that's what makes this different from a bootleg or "unauthorized release." Once you have that, then for BEA it should just be a question of whether or not someone is willing to put it in a chart.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

albummaster — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 02:37:09 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 10/26/2022 06:37

Thanks for your thoughts on this album. The site has a no bootlegs policy to prevent *any* album, from any source, from being added to the site, and therefore makes BEA easier to administer. I appreciate the back-story on this album and the way it came to be (very insightful and shows how badly repressed some parts of the world are - thank you).

That said, physical releases on BEA need to have been directly released, published, authorised by the artist or label AND available for general release (which this album couldn't be, for the reasons mentioned). I'm not sure how we could introduce this album onto the site without breaking those guidelines and creating a precedent for less contentious albums to be added.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

MadhattanJack — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:22:20 GMT

Author: MadhattanJack

Posted: 10/26/2022 04:22

Romanelli wrote:

Is it an authorized and official release?

Well, I guess if you want the abridged version, it's authorized by the band, the term "official" doesn't (or shouldn't) apply, and "released" is a term we use in the West, it's not a word that would have applied to Burmese pop recordings in the 1970s — unless you just use the term very loosely to mean "we've allowed other people to have copies of this," which they did. So I'd say the short answer is "yes."

To me, the first of those things overrules everthing else. We conceive of a "bootleg" as something a band doesn't want getting into the hands of the public, whether or not the public pays money for it or they (the band) receive money for it — usually because of the band having no say over quality control, and the possibility that the bootleg recording might dilute or weaken "official" album sales. This band did want this recording to get into the hands of the public, they were fully responsible for quality control, and there were no album sales to dilute or weaken due to government censorship. But as far as the band itself would have been concerned, they authorized it, they did so officially, and they released it.

Bear in mind that these days, bands give away albums on Bandcamp and other digital distributors for free all the time. This is really no different, aside from the fact that Naang Naang didn't have the choice of doing otherwise.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

Romanelli — Wed, 26 Oct 2022 00:00:10 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 10/26/2022 04:00

MadhattanJack wrote:

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

လက်ရွေး�...ဉ် တေးများ [Le' Ywei Sin Tei Mya] by Naang Naang

Cool.

Is it an authorized and official release?

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

MadhattanJack — Tue, 25 Oct 2022 23:51:02 GMT

Author: MadhattanJack

Posted: 10/26/2022 03:51

I'm taking it upon myself to move a more recent discussion from this other thread over here to this one...

This album is not a "bootleg," and it's only "unauthorized" in that the Burmese government wouldn't allow it to be manufactured and sold the way pop records in the West were. The word for this album is underground, in the truest possible sense of the term.

After the military takeover in 1962, the Burmese government became extremely anti-Western, ultra-nationalist, and isolationist, banning all imports and exports — not only of LPs, but everything from the West, including any form of audio/video technology. By the early 1970s, wealthier Burmese citizens and businesses were able to buy some hi-fi and recording gear manufactured in China and other non-Western countries, but it was still illegal to sell any music, literature, films, etc., not approved by the military government, which included all pop music. (Dead Can Dance didn't exist at the time, otherwise their heads might have exploded.) There were no record labels, and all facilities for pressing or tape duplication were nationalized and government-controlled.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio..._Pop_Music

So by 1978, what pop groups like Naang Naang had to do was to go into a "music production shop," where they were allowed to record pretty much whatever they wanted on whatever gear was available. Once they had a finished tape, the shop would then make a few copies of it, and the band could then give (not sell!) those copies to whoever they wished — typically, owners of tea-shops and diners that had stereo hi-fi systems. Most people couldn't afford anything more than a cheap transistor radio, so they'd hang out at tea shops just to hear music through a decent hi-fi. If you could get a tea-house owner to play your tape, someone who heard it might hire your band to play at a party or a wedding, and you could maybe make some money.

https://turnaround.home.blog/2019/05/22/grieving-in-stereo-the-fall-of-burmese-psychedelic-rock/

Le' Ywei Sin Tei Mya is one of those tapes. For most people accustomed to Western pro recording standards, it's practically unlistenable, barely reaching the level of a 4-track Portastudio demo or In the Aeroplane Over the Sea. But considering the risk and effort that must have been required to produce it, it's quite a remarkable achievement, and to de-list it simply because it wasn't manufactured and distributed by a Western-style "record label" would be a terrible injustice.

It would be nice if there were a way to recompense these musicians directly after all these years, but first you'd have to find them, and many of them are probably deceased by now. Regardless, they'd probably be happy knowing that people can still listen to this material and enjoy it.

https://www.isupportmyanmar.com/

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

လက်ရွေး�...ဉ် တေးများ [Le' Ywei Sin Tei Mya] by Naang Naang

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

albummaster — Wed, 21 Sep 2022 12:55:50 GMT

Author: albummaster

Posted: 09/21/2022 16:55

Thanks for reporting, album now flagged as suspect

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

hwex9000 — Mon, 19 Sep 2022 16:27:53 GMT

Author: hwex9000

Posted: 09/19/2022 20:27

Romanelli wrote:

Hi!

Albums do have to be officially released to be included on BEA.

If that means the album will need to be removed, that's too bad. Just to be clear, this is an album that's already in the database - it's been inching towards the top 5000 in recent days.

Re: Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

Romanelli — Mon, 19 Sep 2022 16:24:59 GMT

Author: Romanelli

Posted: 09/19/2022 20:24

hwcolum wrote:

Question about the 1978 album by Myanmar artist Naang Naang (album title translated here as Le' Ywei Sin Tei Mya): while looking up information about the artist and album, I found that Rate Your Music has classified it as a bootleg/unauthorized release. As reluctant as I am to ask this: if there's no authorized release information available, does that make the album ineligible to be listed on BEA? Pink Floyd's Live at Pompeii was removed a few years back for this reason.

Hi!

Albums do have to be officially released to be included on BEA.

Question re: Naang Naang album - eligibility

hwex9000 — Mon, 19 Sep 2022 15:15:47 GMT

Author: hwex9000

Posted: 09/19/2022 19:15

Question about the 1978 album by Myanmar artist Naang Naang (album title translated here as Le' Ywei Sin Tei Mya): while looking up information about the artist and album, I found that Rate Your Music has classified it as a bootleg/unauthorized release. As reluctant as I am to ask this: if there's no authorized release information available, does that make the album ineligible to be listed on BEA? Pink Floyd's Live at Pompeii was removed a few years back for this reason.