Posting an album review/rating before album release - Suggestions

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

Romanelli wrote:

The actual answer is that when an album is announced, it is done so with an official release date. That date can change, but when it is released, regardless of previous availability, the album is announced as having been released. The new Jason Isbell album is available for streaming, but both he and his label have announced an official July 17th date.

That's the release date. The date that the album is officially released.

Yea but, if I'm interpreting this correctly, the whole point of us not allowing albums that have been leaked is the legality issue, i.e. People are acquiring the album illegally and BEA can't appear to support that publicly. But if the album is made available for streaming, by the musician or their record company or someone else by some official means, why is that not allowed to be considered released and eligible to be put on BEA? I'm not understanding the logic behind it.
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Romanelli wrote:

The actual answer is that when an album is announced, it is done so with an official release date. That date can change, but when it is released, regardless of previous availability, the album is announced as having been released. The new Jason Isbell album is available for streaming, but both he and his label have announced an official July 17th date.

That's the release date. The date that the album is officially released.

Yea but, if I'm interpreting this correctly, the whole point of us not allowing albums that have been leaked is the legality issue, i.e. People are acquiring the album illegally and BEA can't appear to support that publicly. But if the album is made available for streaming, by the musician or their record company or someone else by some official means, why is that not allowed to be considered released and eligible to be put on BEA? I'm not understanding the logic behind it.

The logic behind it is simple, and has been hashed and rehashed to death. (The key word is OFFICIALLY.)

Why is it so important to be able to add albums before they are officially released?
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

CubaZed

Romanelli wrote:

The logic behind it is simple, and has been hashed and rehashed to death. (The key word is OFFICIALLY.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the terminology, not the logic right?

Romanelli
Bone Swah

Gender: Male
Location: Broomfield, Colorado

Moderator

CubaZed wrote:

Romanelli wrote:

The logic behind it is simple, and has been hashed and rehashed to death. (The key word is OFFICIALLY.)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the terminology, not the logic right?

God, you people can be frustrating.

I'll go with what AM wants to do. Just put me down as against any album that has not been officially released.
_________________
May we all get to heaven
'Fore the devil knows we're dead...

albummaster
Janitor

Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin

RockyRaccoon wrote:

Yea but, if I'm interpreting this correctly, the whole point of us not allowing albums that have been leaked is the legality issue, i.e. People are acquiring the album illegally and BEA can't appear to support that publicly. But if the album is made available for streaming, by the musician or their record company or someone else by some official means, why is that not allowed to be considered released and eligible to be put on BEA? I'm not understanding the logic behind it.

The main issue is that BEA only allows official releases (Romanelli pointed out the difference). By definition, an album that hasn't been released yet, is not an official release. Albums can get pulled/changed etc for various reasons prior to release, and BEA doesn't list these.

New releases are important, especially for the current year chart and for informing people of upcoming work and there's obviously a strong demand for having them here. Administratively, there was previously the problem of deleting items only to re-add them a couple of weeks later when their release date was due which was creating work and frustrating the people that added the items (it's much easier to keep on top of this now). I've no problem with valid forthcoming releases being here so long as there is an announced release date, & a track listing (so an album can be verified as above BEA's minimum limit).

I think, personally, that having new releases adds an extra dimension of debate and helps to keeps things fresh. However, there's always a balance with these things and so long as one thing is not drowning out everything else, I'm ok with it.

Regards ratings of new releases, on reflection I think the right thing to do is leave things as they are, accepting people are able to gain access to pre-release versions and that other people are interested in what people think about these. However, if people could report ratings such as the one originally mentioned so that they can be deleted from the database, it would help to clean up the site as those types of ratings are clearly not in the spirit of things.

RockyRaccoon
Is it solipsistic in here or is it just me?

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Maryland

Moderator

Romanelli wrote:

The logic behind it is simple, and has been hashed and rehashed to death. (The key word is OFFICIALLY.

Right, I'm not even that invested in having new albums up on the site AS SOON as they exist, I'm just trying to understand the logic behind this rule. If an album is made available for streaming in an official capacity by an official person related to the musician (i.e. the record company), why can't that be considered the release date? What makes it "official" aside from the fact that the record company, at one point, said "hey this album is due for release on July 25th"? If they then make it available on July 10th, can that not be the "release date" unless the record company specifically comes out publicly and says "hey, we've made this available for streaming now, it is officially 'released'"? From what I'm understanding, the difference between an "official" release and just a "release" is an explicit statement from the record company which, at that point, seems superfluous. Kinda seems like it all comes down to semantics.

albummaster wrote:

I think, personally, that having new releases adds an extra dimension of debate and helps to keeps things fresh. However, there's always a balance with these things and so long as one thing is not drowning out everything else, I'm ok with it.

Regards ratings of new releases, on reflection I think the right thing to do is leave things as they are, accepting people are able to gain access to pre-release versions and that other people are interested in what people think about these. However, if people could report ratings such as the one originally mentioned so that they can be deleted from the database, it would help to clean up the site as those types of ratings are clearly not in the spirit of things.

I can dig this personally, I understand the site not wanting to publicly be like "hey if you hear a leak, go ahead and post it" as BEA can't appear to support illegally downloading music (whether implicitly or explicitly). The new releases thing is a good idea and I think that's probably going to be the best way to work things.
_________________
2023 Chart

Early Psychedelic Rock

Electronic Chart