Older music re-released - Suggestions - Forums : Best Ever Albums

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

So this may be a bit nit-picky, and maybe someone has already commented on it, but is there a way to stay true to what decade the music was written in, instead of when the recording was released? For example, it doesn't make much sense to have Beatles or Hank Williams in the 2000s, even though they both have cds released during the 2000s.

albummaster
Janitor

Gender: Male
Location: Spain
Site Admin

BEA uses the original year of release for each album, so Abbey Road would be 1969 regardless of release format. It keeps things consistent and simple that way, and for 99% of albums it's fine. There is an issue with compilation albums, but I'm not sure there is much that can be done about that (& personally, I don't consider it a huge issue). Taking the approach that you suggested, what if a compilation album includes tracks from different years (which year do you use?), and what about albums by 'various artists'? etc.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Sometimes it is best not to rock the boat. I have only encountered this issue with older music, as I believe until Sgt. Pepper, the whole album concept wasn't that great. So my favorite artists of those time periods sometimes don't have very good albums. But what is this website, Best Ever Artists, no.

I now understand and agree why things are the way they are. It bugs me that Beatles 1 could be in the 2000s, although none of the music was written then, or that I have to find a 1950s recording of a classical piece in order to list it as written in the 1950s... but at the same time it is a bit nit-picky. Just thought I would mention my thoughts for improvement, because I appreciate this site very much.

ornr

sethmadsen wrote:

Sometimes it is best not to rock the boat. I have only encountered this issue with older music, as I believe until Sgt. Pepper, the whole album concept wasn't that great. So my favorite artists of those time periods sometimes don't have very good albums. But what is this website, Best Ever Artists, no.

That's some nice revisionist history. Yeah, the idea of a music album was pretty worthless until Sgt. Pepper.

LOL

Norman Bates

Gender: Male
Age: 51
Location: Paris, France

ornr wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

Sometimes it is best not to rock the boat. I have only encountered this issue with older music, as I believe until Sgt. Pepper, the whole album concept wasn't that great. So my favorite artists of those time periods sometimes don't have very good albums. But what is this website, Best Ever Artists, no.

That's some nice revisionist history. Yeah, the idea of a music album was pretty worthless until Sgt. Pepper.

LOL

sethmadsen has a point I think. Before Sgt. Pepper's (or Revolver and Pet Sounds if you prefer), pop/rock albums were seldom thought of has complete entities, but more as a compilation of latest singles with a few fillers. It doesn't mean that music was worthless before, but that before 66-67, popular music was more an SP market.

Of course you'll find exceptions. And I didn't mention jazz albums.

RoundTheBend
I miss the comfort in being sad

Location: Ground Control

Indeed. Besides classical music and jazz, pop music or rock n roll had more of a goal to sell 45s, very few, if any were focussing on albums.

ornr

Norman Bates wrote:

ornr wrote:

sethmadsen wrote:

Sometimes it is best not to rock the boat. I have only encountered this issue with older music, as I believe until Sgt. Pepper, the whole album concept wasn't that great. So my favorite artists of those time periods sometimes don't have very good albums. But what is this website, Best Ever Artists, no.

That's some nice revisionist history. Yeah, the idea of a music album was pretty worthless until Sgt. Pepper.

LOL

sethmadsen has a point I think. Before Sgt. Pepper's (or Revolver and Pet Sounds if you prefer), pop/rock albums were seldom thought of has complete entities, but more as a compilation of latest singles with a few fillers. It doesn't mean that music was worthless before, but that before 66-67, popular music was more an SP market.

Of course you'll find exceptions. And I didn't mention jazz albums.

How is the bolded any different from Lady Gaga, say, or Katy Perry? Or even good twenty-first century bands like The White Stripes? There are amazingly cohesive concept albums like The Wall, collections of straight singles, and every sort of album in between. It's absurdly simplistic to pin the origin of a general type of album-making approach to just one single moment in history. This is just a classic case of people trying to overstate the revolutionary nature of Sgt. Pepper. Musical attitudes evolve and build over time. They only seem to appear all at once because critics like to dumb things down in retrospect and attribute everything good in pop music to the Beatles. horseshit.

Norman Bates

Gender: Male
Age: 51
Location: Paris, France

ornr wrote:

1) How is the bolded any different from Lady Gaga, say, or Katy Perry? Or even good twenty-first century bands like The White Stripes?
2) There are amazingly cohesive concept albums like The Wall, collections of straight singles, and every sort of album in between.
3) It's absurdly simplistic to pin the origin of a general type of album-making approach to just one single moment in history.
4) This is just a classic case of people trying to overstate the revolutionary nature of Sgt. Pepper. Musical attitudes evolve and build over time.
5)They only seem to appear all at once because critics like to dumb things down in retrospect and attribute everything good in pop music to the Beatles. horseshit.

1) It is not, I didn't say that.
2) Absolutely.
3) I don't think it's "simplistic", it's a question of economics. Popular music was more an SP market than an LP market before the mid-60s. I'll admit I don't have the numbers right here. It's got nothing to do with the quality of the music though, I agree with you on that.
4) Not at all. I quoted Pet Sounds and Revolver instead. Why these? Because they were influential in their time. I didn't say they were particularly good (even if I think they are, actually) or revolutionary, tnhey probably weren't the first anyway. For all I know, SF Sorrow might have been more revolutionary (but not as popular as The Beatles' LP).
5) That's because you take it for granted that I was considering this shift from SP to LP mass interest as a good thing. Which I don't, not necessarily. I think something was lost in the way when every major band started releasing theme LPs. When pop music, or rock, starts to take itself seriously, generally it's for the worse.

To conclude, I'm not saying The Beatles invented everything, I'm not saying Sgt. Pepper's is revolutionary, I'm not even saying that the shift from a majoritarily SP market to a more LP market was a good thing. I was just commenting on what sethmadsen said : I think it's not entirely false to assume that there was a change in the consuption habits of the music market around the mid-/late 60s, and I think he's right to say that before, say, 66-67, there weren't as many albums thought of as entities in themselves as there were later. Which doesn't mean that all albums after that were concept albums either.