Talk:BadBadNotGood discography

I enjoy tables, especially sortable ones. But I hate tables with chart positions for music that isn't produced to be projected like that. This counts for allmost all of jazz (and many other music), music that isn't produced, designed and marketed to sell millions of copies, and storm the charts. The charts don't even show the real impact of an album anymore, it's antiquated; and for the jazz charts they probably rather count in the hundreds, except for those boldly marketed as jazz like Norah Jones or Lizz Wright. Even someone as prolific as Miles or Hancock the tables with chart positions looks laughable, they just don't contain any information, except for a handful of albums, their commercial success could easily be described in its specific lemma or in the biography, or here with just one column and/or specifics in a reference. Instead, any meaningful information, such as year, label a.o. are cramped into one column, not sortable, not even really readable. Here, with the short titles throughout, even the album titles seem to be meaningless, at least in an esthetic sense; and with the jungle of EPs, singles and whatnot it doesn't get better. Whoever introduced the display of chart positions in this manner into areas where it obviously makes not much sense, shame on you. MenkinAlRire 15:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)