Talk:From Genesis to Revelation/Archive 1

Archive 1

removal of reissue track listing

I've just added the information about the 2CD reissue again. Is there any reason why it should not be included in this article? Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 23:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted again to include the 2CD version track listing. The edit summary to remove it was "there are mutiples re-releases of this album on a myriad of labels, Edsel being just one of them. It is not notable." I think the best way to go about including the information about the re-releases would be to include the full track listing for one, such as the Edsel release, and list info about the other releases and the ways they differ from either the original single disc or the later double disc release. I don't see how just removing the information without any work in that direction is an improvement to the article. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 06:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree BGC 13:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate on the reasons why you disagree? I've reverted again as I don't thing deleting that information is helpful. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 22:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The extra disc information has been removed again. Unless a convincing argument is made to leave it out, I'll add it back in. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 07:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And I'll take it back out. Edsel is basically a boot label and the FGTR material has appeared on dozens upon dozens of re-releases. It's redundant. BGC 13:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If there are dozens upon dozens of releases, then why not say something about them in the article? I'm not against replacing the Edsel list with such information, but until something better replaces it I think it should stay in. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added the extra info again. I still fail to see how this article is better without it. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 01:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Another revert. BGC, in the edit summary for your latest revert you said "removing redundant bootleg tracklisting". The track listing for that second disc is quite obviously not redundant, and the reissue is not a bootleg. It is being sold by amazon.uk and is the best selling item they have for this Genesis album. I don't believe the amazon corporation is in the business of selling bootleg recordings. I still can't see any argument why this reissue information shouldn't be here. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 07:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion on this dispute. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 08:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

The re-release is obviously verifiable, and the article is not exactly overly long at this point. Generally, I'm not sure that track listings are necessary whatsoever, but I certainly see no problem with including the Edsel release in some way. The style issues are up to the editors, but I don't see why a verifiable album re-release is inappropriate for an article about the album. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 08:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a bootleg. Thus, it has been removed. BGC 15:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

We've no prohibition against talking about bootlegs, so long as they're verifiable. I don't think amazon.uk would sell an illegal bootleg in any case, they would've gotten a C&D at warp speed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 18:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

This release is not a bootleg. I'll add the extra track listing again unless a reasonable argument is made to persuade me not to. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Added again

I've added the Edsel track listing again, as I've seen no arguments that convince me that it shouldn't be included. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 16:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: From Genesis to Revelation

This dispute is over whether or not a recent CD reissue of the album with an extra disc of material should be included in the article with its own track listing. 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The CD reissue in question is both notable and verifiable, see links to amazon.uk here and here. It is the top-selling version of that album at that site. It is significantly different from the original album release in that it contains an entire extra disc of material. There are currently no problems with article length that would prohibit the addition of the track listing, as can be seen in this difference. I think this extra track listing should be included in the article. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The CD is NOT notable, as it is one of literally hundreds of re-releases which is not on the original label, and features supposed "bonus tracks" which can already be found on a 1998 box set release Genesis Archive 1967-75. Its sales status on amazon.com hardly makes a case for its validity to be included. The article is focused on the principal 1969 album in question - not on re-releases over 30 years after the fact on discount labels.

BGC 10:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

• As examples of albums that have been reissued with extra tracks, Drama (Yes album), Close to the Edge, Fragile (Yes album), Pictures at an Exhibition (album), and Leftoverture all have those extra tracks mentioned in their articles. Love Beach by ELP was reissued with extra tracks, but the article doesn't mention it. (Given the poor critical reception of the album in the first place, I'm surprised the reissue would have gotten any attention.) Given the precedents of these articles, I think it would be okay to list the extra tracks in this article. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

But the lion's share of these albums saw release through the same label, and was the ONE authorized release. FGTR has dozens upon dozens of releases, making the Edsel configuration a moot point. It's not notable in the least. BGC 10:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Due to still-active dispute, I've relisted this RfC to hopefully generate some more opinions to help reach consensus. RJASE1 ^Talk 18:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: No evidence has been presented which shows release in question is actually a bootleg, per BCG's claims. Reliable sources provided by other editors above clearly show it is a reputable and notable release. The arguments to date for removal are thus unfounded. Re-insert, subject only to issues of style as mentioned above in third opinion. BFD1 18:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: The re-release is notable enough for inclusion in the article, the tracklistings on the re-mastered SACDs were included so why can't the tracklisting re-release of this album be included? EJaY (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding the reissue track listing again

It appears to me from both the third opinion and the RFC above that the consensus is to let this extra track listing stay in the article. In addition to the examples given by Elkman above, I can also point to the following from my own collection: Catch a Fire, Burnin', Rastaman Vibration, Exodus (album), Kick (album) and Live at Leeds. I'm sure there are a great deal more. It seems that listing reissues with an entire extra CD is common on Wikipedia, and certainly not contrary to policy or accepted practice. I will add it back in as I still see no reason why it should be excluded. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 18:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted yet again. I see no reason why the reissue CD track listing should not be included. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 17:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

More alternative versions / Another alternative view

The All Music Guide has an extended track listing on its page for From Genesis to Revelation (31 tracks in all) that is different from the 26 track Edsel release that is in dispute here. The AMG also has an entry titled The Genesis of Genesis with 22 tracks (released Nov. 2006 on TBC) which appears to offer yet another version. There also appears to be a 2002 release in Japan and so on.

Here is my disinterested third party view: Certianly the fact that there have been many alternative releases is interesting and should be discussed in the article. Probably all of the above should be mentioned even if they are just "bootlegs". Which versions should actually receive a track listing is something that you all will need to work out. I don't like the way that BGC has repeatedly reverted another editor without discussion. I don't think he should take it for granted that because he says, "Edsel is a bootleg label," that others should accept this as fact and draw the same conclusions. I have to admit though that this situation is more complex than I first thought and that he may have a reasonable position in wanting to keep the track listing simple. Good luck. -MrFizyx 20:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One more opinion - Day late, dollar short

I had a disagreement with Robotman about this in February, and missed this row having pretty much given up on seeing the wiki Genesis discography section get its act together. I support the removal of the tracklisting, it was the right way to go.

I for 10 years have run what is THE most complete Genesis discography online, bar none, Scott's included and can add a few points of fact. (Self promotion? I guess, but its in the interest of disseminating information. Had the links to my site I tried to add been left in by BGC you all might have found a resource to verify the claims made above, but that's a different issue)

But to the point: 1) EDSEL is not a bootleg label. The CD in question is a legitimate release. 2) The CD in question is by no means unique or otherwise distinguishable from the hundreds of other re-releases of this album in any way that would warrant its being highlighted as it was. Mpoloukhine 16:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I'm well over a year late, but here's my two cents on the issue. Michael is correct that EDSEL is not a "bootleg label", as was being asserted by BGC. What BGC blatantly fails to realize is that Genesis do not own the rights to this album, nor do the band's usual labels, Charisma, Virgin, Atlantic/Rhino, et al. For this reason, you won't EVER see a reissue of this album on its "proper label" that would seem to satisfy BGC. It just won't happen. Jonathan King still owns the publishing rights to the album, so all those myriad reissues every few years aren't evidence of rampant bootlegging or piracy (the latter of which would be the proper term if the releases were in fact illegal), but simply evidence of King's insatiable greed and shameless self-promotion. He has been LICENSING the album to lots of lesser labels, which BGC has incorrectly assumed are "bootleg labels". We're not talking about Highland, et al here, these are just labels that have released LEGAL, LICENSED versions of the album, approved by Jonathan King himself. For that reason, mention of the many CD reissues is just as relevant to the article as the reissue on London records as "In The Beginning" or the original CD release "And The Word Was..." (which incidentally wasn't released on the original label either).

As a Genesis fan, I completely understand BGC's desire to keep the article from becoming overwhelmed by a comprehensive list of every single reissue of this album, from LP versions like "Rock Roots" to stuff like "Silent Sun 2006" and "The Orange Collection". However, his observation that they're all "bootlegs" is capricious, arbitrary, and just plain WRONG. I'd definitely agree that a complete list of all versions would dwarf the article, but people interested in this album are quite likely to want it on CD, and finding a copy of "And The Word Was..." is going to prove difficult and possibly expensive. Since the EDSEL release is the most comprehensive, I'd nominate that version to represent the tons of others out there. There should at least be some mention that this album has been released on CD more recently than 1987. MaxVolume (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Fireside Song

....sounds like "carry on wayward son". yes it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookee here (talk • contribs) 12:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)