|The contents of the merged into Album on December 1, 2013 and it now redirects there. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history.page were|
|WikiProject Albums||(Rated Redirect-class)|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2008. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.|
- 1 Stub on such an important article?
- 2 Retronym?
- 3 Highest selling?
- 4 Lightly prepared nature?
- 5 original material
- 6 Magical Mystery Tour
- 7 Image copyright problem with File:TheBeatlesMagicalMysteryTouralbumcover.jpg
- 8 Edits removed 2009-04-22
- 9 Christmas albums
- 10 Field recordings = "Studio albums" ???
Stub on such an important article?
Can't we provide some examples or whatever? This seems pretty blank!
- Yeah let's keep the article even tho it's short. Sometimes definitions are best short. Why drag on what just needs a simple paragraph. How long does it have to be before we can get rid of the Stub tag? Kristinwt (talk) 03:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Isn't "studio album" a retronym to differentiate "regular" albums during the advent of live and compilation albums? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely, and it just doesn't work for certain types of music -- jazz, for example. Ricadus (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that Studio albums tend to be the highest selling. Many artists' biggest selling albums are Greatest Hits Compilations. Far too many to mention in fact.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 07:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Lightly prepared nature?
The article mentions:
Due to their lightly prepared nature, they can contain a variety of flourishes and production techniques, including segues, sound effects, found sound, and band contributions.
I don't understand. Does it imply that studio albums are lightly prepared? How so?
- It was just bad writing, an appalling misuse of the term "lightly". Thankfully, it's no longer in the article. I can't even imagine what a "lightly prepared" studio recording would sound like. Presumably, such an album would be low in fat and refined sugar, but I can't say if I'd enjoy it.
- --01:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
The article says that they tend to contain largely new material. Does that mean that a cover album would not be a studio album, or is it merely a truism because most bands and artists don't release albums full of covers? In either case, the language should be cleaned up.LedRush (talk) 02:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- A cover version album would be all new material as well - by the recording artist at least (all new recordings).--Tuzapicabit (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Magical Mystery Tour
Is it just me, or is Magical Mystery tour one of the worse examples we could use for this arcticle? I mean seriously, who picked one of the handful of albums that exists as both an EP and an LP? I'm planning to change it to Dark Side of the Moon. Any strong objections? Perhaps Abbey Road? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's actually quite a subversive choice, since Magical Mystery Tour began life as a special double-EP package and is something of a fake album, as non-album tracks were subsequently added to bulk it out to LP length. It raises the question of what constitutes an "album", the contents or the physical format? It also shows up why this category could be considered subjective or unhelpful in certain circumstances. Ricadus (talk) 10:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, it's also the soundtrack to a TV special.
Image copyright problem with File:TheBeatlesMagicalMysteryTouralbumcover.jpg
The image File:TheBeatlesMagicalMysteryTouralbumcover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
- That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
- That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Edits removed 2009-04-22
The following editorial remarks were removed from the article April 22, 2009 and placed here. These remarks belong on the talk page, not in the article.
EDIT: "It is the first studio album released by the band since 2004's Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned and is the first Prodigy album since 1997's The Fat of the Land to feature all three members of the band."-Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invaders_Must_Die
No idea why does it say Always Outnumbered, Never Outgunned was studio album, and The Fat of the Land was just "album", and how can this be album and studio album in the same time if there is difference between two.
Who has constructive answer please write, or dont, just letting ya know that this defenition is confusing. Thanks.
- I cannot imagine how that could possibly belong in the article, and I don't even believe it was worth preserving here. If specific albums are to be cited as examples, better-known albums should be used, such as (from the previous section on this Talk page) Abbey Road or The Dark Side of the Moon. They have their fans, but Prodigy is a long, long way from being a truly well-known band. I couldn't have named ONE of their albums -- one of their songs, come to think of it -- whereas I suspect even non-fans can name a track from the aforementioned Beatles or Pink Floyd albums. Or, they could easily name another Beatles or Pink Floyd album. (Probably Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band and The Wall.)
- --Ben Culture (talk) 02:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
- The answer is obvious to me: They should be regarded as studio albums. If they were recorded in a studio, if the same amount of work went into producing them, and the recordings are new (if not the material).
- This Wikipedia article was nominated for deletion. Even after the work that's been done on it since then, I can see why. It's kind of stupid. It's built upon opinion, not fact -- the kind of article likely to use a phrase like "is considered" to dress up an opinion as a "practically a fact". We really don't have to be too precious about what the article currently says; we can be bold in changing this article, as we should be with all articles. I say a Christmas album is a studio album if it fits the three criteria above. If the article currently says otherwise, I'm probably going to change it. (I feel I'm having a bad writing day, like a bad hair day, is the only reason I might not.)
- --Ben Culture (talk) 02:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Field recordings = "Studio albums" ???
Blues/folklore recordings often are/were made neither under "studio" conditions nor were/are they "Live albums" (usually recorded in front of an audience), but made in the artist's living rooms, on their front porches, etc. Question therefore: Shouldn't there be an extra category "Field recording album" (or such) for better categorization of those albums??? StefanWirz (talk) 13:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Did you just make that term up? Then the answer is NO -- as in "No original research, no original synthesis". Really, the phrase "No original thought" applies, but it just looks so bad, it must be unpopular. Wikipedia is a place to gather established facts from other sources into one place, not to create new ideas or new terminology.
- I haven't actually read about why this article was nominated for deletion, but I'm seeing PLENTY of reasons myself!
- To answer your question, these recordings would be considered "studio albums" regardless of the less-than-professional atmospheres. (Really, we don't need this article at all.)
- --Ben Culture (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)