Talk:Concept album/Archive 1

Archive 1

Musical theatre

this article needs to be expanded to include the term's use in the world of musical theatre. Zephyrprince 05:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

King Crimson catalogue

Can someone find verifiably accurate information about the article's assertion that not only do the first four albums by King Crimson form a quadrilogy, but each of them have an individual conceptual background? The only comprehensive published source on King Crimson to date, Sid Smith's In the Court of King Crimson (Helter Skelter, 2001), says nothing about either of those ideas being the case, and nor have I ever heard of them before reading what's written here. The first two albums are sometimes grouped together as a unit, often because they were recorded with the only two similar instances of the band's lineup in its early years, and Fripp himself has commented that Poseidon is, in some ways, what he wanted Crimson King to be, but all first four albums? I'm going to take this out if nobody can verify it. Drasil 03:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I did some further research, and all I could find on this topic were two somewhat flimsily speculative web pages that mention this as a possibility, so I've taken it out. Besides the lack of evidence, given the group's history, this is very highly unlikely to be the case. Drasil 04:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

R&B Concept Album

Added mention of R. Kelly's Trapped...In the Closet Neomuslings 02:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sgt Pepper

Would someone like to explain how Sgt Pepper is a concept album? It was ORIGINALLY intended to be a serious of songs sung by 'different artists' - Sgt Pepper's LHCB, Billy Shears... However, the idea was given up. There is no concept. As this album is featured heavily in the article, with even a picture of it, I recommend a SERIOUS edit to sort this out. For a reference to this idea of Sgt Pepper being an 'aborted concept album', see "Revolution in the Head: The Beatles Records and the Sixties" by Ian Macdonald (I believe I read it there!)

A Day In The Life is certainly not about the day after a SP show, this should be removed.

(the above was unsigned comment by 217.155.38.116)

We are in the realm of literalism versus popular perceptions and misconceptions. In this case misconception AND mis-naming by critics and the public at the time of the actual release nearly 40 years ago. Whether rightly or wrongly - the album was very widely described as a "concept album" from the time of its release. The Beatles themselves did not outright comment on the terminology at the time. They were justifiably proud of the album's breakthrough artistic qualities - and did not publicly quibble with the "concept album" designation. (They did so in interviews in later years.) The unusual elements of the album (the Beatles presenting themselves for two songs as an alter ego band... the reprise of the opening song... the cross-faded songs etc) and the packaging - all of which WERE new to pop/rock albums - all contributed to the notion of this being something new and very different. And for lack of a better term - and to distinguish the album from ordinary collections of totally unrelated songs - "concept album" was the term used to describe it - and the designation stuck.

When other albums were released that proffered storylines (usually spelled out in the album packaging with text and/or lyrics) - such as the Pretty Things' "S.F. Sorrow," Nirvana's "The Story Of Simon Simopath", The Who's "Tommy" the Kinks' "Arthur" - these albums too were described as "concept albums" even though they were clearly a different 'animal' than a song-cycle such as "Sgt. Pepper."

To try and deal with this (since it is hard to undo nearly 40 years of popular perception) I recently made an addition to the article. The current second paragraph in which I explain how there were two definitions of "concept albums" that lived side-by-side in that era. That both types of album were held to be "concept albums." With that paragraph there to explain it - I think "Sgt. Pepper" needs to stay - but it definitely needs a re-write.

So for that matter does "Satanic Majesties" which was not described as a "concept album" at that time. The sole concept was the Stones doing their equivalent of "Sgt. Pepper" - just as their then-recent single "We Love You" was a conscious echo of "All You Need Is Love" !

Certainly in respect of albums in the post-1966 era - we need to acknowledge the two different types of album that were regarded as "concept albums"

Davidpatrick 05:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The concept is that the series of songs were to be sung by 'different artists'. Hyacinth 08:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we know! .... I think the new bit that has been added is an important clarification, but I think it goes on a bit. Something along the lines of "Sgt Pepper was initially intended to be a concept album, with 'different artists' performing each track, but the idea was abandoned after the the second song". Then there should be a link to the album, where it can be explained further.

NPOV

I removed the NPOV tag as there is no description of the problem on this talk page. Hyacinth 10:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Not verified

I removed the not verified tag as there is no indication on this talk page of what needs to be verified. Hyacinth 10:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Who Sell Out

I was planning to put a bit into this page along the lines of...

"The first concept album is widely regarded as either Sgt. Pepper or Sell Out which were released within months of each other in '67"

... as public opinion is pretty evenly spread between the two, but the section on Sgt. Pepper is so big and dense that I couldn't find a place to put it. I definately believe that Sell Out deserves at least an equal section, as it has a much more prominent concept than Sgt. Pepper. If anyone would care to take a look at the Sell Out page and incorporate it into this one, I'd be grateful. If not, I'll probably do it later. Thanks - MightyMoose22 04:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Major overhaul needed

The truth of the matter is that to place the start of the history of the concept album in the rock and roll era is completely bogus. From the comments listed above, I must conclude that what I have normally held to be established is true, that the vast majority of wikipedia users are both by age and education fairly unaware of the history of music prior to rock and roll, which is pretty much the case everywhere in the United States for anyone uder the age of fifty. If this trend continues, in a generation's time this article will be revised to place the start of the concept album with Run-DMC's Raising Hell, or the Beastie Boys' Licensed to Ill, future music aficionados knowing nothing prior to the beginning of hip-hop other than James Brown and funk groups from the 1970s.

Given that a recording of a classical piece or a show, say Beethoven's Fifth Symphony or My Fair Lady, should not qualify as a 'concept album' as these works were already planned for other media and the recordings came later (which would make Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Weber's Jesus Christ Superstar a concept album as the record is the original and the stage versions came afer), then a concept album should be defined as an original work made expressly for recordings, unified by a theme, mood, or concept chosen by the recording artist. Sgt. Pepper certainly qualifies as a concept album, even if the concept is fairly loose, and it certainly sold well, but to credit it with either originating or popularizing the concept concept is utter nonsense. The same goes true for any rock and roll concept LP of the sixties - the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds, the Mothers' Freak Out, or The Who Sell Out (by the way released in December of 1967 in the UK, and recorded after Sgt. Pepper had already been released in June of '67 - no way Townshend any more than the rest of the western world could've avoided the Sgt. Pepper influence) etc. Like Sgt. Pepper, they're all at the very least a decade too late for that.

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to be a fan page for assigning characteristics to cherished favorites that those favorites do not possess; it is to present as accurate a history and accounting as possible. I know that much more research needs to go into the history of recordings prior to the unveiling of the long-playing album by Columbia Records in 1948 - too much of that info is going down the rabbit hole, similar to how the history of silent film is getting harder to ascertain as documentation gets lost or destroyed. But, with that in mind, the earliest examples I have found for the concept album depend on interpretation of the definition. These starting points could be:

Lee Wiley, in 1939, for her album set of 78s of the songs of Ira and George Gershwin; she continued in the forties with others for Cole Porter and Harold Arlen; Frank Sinatra, in 1946, for his set of four 78s released as The Voice of Frank Sinatra

In the fifties, Ella Fitzgerald and her producer Norman Granz built Verve Records by taking Wiley's concept and updating it, releasing Fitzgerald's celebrated recording series of Songbooks with top-flight arrangers and recording technology. These albums were both artistic and commercial successes. Earlier in the decade, Sinatra had updated his own concept album approach with his series of masterful records done for Capitol. These albums, excepting the holiday and the instrumental one with Frank conducting, all peaked in the top five on the Billboard LP chart during that decade. To say that it waited for Sgt. Pepper to arrive in 1967 for the concept album to attract a wide commercial audience presents a distorted and incomplete picture in the regard to the actual history.

Wikipedia is fast becoming the first point of reference for many people, before they go to a print encyclopedia. The article as it stands is very disjointed, almost schizophrenic, not to mention factually inaccurate. It needs major overhaul.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.16.50.230 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 2006 March 1.

A set of 78s is not a concept album. A collection of songs that simply compliment each other is not a concept album. That's just an album. That's what an album is. I would agree, however, that the holiday themed releases should be at least mentioned.

Incidentally, this is why I (and many others) disagree with the classification of Sgt Pepper, or at least with the amount of credit it gets. It may have been conceived as a concept album, but it wasn't released as one.

And The Who started recording Sell Out in May '67, by the way. :) - MightyMoose22 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

in response to the above response: 1) there is no reason that a set of 78s cannot be a concept album if the definition is a collection of recorded songs tied together by an organizing concept; since in the 1930s and 1940s singers and songwriters were separate entities, unlike today, a group of recordings organized around the songs of a single composer would certainly qualify, especially if no one had thought of doing so before 2) an album is not a collection of songs that complement each other; most of the time an album is simply a haphazard collection of songs, period 3) not to be too picky but in the interest of accuracy, according to the Complete Chronicle of The Who Anyway Anyhow Anywhere (2002) by the time Sgt. Pepper was released in the UK on June 1, the Who had recorded only songs that would end up as bonus tracks on the 1995 reissue of The Who Sell Out - while Townshend certainly harbored his own ideas about composition and recording and may have had notions for, if not entire songs, already worked out for the new LP prior to the arrival of Sgt. Pepper, the truth of the matter is that in 1967 the Beatles, along with Bob Dylan, (and to slightly lesser extents Brian Wilson and the Rolling Stones) were very much looked upon as guideposts by the rest of the day's rock community - Townshend would have been unable to completely negate the influence of Sgt. Pepper even if he wanted to, and it probably did have an impact on the shape of Sell Out (I have never seen a report where Townshend makes a statement to the effect that during the 1960s he did everything in his power to ignore The Beatles) and 4) all of this is really beside the point as, to reiterate, placing the start of the concept album during the rock and roll era of the 1960s does a disservice to the history of sound recording in the twentieth century and to how that story played out - writers, critics, and musicians of the 1950s were were referring to long-playing records by Sinatra, Peggy Lee, and others in terminology later generations would understand as describing a concept album long before John Lennon, Paul McCartney, Pete Townshend, Brian Wilson, or Frank Zappa ever entered a recording studio —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.16.50.230 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 2006 March 15.

Okay, 1) a - It's not an album. b - the "concept" is tenuous, at best.

2) Just because some people aren't very good at it doesn't mean those that are are something special. By that reasoning, I could claim that every half decent guitarist is a virtuoso, purely because most people can't play guitar.

3) I'm not debating influence. I'm just saying that although Sgt. Pepper came first, to quote myself, "It may have been conceived as a concept album, but it wasn't released as one." So when Sell Out was released, it was the first fully realised concept album. I'm not claiming Townshend invented the idea, just that Sgt. Pepper (as it was released) doesn't really count.

4) Yes, you said all that before.

Basically, by your definitions, every collection of songs that were either written by the same person (or people), or that merely sound good together would be counted as a concept album. I disagree. - MightyMoose22 05:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

To quote something I wrote on this page a few months ago - "We are in the realm of literalism versus popular perceptions and misconceptions"

There are two entirely separate things going on here. Were there albums released prior to the mid-1960's that were collections of songs that had a cohesive theme (such as Ella Fitzgerald's albums of songwriters)? Absolutely. But they were almost certainly never described by the record trade, by members of the media or by the public as "concept albums". They were "collections" or perhaps "themed collections".

The term "concept album" was certainly not popularized until the mid-1960s (and may not even have been used prior to then). It was (depending on your point of view) a conceit or a legitimate term that flourished at the dawn of so-called progressive rock. This was at the point that (in the UK) what had been called "pop music" became "rock music" if it was more sophisticated and had aspirations beyond simply entertaining the listener. In the US - the similar change was made from referring to "rock 'n' roll" to "rock music."

From 1967 onwards there was a wealth of press coverage and consumer support for this distinction between what had been primarily entertainment to what was now considered, or at least claimed to be, an art-form.

Releasing something that was dubbed a "concept album" - be it an integrated narrative or a loose theme - was an artistic badge of honor that showed that the performer was a "serious" artist. Hence the plethora of them in the late 1960s and early-mid 1970s. The fact that among the good ones there were so many dreadful and pretentious ones hastened the demise of their popularity. The success of punk and new wave in 1977/8 was (in part) a reaction against the perceived pomposity of progressive rock. And the epitome of progressive rock was the "concept album" - often a 2 or 3 disc album.

For all the above reasons - I think that we should distinguish between the pre mid-1960s albums (which belong in a separate legitimate category or article as "Themed albums") and the specific genre of "concept albums" from when the term first came into being. There could, and should, be a brief preamble about how "themed albums" were the predecessor of this new genre. But unless someone has hard evidence of there being a genre prior to 1966/1967 that was ever called "concept albums" - I think this article should start in the mid-1960s. And everything before (or subsequently of a similar nature to THOSE types of albums) belongs in a separate article titled "Themed albums" Davidpatrick 04:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

What he said. :) - MightyMoose22 05:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Muswell Hillbillies, Einstein, Sgt. Pepper

Added (or put back in?) Muswell Hillbillies by The Kinks. This is definitely as much a concept album as OK Computer. If you have a problem, take it up with Me, but first read my description and the liner notes...

Also wonder whether Einstein on the Beach is really appropriate since it's technically an opera by most people's standards. I suppose I see a slight distinction from other Glass works, e.g. Koyaanisqatsi, Naqoyqatsi that did not make the list (the latter are movie soundtracks for one, although "movie" in the same sense that Einstein on the Beach is an "opera" in my opinion).

Also, the description of Sgt. Pepper at the top is a bit long for my taste considering the point of the whole paragraph is that this is not a real concept album and considering this is not an article about the Beatles...

--Chinasaur 10:09, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Pepper LP is significant enough that it has its own article. No need for excess info here. Place it in the Pepper article. Kingturtle 03:06, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Shouldn't any album listed here at least offer a brief description of the album's supposed concept? What, for example, is the concept of Astral Weeks? I think one problem (someone alludes to it below) is that in the critical atmosphere of the late '60s/early '70s, the "concept album" label gave status to an album - and so critics, anointing an album as major or important, would see concepts where, perhaps, no concepts were readily legible or intended. (I've seen John Cale's Paris 1919 described as a concept album...about what, exactly?) --2fs 03:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not concept albums?

I am not familiar with all the albums on this list, but quite a few of them are clearly NOT concept albums by any definition I can think of. This list appears to be completely out of hand. For example: "A Hard Day's Night"??? What exactly is the concept of that album? Just because its songs were featured on a movie, that does not make it a concept album. (On the other hand, the Alan Parsons Project albums clearly belong). soulpatch

Okay, not to be a jerk, but...if Plastic Surgery Disasters is a concept album "about modern society," the Dead Kennedys' entire catalog is one big concept album. That's what the band wrote about: "modern society." You will note the entire absence of any songs about, say, 14th-century agriculture in the DKs' oeuvre. Okay, I'm being snotty now (it's the punk-rock thing) - but when the notion of "concept album" is stretched so elastically that vague thematics can define one, it loses all meaning. How many musicians have recorded "concept albums" about "love and its effects," say? --2fs 03:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"A quick one while he's away"

"A quick one while he's away", while it was an early trial of the "rock opera" for the Who, is not an album, it is a collection of six songs that tell a single simple story, presented as a single album cut, not an album, even though it appeared on an album called A Quick One. It was the second Who album, had "Boris the Spider", "So Sad About Us" and other unrelated songs. Ortolan88

Removed. I suggest also removing all the Moody Blues albums except Days of Future Passed, but I'll wait for a second opinion rather than doing it myself. B.Bryant 18:14 Dec 30, 2002 (UTC)

I am glad to see that people are finally starting to prune some albums from this article. This is such a frustrating article because of all the questionable albums that were thrown into the list. soulpatch

I did some major pruning job. Because I don't know most the albums myself either, I have taken an outside source for judgement, being http://www.allmusic.com/. They have album descriptions for all major and many minor albums. When this description did not specify that it was a concept album (directly or indirectly) (or there was no description), I have removed it with the argument that it might still be one, but it certainly isn't famous as such. Andre Engels 16:15 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with every single removal, but I do agree with the vast majority, and I greatly admire your courage and intelligence in doing the pruning job. If a few of these get back on the list in spite of allmusic.com missing them, with their advocates making the case for them in the annotation or here, then fine, but good riddance to most of the obscure, unimportant, non-concept albums you took out. Ortolan88

Just wanted to fix the domain in the previous message. Allmusic.org redirects to a domain auction site. The correct domain is Allmusic.com. Zarggg

The Wall: 70s prog

Pink Floyd's The Wall was released in 1979 and was/is a highly influential. I propose it be moved to the 70s prog section and have its contents be expanded on. Monkeyfinger 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:PainOfSalvation-ThePerfectElementPart1.jpg

Image:PainOfSalvation-ThePerfectElementPart1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wanders like a teenager's hands

Not only is it pretty weird on content, its definition of a concept album as having one unifying theme gets stretched to ridiculous levels. I'll write a whole, stupid album about love, and call it a concept album. I rock. Jeez. 75.81.181.159 06:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Split article

This article is one giant mess, How to fix it simple. Make a much smaller article on the term concept album. Then split off all the albums into a list of concept albums. Much easier to edit and keep track of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

The more I look at the more I see that the vast majority of this article should just be removed and just add a list of concept albums to the end of the article. So many people are adding every description of everything that anyone might consider a concept alubm. Do we really need a paragraph talking about how Kid A and Ok Computer are not concept albums?

Goinng to start removing stuff and clening things up a bit.Ridernyc 18:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The focus of this article should not be individual albums. We are not here to write a long article on Sgt. Pepers, there is a page for that. Ridernyc 18:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

With all of the bands listed, where's Armor for Sleep?

I agree that this page needs tons of editing and omitting, but i also think that if there is going to be a paragraph for every band that has released a concept album, that both of Armor for Sleep's albums should be included. At least include "What to do when you are dead." This album is what concept albums are all about. Bournejordanlevi 03:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There should not be a paragraph for every concept album. Plain and simple it can not be done. Ridernyc 18:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

More Cleanup and New Section

Removed even more things that seemed to dostract from the main article.

Added a new section about bands using the internet and multimedia. I think this is how things sould be only things that advanced the concept album or few minor historical notes should be added. We can't keep track of every album.Ridernyc 20:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kilroy2.jpg

Image:Kilroy2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This image, from the Kilroy Was Here album, is used to give information about that album in the article concept albums. The image is also used to describe the album in Styx (band). The image qualifies as fair use per Wiki policy. --98percenthuman (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The Mars Volta

Given that all three currently released albums fit the standards (Amputechture being more subtle, with unifying themes and not so much a deliberate story), shouldn't The Mars Volta get a mention? Frances the Mute is a very strong concept album, IMO. DragonGuyver (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Magma

I would have thought that most of Magma'a albums, and certainly the first 3, qualify as concept albums.

Earl Marischal (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

GAN

Try to use {{Cite news}} and {{Cite web}} for the citations. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Failed GAN

The article passes all GA criteria except "accuracy". I am afraid that 4 days after BritandBeyonce advice, and no action yet, I have to fail it per WP:CITE. Using templates is required since the information they have are needed for a GA. (e.g. the web site that is used for citing the info might change AND THE URL NO LONGER WORKS). Λua∫Wise ^(talk) 16:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Haggard (German symphonic metal band)

This band albums are concept album:

Awaking the Centuries (2000) The album is based on Michel De Nostredame (Nostradamus) and his experience during The Black Plague in the Medieval Europe.

Eppur Si Muove (2004) The album is based on the life of the Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei (1564 –1642), who, according to legend, muttered the phrase Eppur si muove, meaning "And yet it does move", after being forced to recant, in front of the Inquisition, his belief that the earth moved around the sun.

Tales of Ithiria (2008) A fictional, medieval-themed story. Lord kavi (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

merge from Song_cycle#Song_cycles_in_popular_music

I have been unable to document the use of the term "Song cycle" in conection with the works listed in Song_cycle#Song_cycles_in_popular_music and have proposed merging the section with concept album, but unfortunatly do not have the expertise to incorporate it into this article. Would someone like to take a look and see what could usefully be added? Sparafucil (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Savatage?

Anyone want to put in a mention about them? They're probably more important to the history of concept albums than some of these bands who are listed here. Some of them seem to be sort of fanboyish advertising. "The Dear Hunter"? "Snowbread"? "Explosions in the sky" (lowercase sic)?

I can understand Dream Theater, Smashing Pumpkins, even Mars Volta being included, but a lot of the others in the 90s/2000s section seem to just be there because they're bands somebody likes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.210.9 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

List of concept albums

I listified the article and was going to try to clean it up a little bit before moving it to articlespace but someone boldly moved it already. So if anyone wants to work on List of concept albums, it exists. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Demise of the concept album?

One section that I think should be added to the article (I'd do it myself if I had references) is a discussion of how the concept album may be dying. Concept albums work when you have a record, tape, or CD that by its nature gives you a collection of songs, which one would normally play in order. But CD sales declining and likely to be overtaken by online sales (and long since surpassed by file sharing). These newer digital media operate almost entirely as distribution media for individual songs, and any unifying concept is likely to be lost on listeners who would just as soon cherry pick favorites that will get shuffled in with the other thousand songs on their iPods. Increasingly, we have high school and college students (historically the heaviest consumers of music) who are used to listening to their music this way, many of whom may never have listened to an album from start to finish in their lives.

Whether this is accurate or not, whether it comes to pass or the trend is reversed, I've seen it in the press enough times that it probably deserves mention in this article. --mwalimu59 (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as you can provide verifiable refs from reliable sources, and not just original research, that should definitely be included. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course. I'll be keeping my eyes open for references. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Doubt about Styx

I was a pretty big Styx fan, from 1994 to 2003 mainly. I still like the old stuff, but the firing of Dennis DeYoung was enough to make me become only his fan and forget the band. As a fairly knowledgable fan of the band, I take exception to this:

Styx released five concept albums between 1977 and 1983. (The Grand Illusion, Pieces of Eight, Cornerstone, Paradise Theatre, and Kilroy Was Here). In 1984, when the RIAA created the multi-platinum album certification, Styx became the first band to have four consecutive studio albums certified multi-platinum.[citation needed]

The Grand Illusion, Pieces of Eight, and Cornerstone were the loosest of loose concept albums, if they were concept albums at all. Some but not all of the songs on each album were on the same topic, but not related enough to form a single coherent narrative. Paradise Theater and Kilroy Was Here were bonafide concept albums though. No disagreements there. 97.117.160.95 (talk) 01:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Concern addressed. (next time however, you may wish to follow Wikipedia practice and add new content at bottom of talk page. you can use the tab "new section" to beging the section for you.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

American Idiot

Judging from various descriptions of American Idiot, I would say that it is a rock opera, not a concept album. As such, it should be removed from the section 1990s to Present. --RAC e CA12 (talk) 23:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

"Judging [it] from various descriptions" is original research. There are tons of reliable sources that call it a concept album. I added one from The New York Times. TheJazzDalek (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

A rock opera is a type of concept album. Ridernyc (talk) 09:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

NIN

This claims that Year Zero is the first nine inch nails concept album. Any fan knows that The Downward Spiral, which was release over 10 years prior to Year Zero, was a concept album also.

On top of that, why is Year Zero listed under the 1990s category? --Sean (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Added The Downward Spiral. dissolve^talk 06:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson

How can you have an article on concept albums and not mention Marilyn Manson? Not only do they produce concept albums, they produced a concept triptych. If no-one objects with good reason, I'll be adding it. TheEmpiricalGuy (talk) 12:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, a look at 1990s concept albums without a mention of Antichrist Superstar is incomplete. Added. Perhaps there are sources for others? dissolve^talk 06:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

George Clinton/ Parliament-Funkadelic Concept Albums

I am curious as to why no one has mentioned this. Legendary albums like "One Nation Under a Groove" and "Mothership Connection" are all-out concept albums. As a matter of fact, Every Parliament album ever made after the Mothership Connection is a concept album (though Clones of Dr. Funkenstein loses conceptual steam). Clinton had so many brain-children that he coudln't even pay brainchild support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.79.53 (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a reference to P-Funk, though listing all of them individually may devolve the article into just a list. dissolve^talk 06:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

WTF

This article is one hot mess; I don't even know where to begin fixing it. I would start by removing 90% of the albums listed but I suspect it would be reverted. I'm going to try and get some more eyes over here and see if we can't get things up to snuff. If anyone has any suggestions, please please please post them below. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'll start things off with a suggestion of my own: spin off a List of concept albums (not that I like lists, but that would at least get much of the dross out of here). It was previously deleted (discussion) but with tighter controls and enforced sourcing, it could be made to work. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Spinning off the list might be a good idea so long as each entry is sourced. Not sure what to do beyond that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

and to think this was FA at one point. this is what happens when editor X sees an article, goes 'hey <favourite band Y> don't get a mention!' and just plonks a sentence somewhere, over and over. eek. --Kaini (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• If you look at the version of the article that was featured, you'll see that standards were apparently a little lower back in '03. Also, note that it was demoted only 3-and-a-half months later. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 22:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a list of concept albums would be a pretty good idea. I assume, Control, that your main beef is with the 1990s and 2000s sections? Kaini's observation strikes me as very correct. Each of these sections needs a "prose" tag; they need to be rendered in prose, but that's a pretty big job. From then on, it's about policing to keep editor Y's favorite band out (as long as mine is in, of course). I've done something like that for Old Crow, but that was a much shorter section. Oh, Kaini's suggestion is made all the more acceptable by the almost complete lack of sources after, say, the section containing Queensryche and Maiden. A bold editor (with a ten-pound hammer, for instance) might start by cutting dead (i.e., unreferenced) wood... Drmies (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

believe me, as a maintainer of Dubstep, it was necessary to create List of Dubstep artists in order to keep some sort of sanity to the main article, but list pages are a serious pain in the ass. i have to prune that article with a ten-pound WP:RS hammer every week or so. anyway this article is looking a lot better now --Kaini (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, that is one long list! Drmies (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The list of albums should definitely be moved to a separate article where it can later be trimmed to sourced entries. The rest needs to be (better) sourced. I've found a couple of decent sources: [1] and [2], and the PopMatters article already cited is ok. I'll dig around for some more over the weekend. --Michig (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A few more sources that could be used to improve the article: This article from the St. James Encyclopedia of Pop Culture looks a particularly good place to start, there's this, which credits Peggy Lee's Black Coffee as the first concept album, and these that might also prove useful: [3], [4], [5].--Michig (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

hoooookay, i think that we're sort of heading in the other direction now. whilst most of the reverted changes have been along the lines of "concept album X by artist Y is awesome, lol", the most recent reverted edit was pretty well written and maybe somewhat cogent to the article. perhaps it's worth considering allowing the occasional encyclopaedic, well written addition of an example if it adds worth to the article --Kaini (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

1990s to present

I've noticed that User:Ridernyc has been rolling back edits to this section that I've made and he does have a point. There's no point trying to list every single concept album. However, information on concept albums from this era was lacking so I've pared down the paragraphs and removed the original research (check to see if it is satisfactory).

On the issue of including Marilyn Manson, as someone else said in the talk page, you can't talk about concept albums from the 1990's without talking about him. He was its most well known proponent, especially during the latter half of the decade. Admittedly, the section on Marilyn Manson was perhaps too long and veered away from the rest of the article so I've removed the interpretations and simply noted the fact that they form a trilogy with a fourth, larger storyline while simultaneously possessing their own individual concepts. I believe this is the first time this has been done and is, therefore, notable. I've also placed in appropriate references.

On the issue of Radiohead, admittedly, I did once read that OK Computer, Kid A and Amnesiac were concepts albums but after having read the discussion on the talk page, I've removed the section about them.

-Red marquis (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Again As stated by me and others multiple time over the course of years. The article is about the history of the concept album, the simple fact is that 80's and 90's did very little to advance the concept album as art form; hence why those decades have limited coverage. This is why Albums like Machina, and Year Zero get coverage, they clearly advanced the concept album into the digital age. Machina was a very early example of viral marketing using the storyline to generate excitement among fans, and Year Zero clearly pushed the boundaries of art and marketing into the digital age. If you can write actual prose showing how Manson or anyone else expanded on the concept album then you are more then welcome to add it. Until that time it is just another fan trying to include their favorite band in the article. Also plain and simple anything added to this article without proper citations will be removed. TO many people have worked on adding citations and removing cruft from this article to let it start to grow out of control again.Ridernyc (talk) 08:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way this is what the article looked like before it was massively overhauled and policed [6]. You can now see why every single addition to the article needs to be sourced and justified. It's actually kind of over due for another cleaning IMHO. Ridernyc (talk) 09:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so how does American Idiot, Deltron 3030 or A Grand Don't Come for Free advance the concept album?

-Red marquis (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick answer with the exception of American Idiot they don't. While not really doing much to advance the concept album American Idiot is one of the best selling and well known concept albums in history, certainly of the past 20 years. It won the Grammy for best rock record. And is one of the few and rock operas and I'm pretty sure the only punk rock opera to make it to Broadway. Sorry but you can not argue the pedigree and importance of American Idiot. Ridernyc (talk) 10:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like "just another fan trying to include their favorite band in the article".

Pedigree? What should that have anything to do with this article? Hahaha. And what importance? The criticism of Bush's administration. Nearly every concept album of the 2000s did exactly that. The other albums I've mentioned as well; Downward Spiral, The Fragile, OK Computer and Kid A also sold in the millions. So again, how is American Idiot special in anyway as to deserve mention?

PS. And what is 21st Century Breakdown doing here, for that matter? It has had less of an impact on the musical landscape as, say, Downward Spiral. -Red marquis (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not even going to respond since you are obviously just trying to start an argument. Ridernyc (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Mhhhmmm. You just did fanboy. Let's be honest, you have your own biases that've been guiding how you police this page. -202.72.121.108 (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You have already admired to adding incorrect original research to the article several times. You have repeatedly added unsourced information despites years of consensus that everything in the article needs to be sourced. And now you have degenerated into name calling. Ridernyc (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For someone who accused me of being a "fanboy" yourself, you've got nerve. If you would look at the history regarding the Marilyn Manson section, I did my best to prune and reduce it in size as it was far too large and took too much away from the rest of the article (culminating in the referenced and highly summarized version it is now). However, you cannot deny that he has made contributions to the advancement of the concept album format. Besides the trilogy, Mechanical Animals was the first album to exploit computer-based technology with the utilization of a flash-based screen that played a hidden track when the CD is inserted into a computer and Holy Wood, along with Smashing Pumpkins' Machina/The Machines of God, was among the first to use web-based content to further explore and expand on the concept. It was also the first the use the Enhanced CD medium and was meant to be marketed with a now stillborn film and a novel that also appears abandoned (except for a chapter (10) published on the internet) - that makes it pretty innovative in the realm of the concept album. Green Day on the other hand, despite being referenced does not add anything to the evolution or advancement of the concept album format (you admitted so much yourself), so I simply asked why it should be noted in the article since I believe it also takes away from the article with its detailed description of the story of the Jesus of Suburbia, you seem to be enamored with. You don't even make mention of it being "the first punk rock opera to make it to Broadway" in the article which would give it a better, albeit tenuous, justification for being included just that it is "important" because of the subject matter it dealt with [?]. Your fastidious refusal to have it and the 21st Century Breakdown section removed or edited only shows that you aren't a level-headed and unbiased editor and should therefore your policing of this article, I believe, should be called into question.

As you can also see, I haven't tried to ressurect the Downward Spiral and Radiohead paragraph article since its last removal, so you can stop accusing me now of "repeatedly add[ing] unsourced information". -Red marquis (talk) 18:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I never called you a fanboy, and the Manson information once sourced has stayed in the article. I'm not sure why you are resorting to incivility and increasingly WP:POINTY edits to the article. I have a number of other uninvolved editors to take a look at this discussion and the article. If you want to have a clear rational level headed discussion I'm more than willing to participate. If you continue down the path to name calling, accusations and incivility then the conversation is over. Ridernyc (talk) 19:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Didn't call me a "fanboy"? To quote you "Until that time it is just another fan trying to include their favorite band in the article.". This was after I apologized on your talk page and tried to be civil. You were the one who went on the attack. And my point about Green Day, irrespective of the aforementioned spat, is still valid and should be seriously considered. What has American Idiot and 21st Century Breakdown really offered in the realm of the advancement or evolution of the concept album? At best they should only get a passing reference in the dedicated 2000's section I proposed (see Updating 1999 to present section below). -Red marquis (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ridernyc asked me to have a look at proceedings here. I'm not too concerned since you do seem to be agreeing that sourcing is essential and that some criteria are needed for inclusion, such as advancing the art or achieving commercial success. This is always going to be a difficult process, Green Day could ship torn-up bits of paper and still have a platinum seller. Being music, emotions will inevitably come into play, so everyone needs to keep a lid on their characterizations of other editors.

As far as the "fan" and "fanboy" bits, let's face it - if you're writing in this area, it's probably because you have a deep love of music. We're all fans and we all have our subjective views, like when I read about Beastie Boys in a previous version and spit on the floor. You all have to navigate your own feelings about what is appropriate to include nd I admire you for trying. Red marquis, re-interpret what Ridernyc said along these lines: if you add material without backing sources that definitely support inclusion, then your edits are indistinguishable from those of a fan trying to add a mention of their favourite band. That doesn't automatically label you as "just a fanboy" - it just means I can't tell the difference. The easy way out is just to provide the sources that support your view. And I think you get that anyway, without my help... Franamax (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a fanboy...

I was asked to look at this and compared to the version [7] Ridernyc ref'd above, from a few years ago, this article is a massive success. The music fan in me though says "But..."

Why isn't Poe's Haunted mentioned here? I'm not aware of an album constructed around the theme of personal feelings, namely, her struggle to encompass her feelings about her father and her own personality after his death. Our article about the album doesn't even mention the word "concept" and yet it fits the definition as closely as anything could. Gsearching for "poe haunted concept album" certainly yields a few hits. Moreover, after looking into those links, it turns out she also wove it into her brother's publication of House of Leaves. Doesn't that fit the definition of advancing the art? I'd be hesitant about adding it myself, since it's among my personal "top 10", but I think it's worthy of consideration.

Another concern is that there is no longer any mention of The Alan Parsons Project. As I recall from the music press of the time, the whole point was to produce albums revolving around particular themes, the musicians involved being not especially material. I haven't gone back through the talk history, so I'm wondering what the rationale was to drop inclusion of that material.

So there's my two nominations for inclusion, but I wouldn't insist on them. Franamax (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Trust me it was never an easy decision to remove anything. The first thing I tried was moving everything to a list at the end of the article, then I split off the list. The list page has been AFD'd at least twice. My next step was to at least find any sort of reference for everything else in the article, I was not particular here but everything had to have at least some mention somewhere about it being a concept album. If i had it my way my fanboy addition would be The Residents who are not mentioned anywhere and I don't think have ever been. They have recorded literally dozens of concept albums over the last 40 years. Ridernyc (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe there's a sister article to this, List of concept albums, where concept albums from less well known groups, despite whatever influence on the musical landscape they may have had, can be noted. Just saying. -Red marquis (talk) 02:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

yeah personally I would love to see that list deleted. I created a version that got deleted, then when I was notaround it got recreated and no one patrols it. It's insanely hard to maintain it. Ridernyc (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Flock of Seagulls

O.K., the addition of this album to the concept albums of the 1980s was not without a reference, from a reliable one, yet Ridernyc, you said it was not notable. Hmm. Also wondering, what "not part of the prose" means as that was in the edit summary. Really, there are at least three albums listed here without a reference, I think FOS album--listed as a concept album on the article's page, should be listed here. Jimsteele9999 (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss this take part in the conversation above. I'm not going to have the same conversation every time an album is removed from the article. 19:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cutting Down Descriptions

Made a few edits today [8] This were mostly to cut the really long plot descriptions of the albums down. Also to take emphasis off certain bands which I feel had over coverage. Pink Floyd had about 5 albums mentioned, I changed it to recorded a series of albums only mentioning The Wall and it's importance as being the 3rd best selling record of all time. Ridernyc (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm asking for clarification as to why the entire section on the Flock of Seagulls albumw as removed. You say "I really don't want to have the same discussion every time an album is removed..." Understandable, however, the discussions above point to the fact you claim the rationale for removal is either a) lack of sources or b) lack of consensus. Surely both are good policies to follow, if in fact they are the impetous for yoru actions. The short, small but sourced addition I made used a source that qualifies as reliable. Next, I don't see anything on this discussion board pertaining to consensus before removal. I think your intents are good here, but please be careful you are not slashing and burning at the expense of others who assume good faith, are attempting to make this article better (and after all the intent of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge).

Jimsteele9999 (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page. Because this is covered in numerous sections including three other sections that currently have active conversations on this topic. Ridernyc (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I give up

Back to wiki-retirment for me, let the article turn to shit again. Goodbye. Ridernyc (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Updating the 1990's to present section

First, I would like to propose adding a paragraph to David Bowie's 1995 album 1.Outside in the 1990's section. The album itself offers nothing new to the concept album but it does bring to the table one innovation that, I believe, makes it noteworthy which is the fact that it was meant to be part of a 5-album pentology [?] culminating in a live performance on the turn of the millennium. The 'pentology' was abandoned after the release of Outside but the intent was pretty innovative and would have added to the advancement and evolution of the concept album and should therefore garner at least a passing reference.

Second, I would also like to propose adding a section on the [brief? still too early to be sure] resurgence of the concept album format in the 2000's in response to the surrealism of post-9/11 world politics and the seven years of Bush administration America. This era has spawned several concept albums dealing with said subject matter such as Bruce Springsteen's The Rising, Beastie Boys' To the 5 Boroughs, Nine Inch Nails' Year Zero, Green Day's American Idiot (and, perhaps, 21st Century Breakdown) and Rasputina's Oh Perilous World. To that end, I believe it maybe time to splinter off the 2000's section into its own dedicated section separate from the 1990's since it has now obviously created its own identity separate from the previous decade's. I'll be sure to add all the appropriate references.

-Red marquis (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the failed plans for David Bowies grand pentology really belong here, there have been numerous artist who have proposed and failed at multi album concepts in the past, the main example coming to mind would be the The Residents Mole Trilogy Mark of the Mole which was a very grand six album concept that was abandoned after only 3 of the 6 albums were released. Music history is littered with failed concept albums, in fact there are probably more failed concept albums than actual concept albums. Thus I think the proper place for that info would be in an article either about the album or in the Bowie article. The last section needs major improvement and needs to be worked into prose. For example the Greenday section should be about the impact the album had not a description of the plot. I would say 21st century breakdown stays because if I 'm not mistaken many of the songs from it are also used in the American Idiot Broadway musical. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional info also the Mark Of The Mole was meant to have a corresponding Atari video game, so the concept of multimedia and concept albums has been around for a very long time. Again not sure a failed idea deserves much time in this article. Ridernyc (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I kind of see your point on the pentology. However, I would still have liked to see passing references to failed concepts because, at the very least, it would show the genesis of ideas which would later be adopted by another artist and gain all the credit for it. I think it would be beneficial in the explaining of the evolution and continuing evolution of the format. What do you think?

I also think it's about time to remove the Deltron 3030 and A Grand Don't Come for Free paragraphs. Though referenced, we have determined that they offer nothing new to the format. As it stands, they are just filler for a poorly written section. -Red marquis (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Jumping in: I agree with Red marquis's final point; I was about to delete those myself. The Marilyn Manson paragraph, in its current state, isn't so bad, though like the Green Day section it is a tad long. The Deltron and Streets paragraphs, that's indeed just filler--they are not about "concept album", they're about those albums, and that goes for too much in the article (which reads like an essay anyway).

  The issue is of course that any text has to address the subject of the article, which is "concept album," and concept albums (even some discussion of them, like in the Bowie case) don't do that: they are primary sources. If the article is to be improved it will have to come, besides from pruning, from secondary and tertiary sources that discuss the subject. There's plenty of mention of the term (like here) in the context of individual albums, but that's usually not helpful. What would be helpful is Radiohead and the Resistant Concept Album: How to Disappear Completely by Marianne Tatom Letts--if one of you can go to the library and pick it up, that would be good (not for what it has to say on Radiohead, obviously, since that ought to be irrelevant here). There is a glaring absence of secondary sources on the subject in the article--when something like this, in a book published by Rodopi, an established academic press, is easily available. This piecemeal approach, first the Beatles, then The Who, then maybe Radiohead, etc., that's just not productive, since all it can achieve is listing things, and all we can fight about is whether some online zine calling something a concept album is a reliable enough source, and whether Marilyn Manson gets enough coverage. Just my $.02. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I just added such a secondary source; my edit summary was not directed at the two of you, Rider and marquis, since it seems to me that the two of you can set aside personal matters, of taste and such; many other editors can't. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree and the first section of the article is really the goal for the rest of the article. One of the main problems with this article has always been consensus and keeping a group together to edit together a proper article. Many of the poor examples here are simply here because I have no easy way to remove them. If someone comes in and adds a properly sourced paragraph about Deltron 3030 I can't remove it due to ownership issues. This leads to others saying "well then why is Deltron 3030 listed." It's easy when there is a group of who can reach consensus. Trust me there things as fan and an authority on certain bands that I would love to add but they either distract from the article or can not be properly sourced. Theres a ton of stuff that can be said about the Machina album and it's marketing that at this time just can not be sourced. The very early examples like and early history is easy to write and source, the end section since it can focus on multimedia and the internet is easy. The hard part is the 70's where it seems every band put out multiple concept albums. There was a lot of activity and not much of unique or innovative. Ridernyc (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Drmies, I think you've really hit the nail there, reference to sources two steps removed from the subject, i.e. more scholarlky reviews, is the best way to go here. Unfortunately, all three of the titles you mention are not in my public library system (VPL) or I would be hitting the street as you recommend. I've modified your recent addition somehwat since I can't make the leap from "I found this in a book" to "some critics claim..." [9] and the book subject appears to be Catholicism rather than music genres. But maybe you can improve it further? In general though, reference to more dispassionate works will best serve this article, I think. We can all easily enough find someone on the internet who says "best - album - ever". Franamax (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way in the interest of full disclosure I would like to make everyone aware that I recently performed this revision [10] I don't think anyone here will disagree that article had degenerated with large sections devoted to particular bands and way to many artists and albums mentioned. Ridernyc (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Rationale for The Alchemy Index addition: Obviously, a concept album where the tracks focus and follows a representative element is notable in any capacity. Not only is the album referenced in multiple places as a concept album, but as far as I can tell, an idea like this hasn't been tried on this scale before. If the album wasn't received well by notable critics, I definitely wouldn't have put it up there. But it was received well by the majority of those that reviewed it. The article is seriously lacking in notable artists from the present day, though ultimately notable is a subjective term. I see no reason why the portion should not remain. --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 14:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The policy would simply be we edit according to consensus, and there is years of consensus established on this talk page that this article simply can not and should not list every concept album. Simply being a concept album is not enough to be mentioned in this article. If you would like to discuss the impact this album has had on concept albums and would like to propose a paragraph about the albums impact then I welcome it. Ridernyc (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that I apologize for dropping the piece in there without reading this first. Like I said, it's been a long time since I've been back here because of school and work. Made this account back in 2007 and have had other similar hiatuses since then. But at any rate, with that being said, what is or is not influential in any given genre is ultimately a matter of subjective opinion. Reading over the article, I agree that artist such as Nine Inch Nails impacted their respective genre. However, in respect to this album, ultimately there aren't many sources to find that will explicitly state why or how it would have an impact on the genre. I'm positive your aware of the lack of legitimate sources (See your earlier reply to Drmies), so I won't hang on that more than I already have. What I would find notable is the fact that an album has a defined concept (hence concept album) and adheres to that concept throughout and then is received well by critics and sells exceptionally well. 'Impact' in the music industry is often not something you can source, but where there is a notable spread it makes it notable on its own merits. Some of the other artist and albums I've never heard of on this article, hence what is notable to you isn't to others. I guess my ultimate point is this, and it's been said previously on this page, this article lacks a spread across the spectrum of rock in general. Nine Inch Nails (Industrial Rock), Marilyn Manson (Grunge or Gothic Metal, judge genre for yourself), Green Day (Alternative, Punk), and the one I suggested Thrice (Hardcore, Indie). Some might group Nine Inch Nails (described on the Wiki page as Industrial rock, alternative rock, industrial metal) in with the same Parent genre as Marilyn Manson (Gothic Rock, Grunge, Industrial). /rant //Edit after original post: I went looking for things showing Thrice made an impact with their concept album after you suggested earlier, and I just got lucky to find this Punk Rock Concept Albums Before Green Day. Given time I can find more. :-) --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 20:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually this article is to narrowly focused on Rock. Rock concept albums are vastly over covered by the article. There are few pop albums, I don't think any country albums, I don't think any jazz albums etc. When you look at the larger picture which is the entire spectrum of music this article only focuses on one tiny slice of it which is rock. Ridernyc (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that. But since I fail to see anyone making any plans to expand the scope of the article as this time, I fail to see the use in complaining about its lack of focus and go with what it is. No use complaining about the status quo if it's not hurting anything nor shows any signs of changing, as it were. I notice that you haven't explicitly stated any reason contrary to the sources and information I gave you why this isn't a notable album among the scope of concept albums. And unless I'm supposed to wait for someone else to chime in, I see no reason why the paragraph can't go back up as it was properly sourced to begin with (and I also can add at least one more source per my last message). :-) --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 20:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

stated reason is there is absolutely nothing unique or exceptional about this album. This article is about the concept of concept albums, not about the individual albums. Plain and simple we can not mention every album in the article and the article is stagnant and can never improve because whenever anyone tries to improve it we get bogged down in this exact same conversation over and over again. In one week have had three different people all say they agree with the direction the article should take but we need to have this one album. Everyone agrees the article can not be about every album, but everyone wants to include there one favorite album. You seem to have little interest in the article as a whole and are only interested in having a plot description of one album. The plot descriptions are a thing of the past. This article is about the history and development of concept albums, not a one paragraph entry describing detailed plot summaries of every rock opera ever recorded. Sure you just want this album, the guy two sections down, just wants A Flock Seagulls album mentioned, two sections above David Bowies Outside is the most important album. It's endless and it is holding back progress. Ridernyc (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All due respect, your welcome to your opinion about me, regardless of how little fact it's actually based on. You misunderstand my interest in the article. By concentrating excessively on what you perceive the 'bigger picture', you forget that a wall isn't created with all the bricks and mortar magically laid down. A wall is made by laying down a single brick, laying the mortar and then repeating that process until the wall is done. If you incessantly hammer away at each individual brick because it's malformed or has a small inconsequential flaw when in fact its doing its job like it's supposed to be, your working contrary to the goal and not for it. Fighting to put one album in doesn't necessarily mean that I have no interest in the bigger picture of the article, when in fact it's each album that lays in a progression and growth of the concept of a concept album. I followed the core guidelines for editing an article such as but not limited to using reliable sources. And yes, to answer your final point, it is constant, but that doesn't mean that there will never be an end to it. If your looking for something like a Sunday afternoon project that you work on for a few weeks until it's 'done' and then you move on, then your out of luck. If it really is time for you to retire, I'm sorry you feel that way. I'd hate to of pushed a legitimate editor away. Good luck to you. --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 22:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking ahead....

Okay..... out of curiosity how many potentially viable albums were reverted because they were said to lack notoriety...? Really don't like that left over this, but it's his choice, I was happy to work with him but there can't be a consensus met between just two people in this situation.... --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 22:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Before you revert again I want you to explain and justify here every album I have reverted back into the article and justify their removal. Ridernyc (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? First off, removal was never my goal. My goal was the addition of a single album. I did as you asked the first time, and justified why I thought that album should be added. You failed to give a rationale as to what it shouldn't be added. Because the discussion was between only the two of us, and therefore no legitimate consensus could be reached between two people of opposing sides without another party to add weight to either position. Second off, I'm not obligated to explain anything else to you as this article is not exclusively yours or mine. I acquiesced that not every album needed to be added, but in fact I only justified why the one album I was asked to justify should be in. What your asking is essentially an attempt to ignite a discussion with no point and no end, so I'm not going to answer it. :-) --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 00:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

One last thing, this is getting to the point where we're on the verge of an edit war. If this continues, I suggest we make it official before this gets any attention from an administrator. --Amaraiel^{Send Message} 00:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me the best thing to do is to keep working on this article, adding material that is sourced. I take issue with ridernyc claiming that the rationale for including albums, and thus to prevent some deluge of bands/albums listed here, is to use a measure of impact. That is harder to find a consensus for then plot! What is impact in one person's mind is boredom to another. And one countries turning point in music is another's past tense. Really, I think it's best to work with what we have, and if in fact the intent of an editor whose invested time in this article really cares about consensus and the quality of the article the last thing he'd do is revert it back to "shit." So first things first, I think it best to change the wording that kicks off this article (...is loosely defined) when, many scholars have written on the subject of what a concept album is. And if that means the article becomes large, and includes many good references, so be it. Isn't that the intent here? To share knowledge??

Jimsteele9999 (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Green Day

I've rewritten the section to note its importance and contribution to the concept album format as well as remove the plot lines which distract from the article. Check to see if it is satisfactory. Proper references included. - Red marquis (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A Thousand Suns

Linkin Park's latest release is a concept album about nuclear annihilation and war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to think that this article isn't completely set in stone and is a living, breathing and growing organism. The caveat is that the albums noted should have historical, cultural or musical significance - especially with regards to advancing the art of the concept album.

-Red marquis (talk) 06:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

1966

Seems like Jan and Dean Meet Batman is more of a concept album than most of the examples we give from that time.—Chowbok ☠ 07:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Song Cycle

There was an old merge discussion suggesting that the popular music section from Song Cycle be merged here. The section was completely unreferenced and consisted predominately of examples so I have not transferred any material. Here is a diff if any editors believe the removed examples can be used here.[11] AIRcorn (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The Roots - Undun

An album which will be released by The Roots in December is described by them as being a concept album. More info can be found through their Facebook feed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.255.141 (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Rename to "list"

This page does not constitute an article. It does not analyse. It only has a list of concept albums. If no one cares to improve, I suggest it should be moved to "List of concept albums" and arranged in a table.79.143.74.51 (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

Only Freak Out! is mentioned for his concept albums? We're Only In It For The Money was a commentary on the hippy culture, 200 Motels was not only a soundtrack but told the story of one of Zappa's bandmates leaving the band. and Joe's Garage was a story about Joe's world being one where music is banned and a commentary on censorship. These three should definitely be mentioned. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 19:27, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Unified theme?

I don't get this. Most albums have a unified theme. I mean, you could say the Spice Girls' albums have "unified themes". For it to be a proper concept album, it needs a plot and one song following on from the next, lyrically speaking. Otherwise you could say that "Michael Bolton sings Christmas songs" is a concept album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfie Noakes (talk • contribs) 11:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ridernyc (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)Very simple answer, a Christmas album would be a concept album the concept being Christmas. A plot would be a rock opera which is a type of concept album. Lack of a plot has nothing to do something being a concept album. Ridernyc (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Er. no. One could say that Britney Spears' debut album was a concept album because the theme was a teenage girl's life. Or that Spice World is a concept album, as it has a "theme". The idea of a concept album has been stretched beyond breaking point. Sgt pepper is definitely NOT a concept album. neither are various other listings on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.158.152.206 (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So the only concept albums are rock operas, then? A concept album just has to be more unified than "Heartbreak Hotel." That's the reason that the term came into use. "A teenage girl's life" isn't really that unified, but, say, "the tendency of media overexposure and cultural truism to intellectually and emotionally drain their subjects" is a unified concept. For the most part, that's what Green Day's American Idiot is about. Therefore, it's a concept album because it's got a real theme. An Elvis album, or a Johnny Mathis album, or some such thing is just a bunch of songs thrown together. The idea of a "concept album" hasn't been stretched, there have just been a lot of "concepty" albums that have come out since the sixties. It's a standard practice now, to record all of your stuff specifically for albums that are created as unified works. That wasn't true in the mid sixties, because the single was the driving force in the recorded music industry, so there was talk of "concept albums" as a way of explaining the phenomenon of albums as unified pieces. Before that, albums were just singles thrown together with some new recordings of previously live-only songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.63.203 (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried to clarify this issue on the page. The "concept" of a concept album should be a theme or narrative from OUTSIDE music, that ties together a studio album. Long-established varieties of music - christmas songs, love songs, break-up songs - cannot simply be collected together to form a concept album. I think that captures what most people mean when they use the term. Also, I think that "concept albums" should only include intentionally written collections of songs around a theme or narrative, rather than collections of cover versions. For this reason, I would argue removing Frank Sinatra's albums from this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.73.200 (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

"From Genesis To Revelation"

The first album by the British group called "Genesis" was called "From Genesis To Revelation", and it is - according to band members, as far as I know, an concept album about the creation of earth, and the appearance of man. Similar to the beginning of the Bible. I agree that I'd call their "The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway" indeen an concept album.

Besides, that one has to add new content on the bottom at the talk page is new to me, because from a purely practical point of view I'd say that imminent problems are easier to spot at the top than at the bottom of anything. Alrik Fassbauer (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Eminem's "Relapse"

This entire album discusses him relapsing on drugs and doing crazy stuff (3 AM), recalling crazy stuff (Insane), and taking drugs ("My Mom", and "Old Times Sake")... just an idea. I'm only a random so if someone wants to add this feel free. 24.228.60.155 (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars

While reading this I noticed that it had quite a few ommissions, including some that have already been mentioned, such as The Wall. However, one major ommission is David Bowies concept album, The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. This should have a spot in the 70's section.

Yes, particularly now, won't someone please add it??? 149.78.243.246 (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixing this article

We can agree that this article is a huge mess, almost completely in the "2000s and 2010s" section. This is because the only edits being made are fans of a new concept album coming on to add it. But because the article is not a list, it shouldn't be overloaded like that - we have List of concept albums for that. So hopefully we can agree that a lot of that section can just be stripped right out. As to which parts should be kept, in order that there is something to read in that section, I would suggest keeping just the very first paragraph, which details exactly how the idea of the concept album has evolved in this century. Anybody looking for a huge amount of examples can check the list. This might seem extreme, but something has to be done about it. PatrickAnimi (talk) 11:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

here is a potential source [12] -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with your assessment. Many of the albums listed have not contributed in any real way to the evolution of the concept album, and should therefore be included only on the list page to which you've linked. However, many of the albums did play an important roll in this evolution and should not be discounted quite as quickly. Obviously, this will end up being more a matter of personal opinion than anything, and will undoubtedly result in disputes over which should stay and which should go. For example, I believe Rush certainly had an impact, and most would probably agree. Coheed and Cambria's The Amory Wars is an ongoing saga which thus-far spans seven albums. In my opinion, that is unique enough to be included, but that is, as I've said, just one man's opinion. Though perhaps its impact on the concept album on the whole could be more fully discussed, lending greater veracity. My point is, if this rewrite is to take place, perhaps the "impact on evolution" should serve as one criterion. I've made the edit adding "The Amory Wars," and will leave its fate to the rest of the community. User:ApolloTorino 00:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that this article is a mess but not just in "2000's and 2010's" section. After briefly perusing the article, two errors that are stated as fact here but are completely contradicted in wikipedia articles are about The Monkees and Styx. I've fixed the part about the album Head being the final release from The Monkees by deleting the "final album". Justus was the final album and featured all four of The Monkees. Concerning Styx, Show Me The Way was the last US Top Ten (#3 Billboard Hot 100) hit by Styx, not Mr. Roboto (#3 Billboard Hot 100). Mr. Roboto was actually the first US Top Ten single from Kilroy was here and Don't Let It End (#6 Billboard Hot 100) was the last US Top Ten from Kilroy. 2601:404:C200:F6C4:8A3:C741:92BB:B7F9 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Coheed and Cambria

the albums they make are about a story... the two main characters' names are "coheed" and "cambria"

theres also a comic book series but thats not the point. the point is the albums tell their story, so i say they qualify. Thecrispyone (talk) 10:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, an ongoing story spanning seven albums (to date) is arguably unique, certainly among mainstream artists, who are actually likely to have an impact on the evolution of the concept album. See section 60 on this talk page as well. ApolloTorino 00:10, 21 June 2013

The Amory Wars story concept doesn't just run through the Coheed and Cambria albums but also includes My Brother's Blood Machine by Prize Fighter Inferno, a Claudio Sanchez solo project, which is connected to the Amory Wars. Quoted from the My Brother's Blood Machine Wikipedia page: "Well, this story actually acts as a prequel to the Amory Wars," the center of the Coheed and Cambria mythology, Sanchez explains. "The Inferno character, who appears in the Coheed concept as a man named Jesse, dies in the Good Apollo: Volume One, and is resurrected on present-day Earth. So he leaves the solar system that the story takes place in, and gets resurrected in the present day. But before he can tell the story of the Amory Wars, he needs to tell the story of the Blood Machine." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:404:C200:F6C4:8A3:C741:92BB:B7F9 (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

the issues with this article

this is a neccesary article, but it definitely needs a major clean-up.

there's a ton of albums in there, including some that are awfully formatted (American Gangster in the 2000s section), and most of them were almost certainly added by fanboys/girls of the artists.

what we really need to do is DEFINE concept album. what makes a concept album a concept album? Maybe somebody besides random wikipedians should decide.

then from there we can start removing the albums that clearly don't fit, don't have citations, etc. (which are probably most of them)66.219.236.163 (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Concept album. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080623190644/http://www.popmatters.com:80/pm/reviews/article/24787/prettythings-sf to http://www.popmatters.com/pm/reviews/article/24787/prettythings-sf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Concept album/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

What about Coheed and Cambria? While I don't think EVERY concept album needs to be listed, this is a band whose entire existence centers around telling the tale of Coheed and Cambria...it has spanned across every single one of their releases. Surely that is worthy of mention? Fingerguns 01:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

No 80s examples?

I'd like to mention ELOs "Time" with its science fiction story theme, and - as most 70s examples mentioned are British/American bands and artists - for that area Angelo Branduardis "La pulce d'aqua". This one is remarkable because it was released in several languages, the English name "Fables and Fantasies" names the content/concept behind it.--Mideal (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an article about the history and development of "concept albums", not a list of related album recommendations. If Time or La pulce d'aqua did anything novel with the format then it would be worth noting. But they didn't, as far as I know.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)