Talk:The Allman Brothers Band discography

Studio and live albums

Breaking studio and live albums apart for a group like the Allman Brothers makes little sense, since live albums were an essential part of their story, and since Eat a Peach is such a hybrid. I suggest this discography be reorganized along the lines of the Grateful Dead discography, making a distinction between contemporaneous live albums and retrospective live releases. Wasted Time R 20:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So done. Wasted Time R 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On the basis that it's never too late to comment on an old thread, I'd like to say that I strongly agree with this. For the Allman Brothers Band, the studio and contemporaneous live albums should be listed together, not separately, and the retrospective live releases should be another group. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Previous and next albums in infobox

To paraphrase Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums#Chronology, the previous and next albums in the album infobox should be limited to the main album releases. This suggests that compilations and archival / retrospective live releases should not be included. See this recent edit as an example of an editor applying this guideline, which I believe is intended to emphasize the main body of work of a musician or group.

1. I would like to suggest that for Allman Brothers Band albums we include compilations and retrospective live releases anyway. By including all ABB albums, readers can click through, either forwards or backwards, to see all the albums. This is a great way to link all the album articles together. It also provides a chronology of all the official ABB releases. (So far there are some albums without articles, but hopefully the missing articles will end up being written.)
2. If a preponderance of editors disagrees with this suggestion and feels that only the "main" albums should be included, then, in the infoboxes for the other (non-main) albums, what should be listed as the previous and next albums? — Mudwater 00:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it done both ways. I usually include compilations released during the band's lifetime (which is all of them for the Allmans) in the main sequence. Compilations often have historical significance in a band's development — they indicate a resting place before further artistic change, or a change of record label, or a breakup. As for threading the non-main albums in the other alternative, that's usually botched ... they link to the surrounding main albums, but the main albums don't link to them. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasted Time R makes a good point about the purpose of the chronology: to illustrate the artistic development of a band. In the cases of main albums, the proof is right there in the music. In the case of comps or archival releases, however, the proof can only be in the text of the article. (And in many cases, bands have little to do with those releases, or the impetus was just a payday.) Imagine you just had a stack of the albums and no other information: you could listen to the main ones and discern plenty about the artistic development of the band. Insert the comps/archival releases, though, and you can only guess why they're there. For this reason, I recommend we follow the WP:ALBUM guidelines. (Mudwater, thanks for the heads-up about this discussion.) —Zeagler (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the best way to remain in line with WikiProject Album standards as well as make the albums easily accessible is to create an ABB template. See Template:King_Crimson for a nice one. —Zeagler (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It's been more than two weeks since I raised this question. So far we have me in favor of including all the albums and not just the main releases, Wasted Time R sort of in favor, and Zeagler opposed. Since there's not strong support for my suggestion, and also only two other editors have stated an opinion, perhaps it would be best to follow the project guideline for now, and include only the main releases. "P.S." Creating an Allman Brothers Band template is a good idea. — Mudwater 20:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've gone through all the main albums -- listed in the "Studio and 'current' live albums" section -- and updated the previous and next albums, when necessary, to include only this group. — Mudwater 21:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Some time in the last six years -- I don't recall exactly when, but it's been a few years now -- the guideline was changed, and it's now considered preferable in most cases to include all the albums in a single chronology. At it says at Template:Infobox album#Chronology, "In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date (singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain). Exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies which may warrant more than one chain." So, about a week and a half ago, I adjusted the chronologies so that they form a single chain. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 04:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to see it, I believe things changed in November – December 2010, at Template talk:Infobox album/Archive 6#Chronology. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

All Men's Brothers

I am not going to add it a third time after it was deleted twice, but I ask other editors to take another look. If it is a bootleg, as Mudwater beleives, it does not belong here. But I remember seeing a copy and it looked like a professionally manufactured and packaged album, unlike most of the bootlegs of the early 1970's. And I found a page for it on allmusic See [1] Karlap (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought this album was a bootleg but it's interesting that it's listed in Allmusic. I'm not sure if they list boots or not. It says there that the album is a compilation that came out on Atco Records. If that's accurate, maybe it's not a bootleg after all. Does anyone have more info on this album? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea. I reverted the first addition of this because it was combined with an unexplained deletion of Beginnings, which for sure was a major label compilation/reissue with historically significant liner notes. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not listed in their official discography. I'd consider that evidence, but not proof, that it's not an official release. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The deletion of Beginnings was a mistake.Karlap (talk) 18:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Not Listed

I have a live, acoustic album (on a burned CD) titled "R&R Convention Center, Los Angeles, 6/11/92" that's not listed. I don't think it's a bootleg because I have heard the Elizabeth Reed cut played on the radio more than once. I think it should be listed, but I'm not going to do so because I'm not 100% sure it's not a bootleg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.201.158.189 (talk) 22:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's a legit release, there should be a source somewhere that lists it – Allmusic or Amazon or CDNow or the ABB website or somewhere. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Structure discussion

[ copied here from my Talk page ]

Hi can we discuss the edits of The Allman Brothers discography please I know that it was previously decided to have the page the way it is but that was 7 years ago and I think the page needs changing, I know that the band are a band known for live albums as it states on the page but if you take Jimi Hendrix for example he has released over twice as many live albums as studio albums yet they are all listed in their own section and I think it is in he best interest of the page and wiki in general to have them the same. If you calculate the studio albums and live albums they haven't released that many more live albums than studio albums (not included live instant albums) 12 studio albums and 15 live albums. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Lukejordan02, I've copied your post here so that others can discuss too. It's not the number of live versus studio albums that makes the difference, it's the role that live albums played in the act's artistic development and commercial success. The Allman Brothers were still a band struggling to gain an audience after the first two studio albums came out. At Fillmore East was deliberately chosen to be a live album because only it could show what the band really could do. The tracks were either new or (in two cases) so much longer and more powerful and different from their studio originals as to be effectively new. It's the album that made the band's career, both artistically and commercially. Eat a Peach (part studio, but more than half live in terms of time) solidified this. In the same vein, the live Wipe the Windows, Check the Oil, Dollar Gas a few years later was an artistic and commercial failure and showed that the band had lost inspiration and run out of gas at the time. Again, seeing these albums in sequence together with the studio albums accurately portrays the band's career, which is one of the main purposes of a discography.

An even clearer case of this exists with the Grateful Dead discography. You can't even begin to talk about their artistic and commercial evolution without including Live Dead, Skull & Roses, Europe '72, and so on. Not to mention Anthem of the Sun, which blurs the boundaries between the two. These introduced new material and captured and spread their reputation as a live act. In both cases, the discographies need to include contemporary live albums in with studio albums to make any sense at all. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of a discography is to catalog what an artist have done as well as providing details on each release and the easiest way to show that is to have each type of album separated I understand why it is currently displayed like it is but think it needs changing. Wether or not a band are known for live albums or studio albums should be irrelevant as information like that should be included in the bands biology page and not dictate to how a discography page is organised. The infobox on all discography pages separate releases into compilations studio and live albums and should be displayed like that on the page (although I am aware that there is no rule.) Lukejordan02 (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I definitely think the Allman Brothers Band's studio and contemporaneous live albums should continue to be listed together in this article. For the ABB as well as the Grateful Dead, live albums filled the role of traditional studio albums, containing their main musical material, and were an integral part of the musical evolution of the band. Contrast this with many other rock groups, who would be focused on studio albums, and would then release an occasional live album containing some of the same material. So it serves our readers much better to leave the lists combined for the ABB, even if separate lists work well for many other bands. Also, as Wasted Time R said, Eat a Peach, one of their most important albums, is both studio and live. That's not the determining factor, but it does underscore that the ABB showcased their music with both studio and live recordings. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 11:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the Studio albums should be listed on their own, so my suggestion is to list the Studio albums in their own section and then have 2 Live album sections. The ones that were mixed with Studio albums in their own section and the others also in the own section. Lukejordan02 (talk) 11:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any utility in doing what you suggest - it won't convey the band's artistic and commercial development to the reader any better than your first rearrangement did. While the division between studio and live albums may fit most artists, who put out live albums as afterthoughts or to fill out a recording contract, that just isn't the case here. The primary responsibility of this article is to portray the band's career accurately and informatively, and as you allude to above, Wikipedia has deliberately loose attitude with respect to many rules and guidelines, to allow article structures to best represent their subjects. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

While I understand what you are saying I don't see how mixing live and studio albums together makes it easier for people to view especially new viewers who are unfamiliar with the band and having them have there own sections makes that easier. Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

In the intermixed listing that has long been here, it's easy to see which ones are live, they have "(Live)" or "(Part Live)" in the entry. In contrast, it's much harder to mentally arrange albums from two different sections into chronological order. With the arrangement you now have, unfamiliar readers will think Eat a Peach was their breakthrough album commercially, which is not the case. And you would have to list Eat a Peach twice, since it is a live album just as much as it is a studio album. One thing that Wikipedia editors try to do too much of is try to fit everything into a pigeonhole - it's this and not that. You see that with edit battles over infobox genres a lot, and sometimes with categories, and with section structures. The Allmans weren't like that. They pulled from many different genres - rock, blues, jazz, country, classical, folk, church, others - and never limited themselves. They released live albums early in their career, mixed live and studio, didn't care about hit singles, etc. To represent that, this article's structure should also be flexible and not pigeonholed. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all of what you just said, WTR. And, this is another good example of something that I think it would be difficult to overemphasize: How the material in an article is presented can be just as important as the material itself. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before I understand what your are saying but people would find all that out from simply reading about the band, the main purposely a discography is to catalog an artists releases and the best and easiest way to do that is for them to be correctly categorised and regarding Eat A Peach you wouldn't have to list it twice as it is mainly considered a studio album the same way Ummagama (wrong spelling) by Pink Floyd is a mix but only listed in the studio section. Lukejordan02 (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've waited a week but there have been no comments from others. Lukejordan02, we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one, and seeing as how your reorganization has no other supporters, against two in opposition as well as long-standing article practice, there is clearly no consensus for it. Therefore I have restored the old organization. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Instant Live releases

(1) I propose changing the article to no longer list individual Instant Live releases. Currently there's a big list of the 2003 to 2007 releases, and since then many more concerts have become available -- you can see them here on the ABB official website. The complete list is too long for this article, and I don't think it would be helpful anyway. These are not commercially released albums in the conventional sense, they're professional-grade concert recordings that are for sale to fans. But I do think it would be fine to still have a section in the article that explains what the Instant Live releases are, without actually listing them. (2) Related to this, two of the Instant Live releases have their own articles -- Jones Beach, Wantagh, NY 8/24/04 and Rosemont Theatre, Chicago, 9/01/04. I suggest that these articles be submitted to the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process, if there's first general agreement in this talk page section that that would be appropriate. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that listing the Instant Live ones is excessive and better served by supplying an external link. I'm not a deletionist by nature but am okay with those two articles going assuming there was nothing extraordinary about those two shows. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Does anyone else have an opinion about this? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I've nominated the two articles for deletion. Interested editors are encouraged to participate in the discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jones Beach, Wantagh, NY 8/24/04. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The deletion nominations were closed with "no consensus", because no one said anything either way, so the two articles were not deleted. That's fine. I'm going to go ahead now and take the other Instant Live releases out of the article, and leave those two in. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Recently added compilation albums

@Poolietrev: Hello! Recently you added The Best of the Allman Brothers Band Live and Madness of the West to the Compilation Albums section, here. I believe that both of those are bootleg albums, and therefore should not be added to this article. It's a bit hard to find information about them online, and it's possible that I'm mistaken, but that's what it looks like to me. @Ojorojo: You have worked on a number of discographies, any thoughts on this? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, no, they are not bootlegs. Both are on well known labels: Spectrum and BMG. Possibly not released in the USA? I’ll check Discogs for further info/verification.

thanks,

Poolietrev 2A00:23C5:C003:4901:E155:BD21:B5CC:16F2 (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi again, I have checked and both appear to be Europe/UK issues only. "Best Of Live" released on Spectrum (and other labels with a different title/insert) and "Madness Of The West" on Camden/BMG. So they are official releases but weren't released in the USA. Hope that helps. :-) Poolietrev (talk) 08:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Album counts in infobox

I've updated the album counts in the infobox, here. Now the retrospective live albums are counted separately, to reflect the organization of the article. The only "problem" is Eat a Peach, which is part studio album and part live album, so I counted it as one of each. I think there's no perfect solution to this dilemma, but I'm open to further discussion. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:27, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Or you could count as half and half? You could see how other discographies handle this, since it's not that uncommon to have a part studio/part live album. There's Anthem of the Sun, Wheels of Fire and Goodbye Cream, Ummagumma, Genesis Three Sides Live, Moody Blues Caught Live + 5, Rust Never Sleeps, and no doubt a bunch of others. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)