# Talk:Album era

A lot of the info on this page is wrong, or very incomplete. Columbia Records introduced the long-playing album in 1948, not 1952, in ten-inch format as well as twelve-inch. Prevailing corporate logic was that more expensive 12" LPs with longer running time would be purchased by more upscale buyers, and would be reserved for classical music and original cast recordings of hit Broadway musicals. Indeed, the first best-selling LP in the new format was the cast recording of South Pacific from 1949. Ten-inch comprised everything else, but by the mid-1950s it became obvious that consumers were willing to purchase the 12" LPs for all kinds of music, and 10" LPs were discontinued.
Albums were the primary market for certain performers, especially classical music in the 1950s, which enjoyed a much greater market share (approximately 20% of Columbia's LP sales) than it does today. Singles were still important, especially for rhythm and blues and rock and roll, where even top singles sellers like Chuck Berry or Buddy Holly didn't sell too many LPs. Album sales began to surpass singles sales in terms of dollars in the late 1950s and early 1960s, and in terms of units shifted by the late 1960s and early 1970s. Exact data on this is still hard to obtain.
Rock fans have always maintained mid-1960s rock talismans to be the first concept albums (Sgt. Pepper's, Pet Sounds, etc.) mostly because they are unfamiliar with music history prior to mid-1960s rock. Frank Sinatra's albums on Capitol Records in the 1950s are often considered the first concept albums, and others have argued for the inception of the concept album to pre-date the 1948 introduction of the LP — the songbook "albums" by 1930s singer Lee Wiley, for instance.
Certainly, 21st Century recording artists continue to release albums. With the rise of downloading as a means of purchasing music, the single is returning to the primacy it held for most of the 20th Century; however ascertaining an exact end to the "album era" remains difficult although they do seem less important now than a generation ago. PJtP (talk) 14:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the concept the page is based on as a whole is sort of bogus. A lot of music sales in the past was singles, 7 inch records. Radio hits have been important since pretty much the beginning of pop radio. 98.128.180.236 (talk) 08:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

that's very helpful 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 18:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The whole article concerns with US and UK perspectives. But what about availability elsewhere? --George Ho (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Market was far bigger than described, and even in those countries the rock centered perspective is completelly wrong. Rock music was allways a marginal income to music albums market, you will find that even Beatles on their golden years sells less than popular singers.  And this is far more pronounced outside US-UK combo, where rock music usually was a 13% of market. I know people who's writing is young to know it, but they can check the bussiness numbers!
This article introduces the subject with the following: "The album era was a period in English-language popular music ..." with sources cited. Please cite where you're getting your information from. And please sign your comments with four tildes, as explained at WP:SIGN. isento (talk) 23:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Is it worth adding a section on new album developments?  After all we are now seeing something of a resurgence in terms of concept albums (think Rihanna's Anti, Beyonce's Lemonade etc.).  To me it seems like the album is a single entity is becoming the premise of established popular artists and I feel it's worth asknowledging.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.180.218 (talk) 14:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC) 

I was reading the article on The Beach Boys "Today!" album and found out that it came out a few months before Rubber Soul. On the actual page it says: " its "suite-like structure" as an early example of the rock album format being used to make a cohesive artistic statement." Which was said by author Scott Schinder. It also says "Today! established the Beach Boys as album artists rather than just a singles band." Which is from Moskowitz 2015, p. 43. This statement shows that the single was being challenged as the dominant form of music medium before Rubber Soul. I'm Not mentioning "A Christmas Gift From Phil Spector" since some folks on the Sgt. Pepper talk page didn't think that album challenged the medium.  
Also from the statement above doesn't that merit including The Beach Boys
"Today!" album as one of the albums that started the "Album Era"?
I'm not sure if it's a "concept album" or not but i'm pretty sure the definition of a "concept album" is subjective, and I didn't read that it HAD to be a concept album to start the album era. 
Thoughts and opinions? I hope I made my point and reasoning clear 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 07:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

It's notable enough for a footnote at best. The album did not achieve extraordinary sales (neither did Christmas Gift or Freak Out!).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Well, hang on. Moskowitz certainly doesn't show that "the single was being challenged as the dominant form of music medium before Rubber Soul" – he just says that Today! "established the Beach Boys as album artists rather than just a singles band". Schinder's point about the "suite-like structure" being "an early example of the rock album format being used to make a cohesive artistic statement" could well belong. But as I said at Talk:Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band#Start of the Album Era?, what's needed as a foundation for the whole discussion in this article are sources that focus on the so-called album era or, perhaps, on the history of the album.
As far as the term "album era" goes, all we have is that Andy Greene comment about Pepper, where he says that it was the album that started it all. And as explained at Talk:Pepper, he's got a point if one approaches the album era as a period that started at a certain or even fairly vague time (which "era" would seem to suggest, one way or the other). At the time, in 1967, and for long afterwards, Pepper was seen as the one that changed everything, and there's a whole load of historical and cultural reasons for how and why that came to be. But if one approaches the album era as some sort of elastic concept dependent on the properties of any album – in other words, "Oh, this 1964 release is described as a mature, album-wide statement, take it to Album era" – then the history's forever on the move, and it's not an era at all. And in that way, this article becomes increasingly unnecessary, with its current title, at least. So, who defines "the album era"? What is it, and why should Wikipedia have an article about it? I think Dave Marsh's mention of "the Album Rock Era" is actually the same as the album era – chronologically, "Purple Haze" matches the timeframe of Pepper's release. That is, until a reliable source actually defines "album era" differently from Greene.
Another problem here is that the start of the 1960s–1990s section seems to have been hijacked by the idea that album era = concept albums. I can see why, because the problem grew from a series of questionable edits starting in May 2014. Before then there was the statement: The dominance of the single as the primary medium of music sales changed with the release of several iconic concept albums in the 1960s.[unsourced]  Of these, the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is especially credited as heralding the beginning of the era.  Rolling Stone Assistant Editor Andy Greene sums up the case arguing that, "That album was the beginning of the album era.  It was the big bang of albums.  This was the first concept album.  All the songs go together to tell a story, and it's inspired every musician."
Then, Pet Sounds is inserted into the first sentence of that statement. Well, I'd really like to see a source that states that Pet Sounds ended "the dominance of the single as the primary medium of music sales" – because it didn't sell that well. Then, the Mothers' Freak Out! and finally, it's A Christmas Gift for You. And the reference is added there, Olivier Julien's Sgt. Pepper and the Beatles: It Was Forty Years Ago Today, but with no page numbers. Does he really say that "The dominance of the single as the primary medium of music sales changed with the release of [Christmas Gift (1963), Pet Sounds (1966) and Freak Out! (1966)]"? I seriously doubt it. I think he just discusses them as influential album statements, and perhaps concept albums.
So, the article's gone from having no source for a statement about how "the release of several iconic concept albums" (apparently) defines the start of the album era, followed by Greene's statement about Pepper, to that highly dubious point I was questioning at Talk:Pepper: The dominance of the single as the primary medium of music sales changed with the release of several iconic concept albums in the 1960s, such as A Christmas Gift for You from Phil Spector (1963), the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds (1966), the Mothers of Invention's Freak Out! (1966), and the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967). I mean, that is utter crap! The "dominance of the single as the primary medium of music sales" was not the slightest bit affected by Christmas Gift, Pet Sounds or Freak Out! If Julien says that, we should simply ignore it. You'd have to be looking for a total blockbuster from that list to warrant such a statement, and it was Pepper. JG66 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you about 95 percent. But I think you are looking at this in too big of a scope. I highly doubt that as soon as Sgt. Pepper came out every one magically just started buying albums and stopped buying singles over night. Also Pet Sounds sold fairly well in the UK and Freak Out was a big cult album, do you you mean to tell me those two album didn't at least influence one single person on planet earth to start buying albums over singles? I know it's in a "dominance" sense and not in an underground sense but just as I said, I doubt Pepper changed things overnight. 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 00:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think you're allowing this, or wanting this, to be too far-reaching, too big in scope. I'm trying to ensure the article is based on a foundation that focuses on the album era: a definition of what it is, when it started and ended. Not just mentions of albums that fit the vibe, via sources discussing a particular album or artist. (That sort of level is secondary, because it's bound to be more subjective – but I'm not saying it doesn't belong.) And of course, people started buying albums before Pepper; I could point to the Beatles' With/Meet the Beatles or A Hard Day's Night – in the case of the latter, not just because it sold so well, but because it consisted only of original songs by the recording artists. And it's not what we think or imagine might be the case that counts, although of course common sense is needed – it's about what reliable sources say on the subject in question. JG66 (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Also is the suite like structure line enough merit to add it to this article? 2601:155:0:7CD0:C83A:E347:F423:9C81 (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't add it without adding a relevant line about Hard Day's Night or something.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the need (and I fail to see how it's not a need) to find sources that actually discuss the album era, or at least refer to it by name, I'm having a look around. Thought it might be useful to park things here, as and when I find them. But what's really needed, of course, are books or some other reliable sources that discuss the album era in its own right. A dedicated AllMusic article, decent entry in a musical reference work, etc ... JG66 (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ann Powers in an NPR piece on women in pop/rock says: "These albums were released between 1964, the year The Beatles invaded America and set in motion what can be called the 'classic album era,' …"
Chuck Eddy, in his collection of essays Rock and Roll Always Forgets: A Quarter Century of Music Criticism, talks about "the pre-album era that rock criticism itself theoretically killed off" and "the high album era (say, Sgt. Pepper's to Nevermind or whatever)". I take that mention of a "pre-album era" being closed out by the advent of music criticism as being consistent with what I was saying at Talk:Pepper, when referring to sources such as the Slate piece – there was no rock criticism until late 1966, at the very earliest.
Not sure about the reliability of PopularSong.org, but this piece talks only of the "rock album era", in line with what I was saying about Marsh's point perhaps, although the author identifies it as having started earlier, with Rubber Soul in 1965.
I haven't listened to this BBC piece. Thought I'd add it because the mention in the introductory text of "the glorious artwork adorning gatefold sleeves" reminded me of how part of Pepper's standing as the first release of the album era (or whatever) relates to its artwork and packaging. (It was so clearly packaged and marketed as a Musical Work.)
Here's an unambiguous mention of the album era, from Marcel Danesi's Concise Dictionary of Popular Culture. He says: "The album became a key aspect of the countercultural movement of the 1960s, with its musical, aesthetic, and political themes. From this, the 'concept album' emerged, with the era being called the 'album era' …" (I added something relevant from Danesi at Concept album since he includes an entry on concept albums in his book.) He does link the two ideas, concept albums and album era, of course. JG66 (talk) 08:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

A search for this phrase produces numerous reliable sources for expanding the 1980s-1990s section. For future reference. isento (talk) 06:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

This article's sections for the "golden age" and "decline" are bloated and should be separated into subsections or otherwise reconfigured into a more presentable format. --ili (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@ILIL:, please refer me to the specific guideline that supports you tagging sections of 5 to 6 paragraphs for requiring subsections. And please tell me where it is stated that a subsection cannot begin with a definite article. Please tell me, so your edits have a basis in something other than your visual preferences. isento (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

MOS:AT, MOS:HEAD: "Section headings should follow all of the guidance for article titles ... Do not use A, An, or The as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name (The Hague) or title of a work (A Clockwork Orange, The Simpsons)."
WP:COMMONSENSE: I cannot readily find a guideline that specifically states editors should not cram a level-1 section with paragraphs that don't warrant their length and which could easily be presented in a more readable fashion. But there is WP:PARAGRAPH: "Paragraphs should be short enough to be readable, but long enough to develop an idea. Overly long paragraphs should be split up, as long as the cousin paragraphs keep the idea in focus." Of course "readability" is not objectively quantifiable and is up to the discretion of editors, ditto for "focus", which likewise isn't great in this article. ili (talk) 19:06, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
There are longer paragraphs are greater sections, and subsections, at the Sgt. Peppers article you just edited needlessly. isento (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, but on Sgt. Pepper we don't have details about the album's release under "Recording and production", everything is organized in a coherent manner, and the average paragraph length isn't equal to the length of the longest paragraphs. On here, the first paragraph of "1960s-1970s" talks about how the album era began in '64, ended with disco, ended again in the '90s, and finally began its "album rock era" in 1967. Followed by several paragraphs that follow a more-or-less chronological order, starting with discussion of 1965's Rubber Soul. This is really poor writing. If you could make any effort to address this issue I'd appreciate it, otherwise I'd take care of it myself.-ili (talk)
There are two brief mentions of anachronistic detail - amounting to less than 10 words - in that first paragraph, most of which is actually dedicated to pinpointing the start of the era. You are being severe and short-sighted in your estimation. isento (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
@JG66:, what's your take? isento (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
I should add that most of the "golden age" section is fine, just the addition of subsections would be enough to improve it tenfold, however, "Decline" suffers from egregious rambling and would probably greatly benefit from being separated into multiple sections. Perhaps one dedicated to 2000s developments and another for the 2010s? ili (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure you believe that... isento (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
By the mid-1990s, single song delivery of music to the consumer was almost dead, at least in the United States. In 1998, Billboard magazine ended the requirement of a physical single for charting on its Hot 100 chart after several of the year's major hits were not released as singles.
This information is supposed to pertain to the decline of albums? ili (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
That information actually would be better moved to the preceding section. Rather than the whole section be separated into multiple sections. I believe... isento (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Good job lol isento (talk) 19:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, Isento, your comment "You are being severe and short-sighted in your estimation" couldn't be more apt.
Some subheadings would be welcome. But I'm more interested in the subject of the article being fully revealed/realised, bearing in mind where this article was at the start of the year and the discussions above about its elusive identity. The addition of that image of the Rhodes College student along with James Campion's point about "solitary ambience" was a fantastic, inspired combination. But to see the image moved up to the lead just now defied logic. It's like it was moved there just for the sake of it, as if an article has to have an image up front (when it doesn't, actually) and by an editor who has no feel for the article. So it's this same shallow, for-the-sake-of-it approach to structure that needs to be avoided. It's far more important that an article covers its subject in depth; structure and boxing-off of topics is just presentation.
I think you've got a good feel for this article, Isento. The information you brought when it was perhaps struggling for existence has lifted it no end – rendered my concerns from two years back completely void, anyway. I'd say let's consider adding subheadings or whatever, but I don't see "1960s–1970s: 'Golden era' as it currently stands as a massive problem. The addition of the top-of-page copy edit tag is just unimaginative and obsessive, but that is the calling card of some editors. JG66 (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

"LP albums developed in the early 20th century ..." - stretching "early" to 1940s is too far.
"At the end of the 1970s, LP albums experienced a decline in sales while the singles format  was reemphasized..." - this applies to US market (not worldwide) and should be marked so; rest of the world lagged behind, and many markets never had significant single sales, before or after 1978. I might be partial here, growing up in the 70s and 80s in both Eastern and Central Europe with tons of LPs but not a single single ;) around. We just didn't need them because we had the LPs (well... home-taped LPs). And lots of pop music, from jazz to metal, was never released in singles.  ...
Note that the RIAA timeline, which is the ultimate source for the quoted statement, (a) lumps LP and EP together (b) 1977 was peak LP+EP year in terms of percentage of recorded media sales but absolute peak in dollars was in 1978.
"The introduction of the CD, along with the portable Discman player in 1984, effectively displaced the cassette" - another exclusive North American phenomenon (and cited from an anti-RIAA partisan columnist). Elsewhere, cassette persisted until the CDRs became affordable. E.g. the very well researched prerecorded cassette industries of Egypt and India kept on growing after 1984 and into the 1990s. Korean blank cassette makers did very well through most of the decade, folding down in the very end of 1990s.
Overall, the article seems inadequately sourced, relying on press clippings rather than serious research and analysis. There is no doubt that the CD "began the displacement of LPs in the 1980s as the standard album format for the music industry", but surely there are better sources for this than a 1995 news column [1]? Retired electrician (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Album era/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
What an interesting article. I much enjoyed reading it. Here are a few minor comments, and a couple of questions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggest "LP record" be spelt out in full at first usage.
I believe it is, in the lead, and in "pre-history". isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I've done it for you.
I've adjusted the text of the link to Rock music to include "music" for clarity.
In fact, why not say how long an LP was - much longer than a 78 record which was the previous standard; and article ("Pre-history") should mention that 78s were too short to be used for albums, i.e. the arrival of LPs defines the start of the album era.

An era is defined as a period of time that is defined by a particular feature or characteristic. LPs merely existing at a certain time does not mark an era of the LP; the era was still dominated by the shorter format. The article does say LPs were 12-inches long. But I have added more background about 78s and the circumstances in pre-history. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, the extra background is useful. What you've said here about what an "era" is, is also useful, and something like it is needed (suitably cited) in the article, so the item remains open.
"The mid 1960s to the late 1970s was the era of the LP" - is untrue as written, LPs existed before then (from 1948). Please reword.
My previous response touches on this. By the same token, LPs continue to exist, but it is no longer considered the era of the LP. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm. I agree these are linked, but the other item is still open; action on that SHOULD also close this one, I hope, in due course.
I think the discussion of Rubber Soul should be in a single paragraph, rather than splitting by critic; the key division here is by event/album, not critics.
It is in a single paragraph. The second paragraph of the second section. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Well it is now, I've merged the two paragraphs that mentioned it.
"increasingly moving towards" is repetitive, suggest drop "increasingly".
Done. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
One question I would like to raise is whether the article ought not to say something about Classical music albums, which existed from the 1950s (at least); see for instance A Look at Classical Music Album Covers.
Yes, more can be added from this article, about the development of cover art for albums in general. But the album era is a popular phenomenon, and classical music has been a niche market that had little if nothing to do with the album's popular dominance. This is my impression from sources covering the album era - it's a footnote. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the reply. So we need text and sources on the question, even if it's just to close the question down. I don't think a footnote will be sufficient, but a sentence or two in the text should be enough.
I suppose an associated question would be whether "album era" is a term of art or simply a description; if the latter, classical should certainly be included in some detail (at least a section on the topic); if the former, then classical probably needs a mention at least to say something along the lines of "the period of production of classical albums is generally not included in the definition of the era by critics, although such albums had been in existence from the 1950s.[1][2][3]"
I think these questions stem from a misunderstanding of the term era. Take Elizabethan era (1558 to 1603), for example. She obviously existed well before 1558, the start of her reign, but that is not what an era is. It marks, for historiographical and chronological purposes, a time of dominance or prominence of someone or something. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
No, that wasn't my point. The question is whether the article is using a term of art, "album era", as employed by scholars and critics in hundreds of learned articles, or whether it is basically coining a descriptive phrase for a thing that can be seen to exist but isn't sharply defined by scholars. It looks much like the second one. If so, see above for required action. Item remains open.
Unless there are reliable sources that support such a statement, the action is not required. I don't think you are defining your question very well. isento (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Um, I was asking you whether you are using a term (I already supplied a wikilink, the section on term of art seems perfectly clear to me, and no, I didn't write it) that scholars and critics are already using, and have defined precisely in ways that can be cited, or whether you have a topic that lacks a good name in wide use, and therefore the article has a merely descriptive title you've invented as the page needs a name, like "Napoleon's early campaigns". Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


### Suggestions
Perhaps what is missing is a short section discussing what is meant by the album era; I'm no fan of sections labelled "Definitions", still less of dictionary citations, but we should I think have something on how critics have used the term. For instance, The New York Times has the term in a headline, but uses "LP era" in the text as a (rather imprecise) synonym. Popcravenews 2019 seems to have an entirely different definition: "most music fans (especially pop fans) love an album era – the singles, visuals, concept and tour." Well they said it, not me. Billboard 2020 uses it a third way, meaning Mariah Carey's days when she personally made albums. I don't get the impression from this that the term has any very solid meaning, so I'm thinking we should have a section on the classical album era, but happy to discuss.
The article is clearly defined in the lead sentence, in accordance with numerous high-quality sources sharing the same definition. A search for "classical album era" comes up with no hits. Which reiterates my point above. From those lesser sources you've cited - popcravenews and a Billboard article on Mariah Carey - they are not explicitly defining the phrase; but rather it is you who are deducing their intended meaning. isento (talk) 16:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Um, the lead is meant to be a summary of the article body, not a substitute for it. If that is meant to be the key definition on which the article is based, the definition must be placed in the article body, with supporting citations. However, ALL that Zipkin says in that source is 'the "album era" from the mid-1960s to 2000s', which isn't exactly defining, and adds "LPs (full-length albums) were the chief means by which artists communicated to their fans." where it isn't clear that is definitional, either, though it could be. I think the article needs to group several such statements, preferably with one or two that are a good deal more obviously definitional (i.e. academic). As for the "numerous high-quality sources sharing the same definition", where are they? They are required in the definitions part of the article body, but while ref [1] is reused down there, it's not definitional, which would presumably be near the top of the "1960s: Beginnings of the era". I'm actually becoming convinced that we do, after all, need a section that just defines what the era means; that could perhaps be the 1960s section, but it needs to be made far clearer that a definition is being attempted.
The article is missing a discussion of the visual impact of the 12" LP album, along with the fact that The Beatles and others produced albums in covers that folded out to make 12"×24" of space for images and text, and sometimes booklets of lyrics and other materials to pull out. The artwork for Sgt. Pepper would be an obvious place to start.
The packaging feature of Sgt. Pepper is noted in the second section, and there is further discussion of these aspects of the LP in the section on the 1970s. Keeping in mind WP:DETAIL and WP:CFORK, the Wikipedia article on Sgt. Pepper should contain a greater discussion of its packaging. isento (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, but I am not AT ALL asking for an over-detailed content fork on one album, that would be absurd. What is required is an account of visual impact of albums-of-the-album-era as a whole, which will inevitably mean describing some salient examples, and citing some reliable sources about the era's albums and their effects. A measure of detail on how the albums-of-the-era functioned is required to explain what the nature of the artists' communication with their fans (see Zipkin quote above) was at that time. It's not a side detail, it's central to the article.
I'm not sure a global encyclopedia should use words like "megasuccesses". Best reword.
Done. isento (talk) 16:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The section on visual impact should clearly link to Album cover, but it is poorly cited and completely unillustrated. It's linked to Cover art#Album cover art which at least has a small image gallery, though its coverage of "the album era" is very limited. There is obvious scope in this article for something more specific and certainly more colourful. I would suggest we have a more than adequate mandate here for using the front of Sgt Pepper. Joni Mitchell's album released under her name (and as Song to a Seagull) would similarly fit well as you've mentioned her; it folds out to reveal the lyrics and a monochrome portrait photo inside, and there's a psychedelic drawing of hers (one of several musicians who liked to draw their own album art) around a photo of her in a street on the back, continuing the front cover but with a markedly different effect. For something completely different, Their Satanic Majesties Request has Mick Jagger and the other Rolling Stones looking suitably majestic, in a cover with a lenticular image that gives a vaguely (drug-induced) three-dimensional effect, on a background of wispy smoke or cloud; the LP is wrapped in a red and white paper version of the same (flame?) background. The album opens out to a 12"×24" collage of classical artwork, flowers, map, photographs and a large maze. Or there's Andy Warhol's The Velvet Underground and Nico in white with a peelable banana; it opens to reveal monochrome photos of the band members, and a set of newspaper and magazine reviews of the band! The back cover has portraits of the band, this time in colour under disco lights. Finally, you might consider Janis Joplin's Janis, with large portraits front and back as a rock chick, and a monochrome Watkins Studio portrait inside as a demure debutante; that lifts to reveal a 12" booklet stapled into the album, with portraits of Joplin from early childhood to outrageous rocker. Well, some suggestions, but since the appearance of "album era" albums was very much in the purchaser's hands while listening, for hours, sitting in a room with large stereo speakers, the physically printed, coloured, explorable artefact of a cover with foldouts and booklets and the rest was a key part of the experience.
"Poorly cited and completely unillustrated"? Are we reading the same article? lol isento (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
What? Why are you laughing? It's certainly not funny. The article Album cover indeed has no illustrations, and only 14 refs; it doesn't do a quarter of what I'd have expected, frankly.
You're supposed to be reviewing this article... isento (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Absolutely. I mentioned the other article only to say that there isn't (as I would have expected) another article which we could use to head a section about album covers and album art with a "main" link, i.e. we'd have summarized that article here with a quick paragraph and some refs, with an image or two, and we'd have been complete - only, as you can see in that article, it's not fit for that purpose as its scope is far wider than the "golden age", and its coverage doesn't extend to artwork and communication with fans.
White male: well, Joni Mitchell, Janis Joplin, Suzi Quatro, and Patti Smith certainly weren't; nor was Jimi Hendrix for that matter. For something a bit later, how about Bananarama? Perhaps we are missing a Section on "Women artists" (or a similar heading) here.
The last two sections, on transition and decline, are long and detailed, where one might have expected only a brief coda. They come close to unbalancing the article; however, if we can add some description of how albums appeared and functioned during the "Golden age of the LP", as suggested above, with suitable nonfree illustrations (I can help if need be) then it should work well. It might also be helpful to shorten (summarize) the coda sections somewhat.
Perhaps, instead of putting the cart before the horse, it would be wise to first find high-quality sources that actually connect any of those album covers and titles to discussions of the album era? (WP:STICKTOSOURCE) isento (talk) 17:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Of course you must find reliable sources, that goes without saying. But talk of carts and horses is not helpful: the albums are the communications between artists and fans, so without them the article is empty.
The last, long, paragraph of "21st century: Decline in the digital age" about the pandemic, etc, is extremely recent and liable to revision (see WP:recentism for possible reasons for concern). It doesn't fit well in the "Decline" story, either; if Swift, Perry etc are defiantly continuing to use the format, this suggests splitting off the paragraph as "Ongoing mini-eras" or some similar heading, i.e. a new separate Section after "Decline". I think it also needs rewording to avoid saying too much about any one artist (Swift is over-represented), to use more sources, and from those sources to give an overview that has some chance of still seeming balanced in 5 or 10 years' time.
I'm detecting a misapprehension of certain aspects of writing Wikipedia articles, which should represent content and viewpoints in proportion to their prominence among the best sources available on the topic of the article (WP:WEIGHT). Not our personal visions for an article or preconceived ideas about the topic. The documented weight dictates a longer section, not a shorter one. Robinson's point about 21st century artists is represented in the past tense ("still continued") amid the decline documented in the 2000s and 2010s, and Swift is tied to the album during its decline in at least three high-quality sources, who clearly establish her relevance to the topic and its condition in the present. And tied to the CD era specifically in more sources. I don't believe this should be downplayed because of an essay that cautions editors to balance current events with historical perspective, when this article overwhelmingly favors historical perspective. Also, six to seven sentences in not very long for a paragraph. isento (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, possibly the content is not excessive, but if that's the right amount of detail for the "coda" sections, then we are missing a substantial amount of detail on the golden age section.
You seem to have a severe case of IMPOSING YOUR PERSONAL CRITERIA, and I've been here before. Just fail the nomination, and I'll renominate for someone else to review it... isento (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that; obviously sharing enthusiasm and I hope insight was unwise. However, I have only 6 criteria, the ones on the GA page, and in particular I'm concerned about criterion 3a: "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". I believe the article as it now stands does not yet meet that criterion as it doesn't address the use of albums in the golden era to communicate from artist to fans, and I was expecting it to be a pleasant task to work with you to fill in that gap, with friendly suggestions and constructive responses. I'm still willing to give it a go, surprisingly.
Let me ask one question, then: do you agree with Zipkin that "Throughout the "album era" from the mid-1960s to 2000s, LPs (full-length albums) were the chief means by which artists communicated to their fans"? Because if you do, then surely the article needs to talk about how the LPs actually did that? That's all that I'm asking. There are plenty of books out there that discuss that communication. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
It does talk about how the LPs actually did that. Now fail the nom so someone who sees it can review the article. Thanks. isento (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
That is no way to talk to other editors per WP:CIVIL, as you well know. For the record, I believe the article does not adequately cover the means of communication between artists and fans using LPs, as it is wholly unillustrated, gives no account of the innovative graphics of the period, nor any account of the personal nature of album covers, text, booklets, photographs, paintings, and indeed music and lyrics, and how these combined into a wholly new medium, as discussed in books about rock music. Since the nominator clearly does not wish to improve the article in this way, there is no alternative but to fail the article under criterion 3a for not covering the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
WP:DEADHORSE. isento (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


### References
You have a few refs (Danesi 2017; Harrington 2002, Simonelli 2013) in short form mixed in with the others, but no list of Sources at the end as one would expect. I see that these link to other refs in the list (e.g. #7 jumps to #6 Danesi), which feels very strange. Further, Danesi also occurs as another full ref (#24), which is certainly inconsistent. There are at least 3 ways this could be avoided: 1) use full refs for everything; 2) list all reused refs in a "Sources" section and link to those; 3) give all three Danesi pages in one ref. Pick whichever you prefer.

Ah, yes. Okay. I have gotten rid of the short form completely. isento (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


### Further reading
Well I'm always a bit ambivalent about this sort of section (why are they here? - in some articles, there are dozens of serious and plainly relevant textbooks, hardly the case here; otherwise, if the sources are relevant, use them; if not, get rid of them), but in this case I'd have thought it obviously better to use each one as a ref in the text, it won't be arduous.

Most of those are opinion pieces, with strong ties to the article's topic. Their incorporation is not essential to the article, but they can still be useful to readers. Which I imagine is the point of such a section... isento (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, you don't want to cite them. It would be better, and not much work, but we have far bigger issues right now. I'll strike this one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


### Summary
That's it from me. Looking forward to your response. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

If your suggestions also demonstrate reservations about passing this article, I would prefer to focus on specific content one-by-one rather than broad strokes that may leave the wrong impression. I can see where some areas could use a trim... isento (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, that sounds helpful, let's see where that takes us. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry this has taken this turn, but with nom unwilling to work on the article, a fail under criterion 3a is the only remaining option. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)


### Drive-by comments from JG66
I did a bit of work on this article a while back before leaving it to Isento to take on to greatness (and, I'm sure, Good-ness). Hope it's okay if I make a comment or two during the review process.
Chiswick Chap, I greatly admire your passion for the subject and engagement with the article (it's not always the way with reviewers). With regard to your suggestions about significantly increasing coverage of album art, though, is that not pushing the limits of what reliable sources discuss in the context of the album era and therefore what the scope of this article should be? I worry it's an invitation to get creative in one area, and perhaps other editors might then choose to get creative in another. The idea of albums as artistic statements, for instance, could go on forever, with partisan sources claiming greatness for a specific album. When coming up with discussion of the 1960s LPs, I was careful to use sources that approach the subject from the perspective of the contemporaneous music scene or recording history, and not band biographies. There is Mat Snow's Who biography and a couple of latter-day pieces on Sgt. Pepper, but otherwise I think they're all sources from outside coverage of a specific artist or work.
If a source dedicated to or significantly covering the album era explores this and other areas, then obviously it's no problem. Perhaps I'm wrong on this? – but I believe it's the approach used as music genre articles. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks for your knowledgeable interest and concern. If you are saying we must base everything on reliable sources, of course you are correct (we certainly can't have WP:OR). If you are saying there are no usable sources that discuss the golden era LP approach and style, that seems less likely to be right. Albums certainly were artistic in terms of music, lyrics, graphics, and liner text. There are numerous books on "golden age" rock albums, rock groups, and rock album art. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Album era/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vaticidalprophet (talk · contribs) 00:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Overall, this is solid work and a good, comprehensive article. However, there are a few points and omissions that need to be addressed before promotion.
The biggest omission I see is that while concept albums are rightfully discussed as foundational to the idea of the album itself, and the term is bluelinked when it's introduced, very little is discussed on what a concept album is in the article proper. A reader ctrl+F-ing for a definition will find the closest to one in "In her observation, many recording artists had revitalized the concept album around autobiographical narratives and personal themes, such as intimacy, intersectionality, African-American life, boundaries among women, and grief associated with death", which only discusses a subset of the concept. While linking other articles is important, it can't provide context alone -- two-thirds of links on Wikipedia receive zero clicks in any given year, and the "intuitively open any given link in a new tab" common amongst editors seems rarer for readers who don't edit. In addition, some non-trivial subset of readers will be reading in a context where following links is minimized or impossible, such as those with poor internet connections or who are reading text that's been copied to a non-Wikipedia site. For an idea as foundational to the article as this, the concept album needs to be more clearly defined and discussed (possibly even as a full subsection of the 1970s section).
There's also, as brought up on the talk page, a number of issues with US-centric (and Western-centric) writing. The cassette issue mentioned is big here -- casettes were only displaced immediately in very limited corners of the world, and remained the primary form of music for over a decade longer in most of it. The very pattern of when singles started returning also varies quite heavily by country, and more needs to be discussed about that.
Overall, though, this is on the right track. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. I have added more content on the concept album into the 1960s section. isento (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I could not find anything in reliable sources connecting the album era to developments outside the US or the UK, or the cassette. But I did find this Quartz article on the endurance of CD albums and singles in Japan in the 2010s. isento (talk) 03:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I reworded the part about the cassette being "effectively displaced" to being "eventually displaced", per your concern. isento (talk) 03:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I made a few more notes and revisions on the cassette in that paragraph. isento (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
WP:GACR links "the main aspects" of its broad coverage criteria to WP:OOS, which says the scope of an article is defined by reliable sources. In the spirit of WP:STICKTOSOURCE, the best sources available on the topic should be researched and summarized, the topic being the album era, and to no go beyond what they say. Apart from notes on economic trends in countries outside the West on album sales, such as in the article I linked earlier, the sources on the album era seem to imply it is a largely Western phenomenon, in both economics and creativity. And even the aforementioned source does not refer to the album era. I can add adjectives like "American" and "British" to subjects in the lead to imply this to readers. But I do not see what more I can do that would be of substance to your concern. isento (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This list of worldwide music sales shows the dominance of the US, and the West, with the exception of Japan, which is now noted in the article. isento (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I have now added a subsection on international trends in the 2010s, with a focus on Japan. isento (talk) 05:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
In response to the image query, I think the smartphone image at the start of that decade makes it more relevant to its placement in the section. isento (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, it is the best illustration of Spotify on a smartphone from the available pics. isento (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Isento You might want to mention the user; it seems to me like they have probably not seen your response. --K. Peake 21:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@Kyle Peake, I have the page watchlisted and we've also discussed on my personal talk page. I'm spread a little thin, but I'm attending to this still; I've been looking on my own time for sources on the album era outside the West to see if there's anything of interest. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not know that due to you not having commented for a while but I understand now. Good of you to be researching to check this article! --K. Peake 06:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I think the layout of the article is contradicting the article's definition per opening sentence ("from the mid 1960s to the mid 2000s"), especially the section 2020–present: pandemic era, which implies that the "album era" is still ongoing, while in reality it's not. We currently lived in streaming-relied "singles era". Maybe the 2020s section should be merged to the "Post-album era" or retitled something else (maybe like "Aftermath"). Bluesatellite (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Good point. Done. isento (talk) 05:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Any updates? Also, any thoughts on my section title changes? Wondering if they might be a bit too long. isento (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I also added another paragraph on international trends. isento (talk) 12:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for not getting back to you, I've fallen ill. The article looks good, and I'm happy to pass it. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@BawinV:, in regards to this edit, please highlight the selected passages from the Billboard article you cited verifying the claims I've removed. isento (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Isento: I have full access to Billboard articles and the concerned article provides a series of charts, rankings and numbers. One such is this.  BawinV (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that before. But where does it say that "physical album sales had risen for the first time in years"? isento (talk) 06:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Or that the pandemic had anything to do with it? isento (talk) 06:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Isento: Here. BawinV (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thank you. Unfortunate that they don't explain how though. isento (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Does the article really say 2020 was the most successful year? Because that chart shows 2021 as more successful. Confused. isento (talk) 06:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@Isento: Both the facts are about 2021. That's why I added them as the last paragraph, but then you moved it to the paras that were talking about 2020. It's easy: (i) The chart about physical albums says 2021 is the biggest year for physical sales due to the pandemic; 2021 is also part of the pandemic isn't it? (ii) The chart about vinyl sales says rock vinyls declined in 2021 while pop/hiphop/r&b rose. I hope you get it now. BawinV (talk) 08:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This says 2020 was the most successful year. isento (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
The last paragraph should be last. It's a summation and analysis of release trends during the pandemic as well as predictions for the future. The Billboard article merely offers statistics without much context. isento (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the principle of this edit summary, but it doesn't seem entirely applicable here.  The point would be solid if the pipe link were something like [[Rockism and poptimism|trends in popular music]]—this would indeed make the target of the link obscure to readers, warranting a clearer link in See Also.  But the actual link is [[Rockism and poptimism|rockism to poptimism]]—containing both significant words in the same order and changing only an insignificant joining word.  Anyone seeing a link the text called "rockism to poptimism" will expect, when clicking that link, to be taken to an article about rockism and poptimism, which is exactly what happens.
It's not a huge deal either way whether this one link is repeated in the See Also, but the justification for overruling a general policy seems awfully flimsy here.  Anyone else care to weigh in? 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Oh. I see. I had been thinking about a sentence in the lead about trends away from rock to pop instead of that one when I made that edit. You're also right that it may not be a big deal, but since you've made the effort to point it out, I'll remove it now. isento (talk) 00:32, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ah, makes sense, thanks. 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

@GhostOfDanGurney:, I don't know why you're targeting this particular area of the article, but this manner in which you are doing it has got to stop. --> WP:EDITWAR, WP:CONTENTDISPUTE
For the stability of the article, and the respect of the content of its editors and contributors, please stop enforcing your changes repeatedly and without discussion.
Now, as far as discussing... i see there be absolutely no reason to use an adjective from the source (without quotation marks, at that) when a perfectly viable (and less editorializing) alternative exists as a synonym, and then proceed to remove that synonym from the lead when it is based on the sourced and verified area which you targeted. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 03:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
You cited WP:STICKTOSOURCE in your edit summary. But how exactly "innovative" not sticking to the source's use of "groundbreaking" you did not explain, just assumed it for fact and made the change, again. Google the damn word, they mean the same thing. In fact, "groundbreaking" is an even more emphatic version of that word. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 03:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You are the only person opposed to my changes and it took you 5 days to come up with the opposition. You are the one edit warring to keep the status quo, when I have demonstrated that the status quo doesn't meet guidelines. You are edit warring to keep your preferred version, and have framed this discussion as if *I'm" the one being disruptive (who has active sanctions on them again???).
I have already explained why the word "innovative" is inappropriate. WP:STICKTOSOURCE means stick to the damn source. If it's a more emphatic word, then so be it. I don't care. But your basis for repeatedly reverting me and then accusing *me* of disruption and "targeting" is disruptive in and of itself. Innovate does not appear in the source, therefore cannot be used. Furthermore, using such an adjective in the lead is unneeded; simply stating the fact that a shift from rock to urban music happened is sufficient. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  14:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I have added this discussion to the list of discussions at WP:3O since I can already tell we're about to go nowhere. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  15:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 3O Response: For now I think "innovative" shouldn't be in the article, but I also think I have not seen the full extent of the argument. The source cited (Pitchfork) appears to be talking about the innovations of using electronics to synthesize music, not that pop music et al is innovative. It does say that groundbreaking effects were used more in pop music et al, but the way the article used to include it suggested that pop music et al themselves were innovative. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

This edit war is silly. The two versions are both suitable, but let's stick to the state of the article before the edit warring began with this removal of "innovative". Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we should stay with the version that is less true to the source and less within NOR (STICKTOSOURCE) policy. The sourcing overall is weak with just the Pitchfork article; if, "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article being verifiable in a source that makes that statement explicitly", and we have no sources saying explicitly that, "...the most innovative records were also being produced in the urban genres of R&B, hip hop, and pop, ...", why should that word appear in the lead in the paragraph detailing that section? I don't care if we substitute "innovative" for "groundbreaking" or simply remove it, it's not supported by sourcing. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
You are confusing the policies. Neither of the policies you listed tell us to avoid using synonyms to convey much the same meaning as the original, to compose a suitable summary. In fact, close paraphrasing can be a problem if you stick too closely to a source without using quotation marks. Teflon Peter Christ was doing a decent job of riding the fine line here. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Alright. I can accept this. Thank you. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  03:00, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
[http:/www.pitchfork.com/features/ok-computer-at-20/10038-exit-music-how-radioheads-ok-computer-destroyed-the-art-pop-album-in-order-to-save-it/ Pitchfork]: 

"Rock lost what remained of its commercial and cultural centrality in the years that followed. Meanwhile, the most groundbreaking music was being made by sleekly cosmopolitan hip-hop, R&B, and pop producers like Timbaland and the Neptunes. The burgeoning critical consensus that chart titans could be as significant as rock auteurs earned a name: poptimism.
There were still great art-pop albums, but, increasingly, they weren’t necessarily rock albums. Across the last 20 years, monumental rap, R&B, and pop records ... filled the void of full-length statements with both artistic seriousness and mass appeal that was formerly largely occupied by guitar bands."
𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk | contribs) 00:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, It does say that groundbreaking effects were used more in pop music et al, but the way the article used to include it suggested that pop music et al themselves were innovative. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Weird, I swear I saw the "innovative" directly before pop music et al... I'm fine with saying that more innovative works were produced in the genre. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, Aaron Liu! ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  21:58, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it could be worth to add a sentence such as "In 2016, Basshunter said he would not release a new studio album but would focus on recording singles in accordance with prevailing trends in music industry.". Eurohunter (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Impacts of 1973 oil crisis/1979 oil crisis on Vinyl formats was cited in a BBC UK music history documentary, would be good to be included here. 

Also I wonder the effect of changing oil prices on the sale of album Vs single formats. 

Obviously oil prices are global, even where record labels and manufacturers are regional. 2A0A:EF40:8CD:7B01:123A:A102:F553:6BAC (talk) 16:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we expand this article now that we are now passed 2022 and well into 2025? 67.43.190.226 (talk) 19:08, 17 June 2025 (UTC)