Talk:The Allman Brothers Band discography

message: 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)
replies: text: So done.  Wasted Time R 00:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Studio and live albums

message: 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.
#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.)
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Previous and next albums in infobox 

message: 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  Karlap (talk) 17:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  All Men's Brothers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not Listed

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Instant Live releases 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Album counts in infobox