Sign In Sign Out Subscribe to Mailing Lists Unsubscribe or Change Settings Help

smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de

Message Index for 2003123, sorted by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)
Previous message, by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)
Next message, by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)

From "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com>
Subject Aerovons eligibility...
Date Mon, 15 Dec 2003 13:25:52 -0600

[Part 1 text/plain (2.2 kilobytes)] (View Text in a separate window)

Earlier in the week, I was asked off-list whether the Aerovons album that 
came out earlier this year would be eligible for the Top 20 poll.  My 
initial answer was that it would be.  Then I got an off-list e-mail last 
night arguing against its eligibility.

The argument in favor of eligibility is that The Aerovons album had been 
unreleased.  My understanding is that some tracks had been released on 45, 
but the whole album had not been released.

The argument against eligibility is that the album is too old -- almost 30 
years old.  Thus, it can't really be called a 2003 release.

I don't have the Aerovons album and don't know the full history of it.  My 
understanding is that these tracks were recorded for the purposes of putting 
together an album.  Whether, had circumstances been different, this is the 
album that would have come out at the time, I have no idea.  Still, this 
2003 release represents the release of this material as an album, which was 
the Aerovons intention at the time it was recorded.

In determining eligibility, I'm not sure that when it was recorded should 
have too much bearing.  For example, the last Whiskeytown record came out a 
couple of years after it was in the can.  This did not make it ineligible.  
I'm don't think an artist should be penalized because an album was not 
released soon after recording was finished.

This is akin to the argument as to whether Japanese baseball players who 
have years of experience in Japanese leagues should be considered rookies 
for purposes of rookie of the year voting.  I believe that they should, and, 
likewise, even if a release has been sitting in the can for decades, it's a 
new release when it comes out.  It can't be a reissue, can it?

So, I believe the disc should be eligible.  But if anyone here has a 
compelling argument against its eligibility, please state it.  My mind is 
open to alternate viewpoints.

Mike Bennett

NP:  The Minders -- The Future Is Always Perfect



Record reviews and more at http://fufkin.com

_________________________________________________________________
Winterize your home with tips from MSN House & Home. 
http://special.msn.com/home/warmhome.armx


Message Index for 2003123, sorted by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)
Previous message, by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)
Next message, by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)

For assistance, please contact the smoe.org administrators.
Sign In Sign Out Subscribe to Mailing Lists Unsubscribe or Change Settings Help