smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "David Bash" <bashpop@earthlink.net> |
| Subject | Re: Aerovons eligibility... |
| Date | Mon, 15 Dec 2003 12:11:47 -0800 |
[Part 1 text/plain Windows-1252 (4.3 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
--- In audities@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@h...> wrote:
> 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
Although I appreciate Mike's desire to protect the anonymity of myself and
the other person who queried about The Aerovons album, it was I who made the
argument that the album shouldn't be eligible.
As I review my points, I realize that I don't have a "logically compelling"
defense for my argument, other than to say that it seems as if common sense
should be used here. It seems to me that there should be a statute of
limitations imposed with regard to eligibility. The Whiskeytown album that
Mike speaks of was recorded only two years before its release, which is
comfortably within the boundaries of being timely. The Aerovons album was
recorded in a completely different era, and therefore it seems more sensible
to classify it among the reissues, which is a category that is not
inherently constrained by time.
Trust me, I am not anal when it comes to classifying albums by year. I
believe there should be some bend to the rules. For example, if an album
released in 2002 isn't found out about by us until the following year, which
is the case with many CDs, it should still be eligible to be ranked on our
"Best Of 2003" list; otherwise it is never ranked at all (e.g. The Soul
Engines CD. This one was actually released in 2002, and though it probably
wasn't bought by enough Auditeers to make the top 20, I know for a fact it
will make at least a few top 20 lists this year). I also believe The
Blondes "Swedish Heat" CD should be eligible this year, even though it's a
US release which essentially culls the cream of the tracks from the band's
two German releases from 2001 and 2002 (ironically, the band is American),
neither of which most of us had heard in time to rank in their respective
years. However, Rockfour's "Another Beginning", from 2002, was in the same
exact boat, and I don't believe it was eligible for inclusion in 2002, so
perhaps Swedish Heat won't be, either?
There are statute of limitations imposed on many things. For example, LSAT
or GRE scores which are more than 5 years old no longer count in application
for Law School or Graduate School. I realize that's an "apples and oranges"
argument vis a vis album eligibility, but it is an example of a "common
sense approach".
Well, that's the best I can do. If it's not good enough, c'est la vie. :-)
--
Pop Rules!!!!!
Take Care,
David
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.