smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Josh Chasin" <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> |
| Subject | Re: Aerovons eligibility... |
| Date | Mon, 15 Dec 2003 15:46:40 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (2.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Actually Mike, I would suggest that your word should serve as the final
arbiter of eligibility. If someone disagrees, they can express that
disagreement in their vote (as some baseball writers did with respect to
Matsui.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Bennett" <mrhonorama@hotmail.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 2:25 PM
Subject: Aerovons eligibility...
> 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
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.