Talk:Grateful Dead discography

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Discographies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's collection of discography articles and lists. If you would like to participate please visit the project page. Any questions pertaining to discography-related articles should be directed to the project's talk page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Reworking 2 Live albums 3 Categorization 4 "Multiplatinum"? 5 Dead & Dylan 6 Album art. 7 Singles Discography 8 Grayfolded 9 Removal of album cover images. 10 Studio and current live albums

[edit] Reworking

If anyone would like to know, I am working on making this section into a table, ala what I did with Phish discography. You can see my progress so far at User:Moeron/Sandbox01 and feel free to comment at User talk:Moeron/Sandbox01. Cheers! --MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live albums

This is one case where putting the studio albums and the live albums in separate sequences makes no sense. The original Dead live albums, such as Live Dead, Skull & Roses, Europe '72, were just as much new releases of new material as the studio albums, and just as much as part of the Dead evolution and story. As such, they deserve to be intermixed. 02:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have this page watched. If you want to go to the trouble to intermix them, that is fine with me; all I would ask is to have the Dick Pick's and Digital Download Series kept seperate since they are more of a group of albums within the GD timeline. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I went ahead and did this, and you can see which live albums I moved into the first section. None of the DPs or DDSs qualified by my criterion, so no worry there. However I hadn't realized that the formatting of the studio albums table has different columns than that of the live albums table, so my straight copying has produced a somewhat messed result in places. I don't have the will to fix this all up, so if someone else does, thanks; otherwise, just revert away my changes. Wasted Time R 02:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I fixed up the first table, IMO it looks okay now. Wasted Time R 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Moeron, are you sure that Bear's Choice really belongs in the "current" list? The concert was already three years old at its time of release, and as the article says, it was sort of released as a tribute to an earlier sound of the band. On the other hand, it did have a lot of material in it that hadn't appeared before. Wasted Time R 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I know you hate to hear this, but I can source some Dead books for reasoning. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 20:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No sourcing necessary, it's arguable either way, you deciding is fine. Wasted Time R 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Multiplatinum"?

In the RIAA column, does "Multiplatinum" mean two-or-more times platinum, or does it mean exactly two times platinum? Normal English usage would suggest the first, but the entry for Skeletons in the Closet suggests the second. Wasted Time R 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

At RIAA.com here, they denote albums as Gold, Platinum, and Multi-Platinum, suggesting your first assertion. Glancing at other musical artists discographies, they seem to denote higher than platinm as 2x Platinum or 3x Platinum, ect. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 03:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the M's for multi-platinum have numbers in parentheses after them, (2) or (3) or whatever, indicating how many times platinum. The trick is you have to keep reading, as each certification going up in amounts is listed. Wasted Time R 04:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, I meant glancing at other musical artists here on Wikipedia, like Barbra Streisand discography. I know the searchable database at RIAA.com lists G, P, M(2), and M(3). -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 04:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you've fixed the article to indicate "Double Platinum", so this is resolved. Wasted Time R 12:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead & Dylan

Is Dylan & The Dead missing from the discography by accident or on purpose? Wasted Time R 04:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Its a bit hairy, but from what I read, even though Garica, Culter and Charbonneau worked on the post-production it is considered a Dylan release since it was released under his Columbia Records name/contract. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, but then why is it threaded into the GD album infobox chronology? Wasted Time R 18:19, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, you should fix it then. I have been to the page and touched it only once when I was blindly correcting dates. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I would vote for including D & D in both the thread and the discography, since it was really a joint tour (Dead played almost a full length), even if the album doesn't reflect that. Wasted Time R 18:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote to make it reflected as a Dylan album because of my reasons above. Perhaps we can add it to the discography here, but it should be a Bob Dylan album and so reflected in the chronology section of the infobox and category. For a similar situation, see Crazy Horse (band) as back up to Neil Young and such albums as Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere and Greendale (album). I will see what Wikiprojects: Albums has to input. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Situation isn't similar, for reasons given in previous response. But not the end of the world either way :-) Wasted Time R 19:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

How isn't it similar? Crazy Horse toured with Young, joint touring and opening shows for him before playing as his backing band. They even did a live album with Young in the same vein, Weld (album), which is also considered a Young album. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the Dylan and the Dead Tour featured two very famous acts who were co-headliners, with one headliner happening to back the other during half of the show. Crazy Horse has always been primarily a backing band, not a top-billed act. Wasted Time R 19:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, but it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. -- MOE.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 19:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Album art.

I don't know if this is the right place for this, and if it isn't I'm sorry, but is anyone working on the Grateful Dead album pages that currently have no artwork or track listing information? I'd very much like to add those to the pages, but I can't do much about the information on the albums because I'm just now getting into the Grateful Dead and I'm still learning. Thanks. RitchieM4812

The answer to this kind of question on Wikipedia is almost always, you want something done, you gotta do it yourself. Usually it doesn't take deep knowledge to put in album covers and track listings, since the images and information are readily available on amazon.com and its ilk. For obscure GD issuings, maybe it's harder, I don't know. Wasted Time R 00:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. I usually use allmusic.com to get cover art and track listing. RitchieM4812

[edit] Singles Discography

hiya, i just created a Singles discography, the information is from this website: http://tcgdd.freeyellow.com/tcgdd.html. Thank You Doc Strange 15:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grayfolded

Any particular reason why Grayfolded (a collection of a bunch of Dark Stars) is left out from the list? I'd add it, but I'm not good enough with tables yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grayfolded OSU871316 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I just added it. -- Mudwater 02:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of album cover images.

An editor has removed the album cover images from this article, saying "rm fair-use images from list/gallery per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #8". However, I believe the album cover images are in fact allowed in discography articles under fair use guidelines and policies. I have submitted this question to "Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)", here. — Mudwater 21:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

On what basis do you believe this use fits our policies, in light the policies I have cited? I genuinely don't understand how this is remotely ambiguous. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that non-free content criterion #8 does not apply to discography articles because they are not lists, galleries, or interface elements. The images are not decorative but serve a legitimate purpose of identification. I liked the example that was given on the Beatles discography discussion page, that I quoted in the Village Pump: "... the covers serve an educational purpose and improve the article by their presence. One purpose of this page is to help people find particular albums when they don't know (or can't remember) the title. For example, a reader who is not familiar with the Beatles but who remembers an album cover as 'the one with them crossing the street' or 'the one with them in costumes' might look at the discography page to find the album with the given cover. Otherwise, they have to hunt through multiple articles." It seems that a number of other editors also feel that way. I understand that you have a different perspective on this, but I think the policy is in fact somewhat ambiguous, and I believe at this point in the discussion it's a good idea to solicit opinions from the general Wikipedia community, which is why I posted the question on the Village Pump. I certainly agree with you that it's important to follow the fair use guidelines so that Wikipedia is not in violation of copyright laws, so it's good that this issue is being discussed. — Mudwater 21:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm copying the discussion below from Morven's user talk page, where I asked for his opinion on this matter. Although he is an administrator and a member of the Arbitration Committee, he is giving his views here unofficially, as a fellow Wikipedia editor. I thought that what he has to say is interesting and adds to the discussion, so I'm posting it here. My own opinion is still that (1) the album cover images are allowed in discography articles under fair use guidelines, (2) the guidelines are more than a little ambiguous on this particular question, and (3) there is not a consensus about this issue. That said, there clearly are a number of editors who believe that the images should be removed, and I appreciate that their intention is to protect Wikipedia by preventing it from violating copyright laws. — Mudwater 23:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Greetings, Morven. There is currently a dispute about whether or not including images of album covers in discography articles is allowed under the fair use guidelines. Some editors are removing the album cover images from the discography articles. Other editors feel that the images are allowed under fair use.

(1) What is your opinion on whether or not the album cover images are fair use in discography articles?

(2) Do you think this is an appropriate question for the arbitration committee?

Here is a discussion of this question on the talk page of a discography article. Here's one on a user talk page. I posted this question two days ago on the Village Pump here, but only one person has replied so far. Here is a lengthier discussion, on the administrators' noticeboard, of a different but somewhat similar question, whether screenshots are allowed in articles about all the episodes of a television show. To see an example of a discography before its images were removed, click here.

If you reply here I'll check back and see what you wrote. Thanks in advance. — Mudwater 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a complicated question, and not really one the arbitration committee is set up for. We generally arbitrate user behavior, rather than making or determining content policy. The arbcom on occasion has gone outside this, on issues to do with fundamental site policy, but it's not really our role.

That said, I have some personal feelings and opinions, of course! What follows is my quick opinion and should in no way be interpreted as anything binding:

It is Wikipedia policy to produce an encyclopedia that is free in all senses of the word. However, it's impossible to be absolute about this; producing a useful reference work about the real world means touching on topics that are legally protected in certain ways: by copyright, by trademark, by rights of publicity, moral rights of authors, etc etc etc. Unless we decide to not cover any topic that may be covered by these laws, we must determine how to produce a work that is both sufficiently free and sufficiently comprehensive.

For works covered by copyright, that means fair use under US law. We make fair use of copyrighted works all the time, including in text. We have rules on that, of course. For text used in an encyclopedic work, the rules of fair use are generally pretty simple and understood pretty well by everyone.

It's more complicated with images in terms of the law, and Wikipedia's policy on when we can use fair use for images is more complicated as well. This is partly because it's so damn tempting to use images under fair use. In text, it's nowhere near as tempting to use copyrighted material and claim fair use. For images, because they're much harder to acquire (among other reasons), and because it's very desirable for many editors to want to decorate articles and make them look better/flashier.

Many Wikipedia editions ban fair use images altogether; the English-language one has not, possibly partly because of the United States' fairly open fair use law. The rules have generally come down to forbidding them except when there's good reason; the article needs them (rather than simply looks prettier with them) and no free image could be made that could fill the same need.

Images in TV show episode lists have been controversial, but it does appear that the argument against them is carrying the day. Since no still image from an episode is uniquely identifying for that episode, for instance, the argument that an image is needed for identification is poor; similarly, in a list, there is insufficient discussion or mention of the image to justify it under that argument.

The case is, I believe, a little stronger for album covers in a discography, especially in the sense of identification. The images are instantly recognizable and are strongly associated with the album. However, there is no greater argument that there is any point or description in the text that needs the image to be complete, because a discography is generally an un-annotated list and does not discuss the cover art.

I think it also depends on several other factors:

1. Is the discography simply a list of links to articles on each album? If the discography is the sum and total of Wikipedia's coverage of that album, I think the argument is a little stronger.
2. Does the article go beyond being simply a discography? Is it more like a merged 'super-article' discussing several articles, all of which haven't enough text to really justify an individual article?
3. Is there is any mention of the cover art in the text?

In the end, the arbcom will simply make you all be civil when discussing and arguing whether this should be allowed under the fundamental tenets of our fair use policy. Better to simply make a good argument. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response. If it's all right with you, I'd like to copy this dialog onto the talk pages of one or two discography articles. — Mudwater 11:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free, so long as this is not put forward as any kind of official arbcom position ;) Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

---

There is now a further discussion of album cover images in discography articles, at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Why remove images from discographies? — Mudwater 19:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

At the current time there are a number of discussions going on about the use of album cover images in discographies, and also in articles about albums. Some of these discussions include other, related topics, such as what fair use rationales should be required for images, and the fair use of copyrighted images other than album covers. To see or participate in some of these discussions, see multiple sections of Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, Wikipedia talk:Fair use rationale guideline, and Talk:The Beatles discography. — Mudwater 00:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Part of the debate is about what fair use rationales should be required for copyrighted images such as album covers. Some images have an album cover template but don't also have a separately worded rationale, or they have a rationale that might not be up to standards, whatever those are. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#BetacommandBot and Fair use. — Mudwater 16:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Studio and current live albums

The "Studio and current live albums" section was recently split into two subsections, studio and live. I think it would be much better to go back to one combined section, with all those albums in chronological order. As it says in the article, "More so than most bands, the Grateful Dead frequently released live albums that filled the role of conventional studio albums, in that they were recently recorded and often contained newly-written material not on any studio album. An integral part of the contemporaneous evolution of the band, such live albums are included in this section." So, in sharp contrast to some other bands, their non-retrospective discography is much better viewed with studio and live albums combined. Also, there is a previous discussion about this on this talk page, in the #Live albums section. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 14:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I made the change because while yes, live releases are an integral part of the discography of the band, there have been several occasions where I've been looking for only their studio albums, not "current" live releases. I kept it under the same section for the purpose that it was combined for; I just split them into subsections because I thought it would make it more readable. --Son (talk) 14:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It was easy to tell which albums in the "Studio and current live albums" section were studio and which were live, because the live albums say "Live" in the Notes column. The studio and live albums form a continuous time line of the band's evolution and of their recording history. You lose this if you break it into two sections. While this doesn't apply to many other bands, it's certainly the case for the Dead. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)