From The Elvis Costello Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Discography layout ideas

While the discography section is developed, we can get ideas for layout and content from some of the better discographies at Wikipedia

Nice organization on this one -- has sections for studio albums, live albums, compilations and other, and singles by decade.
Nice illustrated layout.
Another illustrated layout.
Table layout.

Remove "Light" Album Discography

JohnE 20:18, 23 March 2006 (CST): This is contained in the Graphical discography.

JohnE 13:30, 26 March 2006 (CST) Done by JohnH.

Best of albums

The various Best Of's need to be added somewhere. Thoughts on where? - JohnE 00:39, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

What about a section in the Discography called Compilations? Or Collections?
You mean just like on the EC Home Page? Why didn't I think of that? Sounds good to me, though. - JohnE 01:31, 3 April 2006 (CDT)

Text discography not only Album

The Text Discography is intended to contain all Albums, Singles, Compilations, indeed ALL of the releases containing any recording by EC. It would seem that it should not be located under the Albums heading. Not sure what is should be under though. Any ideas? - JohnE 17:06, 21 April 2006 (CDT)

Promos section?

Should there be a separate section in the Discography for Promos to cover things like the original Canadian release of Live At The El Mocambo, and Live At New York Town Hall, and others... -- JohnH 21:00, 18 May 2006 (CDT)

I've been wondering the same thing. I think it makes sense to have a promo section. There should be enough items to warrant it. Also, a related issue -- we really need to decide a naming convention for promos and singles before things get out of hand. For the most part, I've been avoiding them on the song pages, but it's getting to a point where it's hard to work around them. I've been thinking about them in the same manner as we've been naming bootlegs -- that is, [[Promo: Live At New York Town Hall]] and [[Single: Pump It Up]], for example, just to try to keep some consistency, but I don't want to run with that without approval. I'm happy to go along with any convention that we can agree on, but we really need to figure something out and get it into the Style Guide. CraigM 21:29, 18 May 2006 (CDT)
I like this suggestion. You want to come up with a complete list first though as there may be some problems that you haven't thought of, such as CD Single, EPs. Although none of them seem to present problems at present, others might.
In fact I have just thought of a problem with singles, and that is that there are different singles for the same song, often with different songs on the B-side or something like that. How to distinguish these needs to be sorted.
Like everything it is best to try it on a limited basis to test it. --JohnE 01:27, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

Well, why don't we use London's Brilliant Parade as a test case -- there's a cassette single, a 12", and 2 CD singles, all with different track listings. If we can figure out a good solution for that one, we should be able to apply the same methods to nearly everything. Sulky Girl is another good one with several different configurations, plus promos. It seems to me that the options are to give every release its own page or to create one page that lists all configurations of each single. The latter seems cleaner, but I don't know. One of our new contributors has made a few entries in the Singles discography, listing everything as a separate release, so look to those as an example of the other method. I'll give it some thought, and hope others will share their opinions/ideas. CraigM 08:28, 19 May 2006 (CDT)

I suggest adding in the Promo section after the singles and E.P.s section. dpannell 10:15, 31 Jan 2007 (WDST Australia)

That makes sense to me. JohnH 19:44, 30 January 2007 (CST)

DVDs, Videos and other formats

Where do you suggest that we put these? Should they be in the Discography, along with the other items or should be have separate pages for them? --JohnE 19:59, 19 July 2006 (CDT)

The CD Re-issues

This is my personal and heartfelt opinion, ok!

I've only just purchased the Edsel CD Re-issues, in addition to the whole catalogue of Demon CDs I bought back in 93-95. I feel compelled to post my feelings about them.

As someone who has trained a sound engineer in studios (I like to to think I know what I'm talking about when it comes to sound quality) I was appalled at how BAD the new CDs sound, compared directly with the Demon counterparts. Whoever is responsible for the re-mastering process has ruined these treasured recordings. The sound is 'suffocated', compressed, lacking in top end - too much 'mid' and lacking 'air' and vibrancy. While the 12 year old CDs sound 'sweeter', have more bottom end/'punch', more ambience and ultimately more like the original vinyl does on a high-end turntable. It seems to me that they haven't bothered to give the more faithfull 24-Bit tretament that David Bowie and ABBA were afforded (musical tastes irrelevant here - the 24 Bit stuff really does sound much better). To paraphrase - If it ain't 24-Bit, it ain't worth a fuck!

I'm angry that they should go to great lengths to present this music that I love in a 'Deluxe' fashion, but have little regard for the sonic qualities of the music itself. To me it is glaringly obvious when you hear them side by side that the Demon CDs will sound 'sweet' and the latter will sound lifeless, over-compressed and lacking in top (treble). Isn't 're-mastering' supposed to improve the sound, not kill the music?

The extra tracks, photos and essays were a joy however, but spoiled by this major error of judgement.

In short - anyone feel the same about this??