Talk:1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die

article incomplete - where is the list?

where is the list of albums??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.229.135.101 (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Notable Entries Deleted

The notable entries section was much too personal for an encyclopedia article, not to mention the personal note and grammatical errors. The article may deserve a Notable Entries section, but it would have to be done in a non biased manner.

Reconsider "Exclusions" Section

The section is not necessary, and contains opinions.

List

I'm not really certain that the list should be here, since this is an article about the book and not the list, but at least it's now a little easier to get through. I should also note that the list takes up just 999 rows in Excel. If it does belong here, perhaps it should be in tables and wikilinked. Davewho2 (talk) 15:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I added 3 entries that were missing : The Byrds (Younger Than Yesterday), James Taylor (Sweet Baby James), Tom Waits (Nighthawks at the Diner) [Rob] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.165.243 (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

For this article to be really useful, I think that each album needs to have WikiLinks. Because if I see an artist or an album I want to know more about, I can just click the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.82.154 (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Do You think...

...that the presence of the list constitutes copyright infringement of the book? please let me know. Jagun^Talk_Contribs 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt that you can copyright a list of movies. It's the written essays in the book that are copyrighted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.39.146.168 (talk) 11:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

But still, as noted above, Wikipedia is not a place for lists. Perhaps we could include excerpts from the list, but the whole thing is a little overkill. Jagun^Talk_Contribs 01:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't just "a list". It's the list that Robert Dimery chose and the whole framework of his book; and the whole book is his copyright, not just the essays. I don't specially know the US legal context, but generally I think that to reproduce any significant part of his list without his permission is copyvio. To mention various items, for the purpose of reviewing his aims and his selection, would be fine. Andrew Dalby 17:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, if the article is to persist, it should be updated to reflect the latest revision of the book, which has an amended list of titles, extended to include releases up to 2007. 64.211.150.166 (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2009 Niels Stevens (UTC)

The lists have been removed from the articles regarding other books in this series: 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die and 1001 Movies to See Before You Die. It seems a shame though, the publishers offer up the lists on their own website for free. On Wikipedia its even more useful because there are links to the albums and artists. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Luckily the all the page's history is available to be bookmarked.--Jordan10la (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not see the list replicated on the publishers site, as stated by ErinHowarth above. I think mentioning a particular album is on the list is one thing, to show notability, but that we shouldn't make the list itself so accessible.Timtempleton (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Artists Names

It seems that some of the artists have their first name followed by their family name, while the others are family name, first name. Shouldn't they all be the same. As this is an article, I think they should all be in normal written order (first name followed by family name) rather than the latter way.Dizzydark (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC) See the document looks fine..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.205.101 (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How long would it take to hear 1001 albums?

I don't know how to work this into the article, but I think it helps to comprehend the scope of this list to imagine that if a person got it in their head to actually listen to all these titles, it would take a long time. If you listened to just one album per week, then you it would take 19.3 years. If you could listen to one album per day, it would only take 2.7 years. I wonder if I can get all these titles from my library? -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Fun fact: I'm in the process of doing this. I'm currently in 1987. 70.48.249.62 (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Me too, using Spotify. A very interesting project! I'm currently at 1966. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.58.163 (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm doing it too (back to front or whatever), but frankly, their taste in music is so bad and mainstream, I am saving a lot of time from skipping. --Echosmoke (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Is the list of albums appropriate?

• At least for the time being, I have deleted the list from the article (if, for no other reason, to err on the side of caution). It is probably a copyright infringement on behalf of the publishers. Also, I noticed that albums were still being added despite the fact that this came out in 2006, so it seems the list wasn't all that accurate anyway. Teemu08 (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

About the post-'06 albums, a revised edition of the book was released in Oct. 2008. And I don't know if it's correct to weigh in at an RFC you started yourself so I'm keeping out of the pro/con discussion for the time being. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

• If people want to see the list, they can find the book. There's even external links to it. No reason to unnecessarily include the list here. There might be some argument to be made for linking purposes, but I think the benefits would be negligible. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 00:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
• As I myself am using the list (and it's links to the albums and artists) on wikipedia I can say the benefits of keeping the list are not negligible. For one, wikipedia is often the first source where you start looking for information. Since the list is published all over the web and links to these sites are provided on the page, I don't see why the list can't remain on the wikipage. That way it is found instantly. Secondly, the links to albums and artists encourage the user to view the respective wikipages. Call it a form of education if you want. Isn't that the point of the whole encyclopedia anyway? Needless to say it would be incredibly time consuming and demotivating entering every artist and/or album. For it's a big list and overview is crucial to understanding the list/book. Thirdly, the books literary structure is given by the list. The reviews for every item of it are the added literary value. So just like any other book, it doesn't seem problematic to me when you provide a 'summary' of the book by publishing the list. Almost every book on wikipedia has a summary of the story, this isn't a copyright infringement either, although you know the full story by reading the summary. How would this be different then? Finally, if you really want to be sure if it's a copyright infringement, contact the publisher, they will tell you. It's no use debating it over here I guess, the only ones that can give you a conclusive answer are the publisher, the author or a judge... I for one hope the list comes back to this wikipage soon. --GuustFlater (talk) 10:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

That theft is (a) useful to you personally or (b) commonplace all over the web, does not make it any less theft. This is not a 'form of education' in the sense that excludes copyright infringement, per the 'Academic Fair Use' clause in the copyright Title. 138.23.246.0 (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• • "Usefulness" is not a reasonable argument for inclusion. Please see this to find out why. Sorry. --13² 21:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
• Indeed it isn't a reasonable argument by itself, I agree. But as stated in here it can support other arguments of inclusion. I believe in this case the list becomes informative through it's usefulness. The list by itself only provides added value by offering the reader of the wikipage the structure of the book. However, when it's provided with wikilinks as it was, it becomes informative through its usefulness. Any questions you might ask yourself about an artist/album and it's inclusion in the book can be answered by clicking the link. Of course you can look up the artist/album in a separate search, but why make it difficult when it can be easy? So in regard to the previous comment: you're right, no need to say sorry. The usefulness needs to be viewed in relation to its informativeness. My argument for using the list as structure still stands too, or doesn't it? --GuustFlater (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
• I do not see the list replicated on the publishers site, as stated by ErinHowarth above. I think mentioning a particular album is on the list is one thing, to show notability, but that we shouldn't make the list itself so accessible.Timtempleton (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

"Leading International Critics"

Who are the "Leading International Critics" that contributed to this book?

They are also claimed to be "well renowned music critics" in Tigermilk.

I only seem to come across mentions of this book on Wikipedia.

davewho2 05:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of the reviews are so pretentious - they are beyond belief. As for the list - it is American-centric, indie-obsessed rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.183.181 (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

this list is definitely for mentally ill people...maybe 3 albums out of 1001 is worth listening, the rest is just a pure crap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.7.193.46 (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Oracular Spectacular by MGMT?

Is there a new version of the book that ends with Oracular Spectacular by MGMT? I have the 2008 version and it doesn't have it. The website doesn't have any info on any new versions, neither does the online list include Oracular Spectacular. --Wiz-Pro3 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Critiques/response to the book?

Many works of this type inspire reviews and other critical response -- book reviewers talking about whether the selection of contributors is varied or monotonous, distinctive or mundane; music reviewers discussing whether they believe the selections are overly ____-centric or have major oversights. If there are such third-party reviews of the book, they should be referenced within the article. As it is, with no context for whether the fields of criticism consider it a noteworthy book or a hunk of junk, it has the potential to come off as advertisement or promotion rather than a truly informative article.

And if there is no such body of critical response to the book, how notable by Wikipedia standards could it be? Lawikitejana (talk) 23:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I added some critical response info.Timtempleton (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110124836/http://1001beforeyoudie.com/ to http://1001beforeyoudie.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Chronological sorting of albums discussion

With this edit, [[1]], Plentone added that the entries are roughly chronological.

The book is arranged roughly chronologically, starting with Frank Sinatra's In the Wee Small Hours

My understanding is that the entries are supposed to be chronological, and are based on the first release date of an album, which may not be the same date it was released in the US. Out of order entries may be typos, which would suggest removing the "roughly". For example, my edition shows the Girls Against Boys album Venus Luxure No. 1 Baby dated 1994, yet it was released in 1993. On page 785, The Charlatans album Tellin' Stories came out in 1997, not 1996 as my edition shows. Also, the 1999 Khaled album Kenza was placed within the 1998 section in the 2006 edition, but it was fixed and properly put in the 1999 section in the 2014 edition. I've notified the publisher of the ones that still need to be fixed. Please provide the edition year of other albums that are not chronological, and let's discuss. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

More popular artists

There are extremely popular artists such as Nirvana that have more then three albums. So in my opinion it is petter to add a few that people will recognize then to add 40 the people are trying to remember. SupremeFishy (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

1001 albums

How could you pick 6 Elvis Costello albums (3 EC and 3 EX and the attractions) without 1 Joe Jackson album. Lost credibility. But why? 24.130.28.23 (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)