This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
where is the list of albums??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.229.135.101 ( talk) 13:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
The section is not necessary, and contains opinions.
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)
...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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
where is the list of albums??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.229.135.101 ( talk) 13:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
The section is not necessary, and contains opinions.
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)
...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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)