Avetis

Tony Bennett

37 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Well, in this sense of anthologies, yes - but FWIW, I'd rather doubt that ANY Tony Bennett recording from the early 60s held back at that time would radically point far towards the future in singing, instrumentation, charts, etc. to warrant inclusion in a much later decade of MOR pop singing to adult audiences and be referenced as a major building stone of pop of that much later date. ;)

It's still a piece of its time - like most other artists' recordings not issued originally, including those okayed for release later on when every attempt was made at scraping the bottom of any accessible barrel to quench the unquenchable thirst of collectors for previously unheard recordings of their heroes (cf. that endless Grant Green debate going on elsewhere here again at this moment :P).

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frank Sinatra's This is Sinatra! Compilation was released in 1956 and consists of earlier material and singles. But we wouldn't put this under an earlier date would we? It clearly had a 1956 release. This is the case with many artists. Just another example. 

In my case, the way I sort my music at least is, an artist has a certain number of studio albums. I have the studio albums in chronological order of release date. The other artists such as greatest hits, compilations etc go under other or misc folder. The Beatles made 13 studio albums for instance. When I open my music I want to see 13 records. And a misc folder with all their other records. I don't want to see 55 records for example which include all different anthologies, greatest hits, complications, soundtrack appearances etc. that would just make things messy. When you go to artists websites and click on their music or discography, usually it's presented in this way with 13 studio records vs 55 records. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Look, this is getting pointless. You of course are free to arrange your albums any way you see fit to. In the end it must suit your needs and nobody else's.

But since you asked, I speak my mind: I just find it (I definitely do) odd to go by what other sources by other criteria do or tell you to do. Be your own man. Go by your own listening experience. And if you have an album of material not issued previously but originally recorded at a specific point of an artist's career, isn't it really quite a natural approach to listen to it from the starting point of what you know of his recordings before and after that date in the chonological sequence of recordings, i.e. as a part of this artist's development in his career? And this is where such an album IMO would belong. Because that is where the contents CAME from artistically. And once such an album has been released it becomes part of the artist's OVERALL (chronological) discography. Discographies are updated as new recordings appear. Release dates are secondary. Like Gmonahan explained above.

As for the Sinatra album you mentioned, admittedly I am too lazy to look up the details now. But assuming it was compiled from previously released items from the 78 rpm era or from 45 rpm singles-only releases I'd file it just where it would fit best chronologically in the artist's recorded opus (see GMonahan's explanation above again). I certainly willl NOT file my original copy of Benny Goodmans "Mostly Sextets" LP on Capitol T668 featuring tracks first released in 1947 but first released in this 12" LP form in 1956 (like your Sinatra ;)) close to his "Benny in Brussels" LP of 1958 or after his "B.G. in Hi Fi" release from 1954 but of course and quite naturally among my other B.G. records (reissues or other) of early post-war recordings of the mid-to late 40s. Because this is where the CONTENTS of this LP belong. And OF COURSE B.G.'s "Carnegie Hall Jazz Concert" LP is MOST DEFINITELY filed among his studio (and live) recordings of the late 30s and not among his 1950 cuts (when those concert recordings were first released). The CONCERT made its impact in 1938 (and had a certain effect on B.G.'s other recordings of that pre-WWII period too, of course), not in 1950. So that's where it belongs. ;)

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Beatles are not easy at all btw... the question whether Magical Mystery Tour is an album or a double EP that was later reissued in corrupted form is arguably the most contested question in discography (see e.g. an extremely long thread on the Hoffman forum)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Well, in this sense of anthologies, yes - but FWIW, I'd rather doubt that ANY Tony Bennett recording from the early 60s held back at that time would radically point far towards the future in singing, instrumentation, charts, etc. to warrant inclusion in a much later decade of MOR pop singing to adult audiences and be referenced as a major building stone of pop of that much later date. ;)

Well, the Velvets' VU album sounded more like an 80s album than a 60s album.  They were radically ahead of their time, so hearing that record for the first time in the mid-80s along side albums like Psycho Candy by the Jesus and Mary Chain forever cam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If y'all have so many Tony Bennett records that filing them is problematic, y'all are doing a lot more with that than I would ever imagine possible.

Of course, that's just me, and of course, not that there's anything wrong with that. Just saying, if you keep them all together, wherever that may be, there they are, right?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'all? :D As far as I can see only the thread starter seems to have such a ton load of Tony Bennett platters to file. Us others, we used that question as a platform to discuss how we'd tackle the "problem" evoked on a general level.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I plead guilty on Tony--I have the "Complete Collection" box he put out. Of course, he's continued to record since. The man really is quite amazing.

 

 

gregmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seeing that iTunes and Spotify and such are listing On The Glory Road as a 1962 album is making me reconsider. The cover looks like it belongs to the 1960s with the Stereo symbol on top. And the music sounds like it belongs there. I first added it as a 2011 album but I think I see what you guys mean now. Moving it back down to 1962 makes sense.

Is there such thing as an artists discography being updated and an album being slotted in where it wasn't before? I see that in the collection it's also listed right before I Left My Heart in San Francisco. 

Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Avetis said:

Is there such thing as an artists discography being updated and an album being slotted in where it wasn't before? I see that in the collection it's also listed right before I Left My Heart in San Francisco. 

 

I am not sure about artists like Tony Bennett but in JAZZ discographies this happens all the time as new discoveries are added to an artist's discography (either previously unreleased studio recordings or live recordings discovered only much later). Both in the "good old days" when discographies were printed books throughout (just compare - in order - the works of Rust and Jepsen (or even Blackstone and McCarthy if you want to go back even further) with more recent books by Bruyninckx and then Lord (including their CD updates). Same with blues discographies (Goodrich/Dixon and then Leadbitter/Slaven/Pelletier). And online discographies are handled the same way. Chronology of the recording dates usually is the overriding criterion for arranging an artist's output. This often means that, for example, you find data on a given session that yielded, say, an album's worth of tracks released as an album right after the recording session, and then a handful of "leftovers" not released at the time (but released in the meantime) that NOW appear in the UPDATED session listing too but only with a record release number that indicates a much more recent pressing and not a release from, say, the 50s or 60s or 70s. All within one single receording session.

Edited by Big Beat Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have another question for the Bennett fans on here. 

Do you happen to know the difference between The Movie Song Album with all black titles on front vs ones in blue? And same question about Who Can I Turn To? With white writing on bottom vs black. Do you know which was original cover and which was later perhaps CD or other edition ?R-2361130-1330013646.jpeg.jpg

tony-bennett-the-movie-song-album-1966-m

tony-bennett-who-can-i-turn-to-1964-viny

s-l300.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.