Talk:Phish: Live in Brooklyn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Jam bands, which aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of bands, albums, festivals, ect., that relate directly or indirectly with the jam band culture. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

[edit] VOTE on chronolgy of Live in Brooklyn

Looking through the history, it seems that for a long long time, live albums were listed chronologically based on the date of the concert. This makes much more sense it seems. In fact, The White Tape is a perfect example. It might not have been released until 1998, but clearly it makes sense to list it as the first studio album because it was recorded in 1986. Yet, with live albums, it really jumbles up the discography by having a 1995 concert listed as coming after Undermind. It would be different if it was a LIVE COMPILATION or something, but this is a live album recorded in a certain era, and should be listed int he order of that era.

Please vote here as to whether live albums should be listed in order of CONCERT DATE, or RELEASE DATE.

Thanks - User:Sectornine

Release Date. It's like listing Star Wars episodes I-III before IV-VI. It is not a chronology of shows, but a chronology of albums. JEMP Records didn't even exist until late 2005.

Milchama 12:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge both Brooklyn Pages

I believe that we don't need seperate pages for the Brooklyn DVD and CD. In fact, the CD has been promoted as a "soundtrack", as if its an ancillary item. If nobody else votes on this by Saturday, I will merge the pages myself.

Milchama 12:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Weak Oppose. I think it makes sense to have different articles for different media, but some of the information at what is currently the CD article (Phish: Live in Brooklyn) should be moved to the DVD article (Phish: Live in Brooklyn (DVD)). For example, the section on "Bonus material" applies to the DVDs, not the CD set (side note: included bonus footage from 6/18/06 is not mentioned). Also, the (separate) "Bonus disc" is no longer available, but as far as I know, it was only available with pre-orders of the DVD from Phish Dry Goods (the only source I have to confirm this is a promotional e-mail I received). For these reasons, I'd suggest moving only those two sections from the CD article to the DVD article, and renaming (moving) Phish: Live in Brooklyn to Phish: Live in Brooklyn (CD) (also possibly giving the non-parenthetic title to the DVD article). If either article is given a parenthetic title, it should be the soundtrack, not the movie, as the DVD includes material not found on the CD, yet the CD's entire content is included on the DVD. Whatever happens, unless Phish: Live in Brooklyn becomes the umbrella article discussing both, Template:Phish requires an edit, as both the CD and DVD links point there.