Talk:List of double albums

As discussed on Talk:Double album, I have moved the list of double albums to its own article. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Formatting suggestion

Most of the "List of albums" articles (say, List of albums (O), for a random example) do "Band - album - year of release". Changing this article to that formatting would make it a little more compact, and also would make it consistent with the other album-list articles. I'll volunteer to take care of the edits, if nobody's got any objections. Yay, nay, comments? — Wwagner 17:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said anything, so I was bold and did this edit. I added release dates to every album I could find (there are one or two which I wasn't able to find, either here or at AMG), and I also did a TON of disambig. If the album was listed as "double album, single cd", I only put "2×LP" - no need to mention if it's a single anything, since that's not what this article is about. I also removed all the extra little comments; they were generally already in the album article in question (where they belong in the first place), and they just cluttered up this article.

Note to self: don't volunteer for huge edits like this ever again. :) — Wwagner 22:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

More formatting changes

I was not altogether happy with the way "Band – Album (1900) (19×CD)" looked - too many parens in a row. The "standard" album listing methods here on Wikipedia seem to be "use ndashes to separate stuff", so I changed them all to use an ndash before, and removed the parens around, the platter count, ala "Band – Album (1900) – 19×CD". A little easier to read, to my eye. — Wwagner 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've begun adding a tag at the end of every album that indicates whether it is a studio album, a live album, or a compilation, hopefully in a way that helps the reader and isn't too obtrusive. As I'm having to check every album, I'm probably going to have to limit myself to a letter or two of the alphabet per day. I'd like to hear comments from anyone who supports or disagrees with this addition. 97.116.30.46 (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Separately-purchased "double" albums

I'm having a problem with the few releases on this list which were actually separately-purchasable albums, such as Guns N' Roses' Use Your Illusion I/Use Your Illusion II. They aren't in the same package, they must be purchased separately, and they have different Wikipedia articles about them - as far as I'm concerned, those aren't double albums, and they should be removed from this list. There are a few others that deserve the same treatment: Anthrax's Persistence of Time/Among the Living, Ayreon's Universal Migrator Part 1: The Dream Sequencer/Universal Migrator Part 2: Flight of the Migrator, Datblygu's Wyau/Pyst (album) (both of which are redlinks anyway), Nelly's Sweat (album)/Suit (album) and System of a Down's Mezmerize/Hypnotize (album). Anybody else have any comments about this? — Wwagner 17:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good thing to have them separated from the 'real' double albums. I think there are enough of these albums to fill a new article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geert Rinkel (talk • contribs)

That's a really good idea. I like it. So what should this new article be called? I'm not coming up with any good titles, or at least ones that aren't derogatory. I don't think an article called "List of self-indulgent double releases by bands only interested in a fast money-grab" would live too long. :) — Wwagner 01:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

While it's true about the money grubbing, I still think they should be on the listDanomagnum (talk) 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I just removed them all from this article, so for reference purposes, here's the full list:

• Anthrax – Persistence of Time / Among the Living (2000)
• Ayreon – Universal Migrator Part 1: The Dream Sequencer / Universal Migrator Part 2: Flight of the Migrator (2000)
• Datblygu – Wyau / Pyst (1995)
• Guns N' Roses – Use Your Illusion I/Use Your Illusion II (1991)
• Nelly – Sweat/Suit (2004)
• Opeth – Deliverance/Damnation (2002/2003)
• System of a Down – Mezmerize/Hypnotize (2005)

— Wwagner 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple other pairs just showed up, which I have also removed:

• Insane Clown Posse – Bizzar/Bizaar (1999)
• Insane Clown Posse – The Wraith: Shangri-La/The Wraith: Hell's Pit (2002/2004)

— Wwagner 22:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Double-redlink entries

If they're not even notable enough to have a band article, I'll remove them until they are:

• De Novo Dahl – Cats & Kittens (2005)
• Grobschnitt – Ballermann (1974)
• My Dad is Dead – The Taller You Are, The Shorter You Get (1989) – 2×LP

— Wwagner 14:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rules Needed For Inclusion

I think we need to make clear the rules for inclusion on this list. For instance, the Cure's 2004 self titled album is listed here, even though it is not a double album, and some expanded editions are listed.

Potential rules: 1. Only list albums that are double albums in their intended format. For instance, many albums released after 1990 need to be put onto 2 vinyl disks for the LP release but are not artistically double album releases since most fit onto 1 CD. For many albums in released after 1983 that were on two LPs, some research may be required to discover if the double LP version is the format of choice. For instance, the Cure's Kiss Me Kiss Me would not count since it was artistically designed for the CD, and the LP release was simply on two disks. 2. Bonus editions of usually single disk sets do not count as double albums. The only exception would be if tracks the artist had intended to be on the album but were cut were restored into the playing order and the album had to be put onto two disks to fit it. If it is only bonus tracks or an alternate mix, it should not be listed.

A good consideration is the main body of work. If it is one singular body of work that has to be on two disks, then you can add it.
However, if it is merely only bonus tracks or other tracks not included in the main body of work, then it isn't a double album.

--THollan 21:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. There are quite a number of albums on this list which have been re-released with a bunch of extras added, and they've never really seemed like legitimate "double albums" to me. I will take great joy in removing those entries from the list. :) Also, I have added some entries to this list, take Soundgarden's Superunknown and Down on the Upside for a couple examples, that were given a limited release on double-LP, but the main release was on a single CD, and I've recently been rethinking those additions.

The only potential problem that we'll run into is as you suggest, after CDs took over, what is the favored format? For the industry, it was, of course, the compact disc. But for the artist, or the particular album, it might be difficult to say for certain. — Wwagner 00:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and before I forget, let me add another potential rule:

3. All parts of the album must be sold as one unit. Related albums which must be purchased separately do not count as double albums.

— Wwagner 00:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is nitpicking, I know, but The Cure's Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me is maybe not the best example to use, as a song from the vinyl double LP had to be cut to in order not to require 2 CD's (I believe this was when 74-minute CD's were the standard). That track has since been restored on new pressings of the album. Anyway... just a bit of trivia for you. 97.116.30.71 (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

A metal shard 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Ok, but why? System of a Down's Mezmerize and Hypnotize (album) albums are both copyrighted 2005. The first track of Mezmerize, Soldier Side - Intro, cuts right into the last track of the second album, Hypnotize(album), Soldier Side. Also, the two albums slide into eachother, forging images in the albums' art previously hidden. Just because a set of twins is separated at birth doesn't make the double birth null. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.116.250 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 March 2007 UTC

If it were so important that the two separate albums were together, they would have been released as one unit. As it is, they weren't. I could go down to the record store and pick up one, without getting the other, and I would still have a complete album. They are simply two separate albums which are related. — Wwagner 06:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thing is, the double albums article includes separately-sold albums in its definition. Don't we want consistency? 66.24.104.37 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Compilations

I see many compilations in the article (frex already both Abba entries, and the whole V/A section). Is there any specific reason for their inclusion? Anyone, artists or not, can put together a 11873 CD compilation with relativ ease so I don't see much point in including them. But should they be outright banned or might collections of otherwise (mostly) unreleased music still count?

The typical live album from concert Y or tour X has a better case for being considered a whole, but musically they're also offen not much different from compilations... any thoughts on this, folks? --Tropylium 13:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why they shouldn't be included. A good bulk of the listings here are comps, live or otherwise. As far as the V/A listings, though anybody can create a comp, most don't, so the inclusion of the ones which are there seems pretty legit to me. The Saturday Night Fever soundtrack, for one example, is the best selling soundtrack album in history, which definitely warrants inclusion. — Wwagner 08:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A bunch of Greatest Hits type albums were recently added to the list for artists like AC/DC, Black Sabbath, and Def Leppard. I feel like maybe there should be a rule against such inclusions for this page as there is a lot of redundancy amongst the collections and anthologies and, additionally, it's making it a lot more difficult to tell at first glance which albums are original studio or live double albums. One has to wade through a good many compilations. Any thoughts? 64.122.56.143 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It all depends. Some compilations are typically listed in an arists discography, or the artists co-operates with the creation of the compilation, sometimes additional material is added, etc. Often these compilations are published by the same company, etc... See for instance the Red Album and Blue Album by the Beatles. But indeed, it also happens that decades later other labels get licenses and publish some compilation album(s) with music from some artists... It seems rather "trivial" there are often double albums there, and they're no so closely related to the artist's origal discography. It may sometimes be hard to draw a line somewhere though... --LimoWreck (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I vote for removing a majority of the compilations in this list, particularly non-notable greatest hits compilations. 97.116.30.46 (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Studio albums

Shall we remove studio and live albums etc. and just leave it with studio albums - it would be a lot of a better list and the list goes more incomplete with compilations (UK NOW albums etc.) which aren't included than with studio albums. Signed and timed: --92.237.84.183 (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to weigh in here. I don't think compilation albums should be included, because that would be attaching significance to "how much material the record label decided to include in the package", rather than the music/content itself. It would be like counting The Matrix trilogy as a single 6-hour film based on the fact that the three films were eventually sold together in a single package.

Live albums should only be considered noteworthy if the recording captures a single performance, because otherwise it's just a compilation of live tracks, and the above logic applies. Hence, The Allmann Brothers At Fillmore East counts, but Led Zeppelin's How the West Was Won does not.

Soundtracks like Saturday Night Fever often consist of mostly new material, and therefore are should not be considered compilation albums.

Another issue is the release date of an album. Soundgarden's 1994 album Superunknown is included on the list as a 2xLP, despite the album being only 70 minutes in length, fitting comfortably on a compact disc, which was the dominant format at the time. Just because it was released on vinyl and didn't fit on a single platter shouldn't be noteworthy. If Radiohead released their next 40-minute album on a pair of Mini-CDs, would that be considered a double album? Of course not. The decision to release material in a lower-capacity format is just as irrelevant as the size of a greatest hits collection. Therefore, I propose the following criteria for double albums of the CD era: if on the first day of release an album was available for purchase as a single disc, it is not a double album.

Anyway, I'm not going to delete all of the compilations unilaterally, but I think the list would be more meaningful if we separated the live, studio, and compilation albums into three sections, so we can improve and evaluate each section.Bermy88 (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Can fit on one CD"

Hi, I don't understand the value of the "Can fit on one CD" parentheticals as submitted by IP 67.83.61.170 here, for example. It seems a trivial inclusion and a magnet for other cruft. Further, the additions are unsourced, so we're essentially relying on original research for the content and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For these reasons I'm cutting the content until a consensus for its inclusion can be established. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Back to Basics

Christina Aguilera’s Back to Basics double album should be added. AndrewA1988 (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)