Talk:Top of the Pops (record series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Not compilations

Just a note on the category of these albums - they appear to be compilations, but they're not. They were recorded as albums by a band, not compiled from elsewhere. So, I undid the category change which was inaccurate. 81.153.49.109 (talk) 20:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Top of the Poppers

I've started articles on several albums by them. I'm a huge fan of them but I'm going to try to make the articles as NPOV as possible since they are a "Love or Hate" type of band. I'll only create articles on their most notable albums such as the two which reached No. 1 and the "Best of" albums. Retro Agnostic (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this - good to have the two No.1 albums with their own pages. There was also a No.1 cover version album at the time called Hot Hits 6 (see List of number-one albums from the 1970s (UK). However, there is no such group as The Top of the Poppers, so that needs to be removed. There are no citations listed to say that this was a given name - so I'm guessing you've made up the name yourself - I've removed some, but you really need to remove the rest. Still, good idea for a page though and I've enjoyed reading it. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually "Top of the Poppers" was a name they used themselves, and is quite acceptable as a reference to the group. I don't have a ref to hand, but just do an Ebay search and you'll see albums by them, credited by that name.

Category (again)

Once again, I have removed "Category: compilation albums". These are NOT compilations. They are albums recorded in a studio by a band, not collected together from elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.4.100 (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-written

I have done a re-write and attempted to clean up the article and add some extra bits of info. I removed the "expand" and "cleanup" tags, but if it is felt that more work is required, these should be added back in. 217.43.81.99 (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Cover albums

Okay, seeing that these records appeared to be collections of cover songs recorded by a studio band, and not collections of songs from other albums, it would appear that none of these albums are compilation albums. Two other editors above have stated as such, and made changes. I did as well. However, upon reading the article more closely, I find this passage: In 1969 new volumes began appearing at generally regular intervals, with a new LP released every six to eight weeks. Volume numbers were not stated on the record sleeves, each edition simply called "Top of the Pops. So every couple of months, this company put out an album, and once a year they did a "best of" album. So those really are compilations.

I must point out that this argument could have been prevented if someone who knew this, and changed the albums to compilations, had actually given their reasons for doing so.

Also, I removed a bunch of cleanup tags. I'm not sure what the point was. -Freekee (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

"The recordings were intended to replicate the sound of the original hits as closely as possible." Having heard several, that is sure hard for me to believe. They were done in the same styles as the originals (unlike budget covers by many anonymous bands) but I cannot conceive of any listener having any difficulty distinguishing any TOP cover from the original recording.IanHistor (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the point. Back in the early 70s, there weren't compilation albums of current chart hits as there are now, these were trying to represent the songs that everyone knew. It was also a cheaper alternative when the 'proper' compilations did start appearing from the mid-70s onwards. As for the earlier point, the albums as released were indeed studio albums, the end of year albums were compilations. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

? Then I take it that you are agreeing with me, that the line should be worded differently, as the recordings were not actually "intended to replicate the sound of the original hits as closely as possible." [I am sorry that I am not providing an alternative wording myself, as a Wiki-vandal is periodically removing all changes I make (after searching for my user name), and I find it simpler just to not bother contributing, except on talk pages.]

As you also brought up another matter, yes, the "best of" albums are (by Wikipedia definition) compilation albums.63.18.177.52 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the intention was for them to sound close to the originals (the arrangements and sound of the singers were similar), but obviously they were never going to succeed given time and budget constraints. Yes, the albums released were studio, the end of year collections were compilations.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the statement "The recordings were intended to replicate the sound of the original hits as closely as possible" is accurate - that was the aim, to impersonate the hit singles. The degree to which they succeeded was a slightly different matter! But I think they wanted them to be as close as possible. They aren't cover versions in the usual sense - they try to reproduce each riff, vocal sound, drum pattern etc as accurately as they can - given time and money limitations and the scale of the task. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.74.55 (talk) 16:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

1970s

"The cover designs are iconic". Are they? "Iconic", to me, means "widely recognised as representing something". I don't believe that many people even remember the Top of the Pops album covers, let alone consider them to be representative of anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.214.243 (talk) 17:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure where your definition of "iconic" originated. I just did a Google search for a definition and found:

- executed according to a convention or tradition

- Having a conventional formulaic style

- made in a conventional style or pose

I don't think there's an issue, but if you can come up with something better to describe their distinctive appearance, go ahead.

Whether a high number of people remember them is not too important, but don't forget they sold well enough that two of them topped the official LP charts. Most chart-topping LPs from the 1970s are well remembered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.230.100 (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirects undone

Please don't redirect individual albums back to this page - it means they can't be read. If they are needed, then they should stand alone - if not, a delete can be proposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.93.204 (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

External links - discuss

Dear all,

I have attempted to add an external link to a website detailing the whole album series, but it's been removed. The objection seems to be that the site is a fan site, and therefore may not be encyclopedic, and that fan sites are generally discouraged.

As there is no official site for these albums, please can editors discuss whether this site is considered a suitable place to link to: http://topofthepopslps.weebly.com/index.html

MegdalePlace (talk) 17:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)