Talk:Concept album

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Concept album article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Concept album is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

Concept album has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 22, 2003	Featured article candidate	Promoted
April 9, 2004	Featured article review	Demoted
December 9, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
December 3, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
January 21, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed
January 14, 2017	Good article nominee	Not listed
June 5, 2018	Good article nominee	Listed
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

Albums

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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Rock music High‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Progressive Rock Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Progressive Rock, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Progressive rock on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Progressive RockWikipedia:WikiProject Progressive RockTemplate:WikiProject Progressive RockProgressive rock articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.loudersound.com/features/a-beginners-guide-to-the-thrilling-topsy-turvy-world-of-the-concept-album

Missed a Couple Obvious Ones

Blows Against the Empire - Jefferson Airplane If I Could Only Remember My Name - David Crosby Working Man's Dead - Grateful Dead Power - Ice T Fleetwood Mac - Fleetwood Mac Rumours - Fleetwood Mac Small Change - Tom Waits The Pros and Cons of Hitch-hiking - Roger Waters

Renominate this article for deletion

This article is a horrible mishmash of different fans of different bands writing about their favorite albums. The result is a horribly inconsistant article that is certainly not informative about the genre of concept albums. Unknown bands getting large write-ups on their unknown albums while major works of major artists are ignored is reason enough why this article should GO!98percenthuman

The Wall?

Other rock opera concept albums are mentioned but for some reason nobody has mentioned Pink Floyd's The Wall. Strange, considering it is the third highest selling album ever. Should at least be fleetingly mentioned.

NPOV?

This article seems to be filled with speculation and conjecture, often with a very biased point of view. I certainly do not feel there's neutrality while reading this article. It could also use some cleanup, as much like many concept albums, it just doesn't gel very well.

Alan Parsons Project

I am surprised there is no reference to the Alan Parsons Project here on the concept albumn page, the works of whom are aways very conceptual, each albumn exploring a chosen theme. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/The_Alan_Parsons_Project ANC001 added a paragraph on these, IMHO the best examples of theme concept albums there are (as oposed tot he equally important narative concept albums).

added a paragraph on these, IMHO the best examples of theme concept albums there are (as oposed tot he equally important narative concept albums).

Radiohead

Radiohead's Kid A and Hail to the Thief are not ostensibly concept albums. Can anyone prove that they are? I believe that Radiohead may have intended for them to be at the outset, but abandoned the idea. I don't think they belong here. Matthew McVickar 20:08, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

Descriptions lacking

The descriptions for alot of these albums aren't very detailed. Ill fix some of them and nope the Wikipedians fix more. --Armus Aran Hail to the Thief is not a concept album.

spoilers

it makes sense to me to have the spoiler warning on this article. Kingturtle 07:26, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So what do we do now? I think neither of us is interested in an edit war, but I also think giving arguments will not help, since we probably already know them... I give mine below, but I don't think it will help.

My argument is that a spoiler warning should indicate that reading the article might 'spoil' people's pleasance in reading a book by giving away what happens. To me this includes extensive reading, and the mentioning of major plot events. It does not include giving the basic setting of a book (thus my comment about the Odyssee - I would not expect a spoiler warning before "The Odyssee is about Odysseus, a Greek hero from Troy, who tries to get back home". A second reason is that a concept album is quite different from a book - few will listen to a concept album in a "what happens next?" state of mind. Andre Engels 09:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In general I think it's kind of silly for an encyclopedia to have spoiler warnings; if someone is looking something up in an encyclopedia, he should be aware that he might get more details than he is looking for. The difference is that this encyclopedia is on the web, and seems to turn up in Google searches more and more these days. So I think it makes sense to assume the spoiler warning is more of a courtesy for people who navigate to the page accidentally.

In that light, I think the overriding argument is to leave the warning in; it doesn't really detract seriously from the article and you never know who might stumble onto the page. Although it does bring up the interesting point: a spoiler warning should probably add something to the page <head><title> rather than just a message in the body...

Chinasaur 09:33, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Where is Johnny Cash on this page?

Johnny Cash's Ride This Train is one of the first concept albums according to the defintion presented on this page.

This annoyed me

"In the wake of the Sgt. Pepper triumph, concept albums became the rage among serious rock artists, with mixed results. The Rolling Stones attempted to duplicate Sgt. Pepper with more explicitly drug and occult-inspired overtones with Their Satanic Majesties Request, but it proved to be a commercial and artistic failure, one that the Stones quickly learned from and moved on. The album made no attempt to fashion a concept around the disparate songs on the album. The unifying nature of the album (such as it was) came primarily from the musical atmosphere, the subject matter of the lyrics, and the psychedelic cover art; the Stones themselves never identified the album as a concept album."

Why is this album even mentioned, it was not a concept album and the paragraph is just someones opinion.

King Diamond

I'm putting in a mention of hims since all of his albums are concept albums

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Concept album/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 19:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues noted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues noted.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	OK outside of the scope of what I would consider OR.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	What's there appears appropriate.
	2c. it contains no original research.	First sentence in the lead... whose definition? Where does it come from? Looks an awful lot like well-meaning and not inappropriate inference, but synthesis nonetheless.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's tool finds two direct quotes which are properly cited, nothing else significant.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comments
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Sure, but that's not the problem here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No partisanship noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	3/3 look fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Sorta? Hard to illustrate an abstract noun, and the three images are fine, even if oddly monochromatic. It would be nice to have more/better images from the peak of the prog rock era, rather than just illustrations of Guthrie and Sinatra.
	7. Overall assessment.

First thoughts

OR is the problem here, and I don't see how it's surmountable without a complete rewrite:

Which is the first concept album? Sgt. Pepper's? Tommy? Pet Sounds? or Dust Bowl Ballads? On what basis, when reliable sources disagree, do we provide an answer in Wikipedia's voice?
What is the definition of a concept album? On what basis do we create a synthesized definition integrating elements of multiple RS attempts to define a concept album?

There's a lot missing in the discussion, like almost all of the 70's. Rush, Styx, TSO off the top of my head, but The Wall isn't even mentioned once. How is that even remotely reasonable? Yes, Dark Side is a concept album too, but The Wall's themes (musical and narrative) are significantly more integrated.

This is a rare quick-fail from me. There's nothing here that can be quickly remedied--this is an awesome topic, and it needs a fuller treatment than this is so far. I don't see a GA on concept album being less than double the current size--especially if it gives an overview of the prog rock era in the process.

As with all GA nominated articles I fail, I will absolutely make it my first effort to review the article should you decide to tackle the problems and bring it back to GAN. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: What is there to say about The Wall or other albums by Rush, Styx, or TSO in the context of concept albums? Can you name one way in which any of these artists contributed to the format's stylistic development or cultural status?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in reference to "OR" in the lead, the opening sentence is sourced from quotes by Cullen and Shuker in the body. It seems like you failed this mainly because you didn't see your favorite album mentioned. There is no way to address any of your "what-about-this-band" concerns without infringing upon WP:NPOV or creating a WP:NAMEDROP issue. And we can't WP:SYNTHESIZE claims for "the first concept album".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get that you're not happy to have this wait in a queue for weeks then have a stranger come along and tell you that it's not even in sufficient shape to be put on hold, but I would encourage you to be a little more reflective and a little less defensive.

When you're ready to work on improving the article with the feedback I gave, rather than trying to infer my motives, let me know. In the mean time, I would encourage you to consider how to best and most effectively cover the 1970's in the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: I addressed your OR concerns. The only other suggestions you have are "please solidify the first concept album" and "please mention The Wall". I'm telling you:

We can't say which was the "first" concept album because there is no consistency among sources. Read: WP:YESPOV
You believe prog-era concept albums were more significant than this article suggests but you haven't explained how or why other than that they existed. Read: WP:SELF-SOURCING

.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovetopaint OK, so I keep mulling this over, and here's a concrete suggestion for what I'd like to see in breadth of coverage before re-reviewing it: Look at List of concept albums and pick some arbitrary sales or chart position threshold. Cover every concept album above that level at a bare minimum, and clean up the list as you go. I would generally focus on 'firsts' or 'bests', knowing that is where the RS will be concentrated, but still expect the article to be 2-3x as long as it was when reviewed. Then, add albums where RS's cite a lasting influence. I expect Tales of Mystery and Imagination (Alan Parsons Project album) would likely meet that additional standard. Thus, when done, what I envision as a GA on concept album would not simply say, "here are a few firsts, then prog rock and musical theater happened", but trace the evolution of concept albums, including through subgenres, from origin to present. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply. Tales of Mystery and Imagination peaked at #38 and I can't find anything about it having a lasting influence. I notice again that you've failed to address what exactly was notable about any specific concept albums from after the early 1970s. If you want a list of concept albums by chart position, then a better solution would be to revamp List of concept albums in a table format that contains such information. If you want more examples of influential concept albums, you need to say why they were influential in the context of being a concept album. Because I can't find too many.

The suggestions you gave to artificially stretch out this article are similar to listing every top 40 single ever recorded at Pop music and then justifying its mention with some WP:COATRACK trivia. Like,

The Beatles' pop song "I Feel Fine" was a No. 1 hit in 1965. It introduced feedback into rock music. The Beach Boys' pop song "Good Vibrations" also hit No. 1 two years later. It was a catalyst for psychedelia and progressive rock.

If we're going to list every top 40 concept album that happened to be influential in any way (i.e. not necessarily because of the fact it was a concept album, but maybe because it pioneered a recording technique that inspired bands to take up a new style completely unrelated to concept albums), the article is going to return to being an unfocused mess.

Please consider just how many records with sizable legacies might be considered "concept albums", from Wish You Were Here and The Fame to The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, and how much could be written about each of them. By that logic, it follows that we should dedicate several paragraphs in the Rock music article to every single Beatles album. They're definitely important enough for it, but it's discouraged by WP:DETAIL.

There are only a few "Greatest Concept Albums of All-Time"-type lists I could find that don't come from some blog. These are the only works cited as "bests" or "firsts" in lists by NME and Guitar World:

Sgt. Pepper's — "first popular example of a concept record"
S.F. Sorrow — "One of the world’s first rock operas" / "a landmark because it ranks as the first rock opera"
Tommy — "the concept album to top them all."
The Wall — "One of the most famous concept records of them all"
American Idiot — "of this century’s more notable concept albums" / "returned the concept album to the hit parade"

TL;DR: There are countless notable albums with concepts, but only a dozen or so notable concept albums. Does this make sense?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Little Deuce Coupe?

Been doing some research for the Album era article and happened to come across mention of the Beach Boys' Little Deuce Coupe as the first pop/rock concept album. From Chris Smith's 101 Albums that Changed Popular Music (p. xix): "The Beach Boys release the car-themed Little Deuce Coupe in October [1963], introducing rock and roll to the concept album. Though albums such as Frank Sinatra's 1955 In the Wee Small Hours and Marty Robbins' 1959 Gunfighter Ballads and Trail Songs had already introduced concept albums, Little Deuce Coupe was the first to comprise almost all original material rather than standard covers."

There's not even a hint of this at Little Deuce Coupe, and I've never come across it before. I'm normally quite wary of these general, wide-ranging music books when it comes to specific details – the scope is so wide, covering several decades and hundreds of artists, and there are always a few major errors as a result. But maybe this is on the level? JG66 (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A concept album of sorts", according to Richie Unterberger. JG66 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Concept album/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 18:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review coming later... Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

This article is about the topic of concept albums → I would rather say "...about the album type", but it's up to you
Link "critics" to Music criticism
no discernible consensus.[6][3] → refs need to be in numerical order
and subsequently popularized → and was subsequently popularized
but the term is more often → replacing "but" with "although" will make the sentence flow better
and the rock opera → "the" is superfluous here
many concept albums have been released across many different → replace one "many" with "several" to avoid word repetition

Done all above --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions

Concepts are general ideas, thoughts, or abstract notions → I would add something like ",according to [AUTHOR]" (In this case being a dictionary)
a "concept album".[7][6] → refs need to be in numerical order
which ran into some of the same difficulties → which ran into similar difficulties
the rock album format → Maybe I'm dumb, but I don't really know what that is, and I think uninformed readers will also struggle on that. Is there a link to an article on this topic we could add? Otherwise, you will have to give a little bit of an explanation of the term
particular theme -- these are the → replace "--" with "—"
rock & rollers → Link to Rock and Roll
Author Jim Cullen describes it: "a collection → Author Jim Cullen describes it as "a collection

Done all above--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History

1940s–60s: Origins

Yes keyboardist → Please say "English band Yes keyboardist" for further context
composers making concept albums → I would replace "making" for "producing" or "creating"
Some of the themes were about exploring wild life; some were made to be played while dining or relaxing; others were more abstract and centered on emotions → Themes included exploring wild life and dealing with emotions, with some albums meant to be played while dining or relaxing.
Sinatra is sometimes credited → Sinatra is sometimes occasionally
According to biographer Will Friedwald: "Sinatra sequenced → According to biographer Will Friedwald, Sinatra "sequenced

Done all above --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

variously cited as "the first concept album" → you're talking about more albums, so it should be plural

"variously cited as 'the first concept albums'"? That would confuse the reader to think that those albums are considered by various writers to be among the first concept albums, but the actual point is that various writers can't decide which is the first. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

favours Sgt. Pepper → Referring to an album under a shortened name could be confusing, so I would write out its full name each time

What other album known as "Sgt. Pepper" could the reader possibly be confused with?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to music critic Tim Riley → Link "music critic" to Music criticism
Freak Out! [June 1966] → only the release year is important here
There exists claims for other records → Selected observers claim for other records
but the fact → however the fact (better flow)
has been largely ignored → "ignored" is very unencyclopedic; please find another fitting word
(December 1965) and the Who's The Who Sell Out (December 1967) as other examples of early concept albums.[30] Brian Boyd of The Irish Times names the Kinks' Face to Face (October 1966) → we only need the years of the release; the months are superfluous

Done all above --Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1960s–70s: Rock operas and progressive rock

In 2015, Rolling Stone ranked Dark Side of the Moon number one → In 2015, Rolling Stone ranked Dark Side of the Moon at number one
50 greatest prog albums → I know "prog" is shorter for "Progressive rock", but you should stick with the full name as it may confuse readers
Image > Genesis performing their concept album → Artists cannot perform albums, but rather material from it

Done all above --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1980s–present: Decline and return to popularity

which valued single over album → which valued singles over albums
Everything else looks nice here ;)

Done all above --Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Note 1 > Who is "he" ("he starts out playing alone") and what relevance has this information to the article? This note needs more explanation.
Note 3 has an issue with citing + reference Sgt. Pepper by its full name
Note 5 is completely irrelevant to the article. Why is it important to mention that albums were turned into films when we're talking about them being "most famous concept albums by any artist"?

Other stuff

Copy-violation

34.6% is still an acceptable score!

References

As far as I could check them, the references (most of the time books) do cover the assertations made in this article
No dead links! Good job!

Outcome

I'm putting this article On hold for 7 days, allowing you to implement my queries above. I think the article is in quite a good shape and informs the reader on the topic's most important things. While I read through this article's past failed GA review, I think the main issues have been solved, and I do agree with you that the article should not cover every single concept album that had a bit of success, as it would easily become unfocused. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint: Is there any news? I'm reminding you that the 7-day-period is gone, but I'm ready to give you more time if you will respond. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I completely forgot about this. I'll start going through these. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovetopaint: Remember you have to still work on two sections. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Passing! Congrats; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why was this edit reverted?

I recently added the following to the article, which I felt was notable and worthwhile. Could someone tell me why it was reverted? I thought that WP:PRESERVE would apply? And that the addition would pave the way for further article expansion by others?

"Concept albums also exist in other musical genres. For example, African jazz trumpeter Hugh Masekela's Colonial Man (1976) features Masekela on the album cover, standing on a ship, dressed as a European explorer. The album's lyrics express anti-colonial sentiments and challenge European narratives about the "discovery" of Africa."

--Danimations (talk) 02:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not sourced (WP:RS), and even if it was, there was nothing significant about the album in the context of this article (WP:NAMEDROP). "Concept albums also exist in other musical genres" is a redundant claim. Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

well then fix it instead of deleting it

Muse?

Should Muse be here? They’re a very popular band and have done a few concept albums DemonDays64 (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Being a popular band that recorded concept albums is not notable in itself. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 16:51, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "concept album"

I wonder if anyone knows when the term "concept album" was first used. I thought it was coined in response to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band - I had never heard of it before then. Of course, I was only 13 at the time, and didn't read the serious music magazines (which in those days didn't focus on rock at all). PatConolly (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering this as well, since I read Johnny Rogan state in a few of his books about the Kinks that the term didn't yet exist in 1968. I haven't found anything in dictionaries on its first use. Google Ngram Viewer indicates it first appeared in print in 1965. Tkbrett (✉) 23:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

The Beatles magical mystery tour.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely frustrating to have revisions reverted with no explanation

I don't think established Wikipedia users understand how frustrating this is, when your edits just get immediately reverted with explanation. It drives away anyone that wants to productively contribute. I removed a paragraph that gave undue weight to a fringe view. It was reverted without explanation, so I removed it again. It was re-added again, saying I need to get 'consensus'. Let's remember 'Be Bold', people. It is not necessary to get consensus before removing useless information.

> In a year-ending essay on the album in 2019, Ann Powers wrote for Slate that the year found the medium in a state of flux. In her observation, many recording artists revitalized the concept album around autobiographical narratives and personal themes, such as intimacy, intersectionality, African-American life, boundaries among women, and grief associated with death. She cited such albums as Brittany Howard's Jaime, Raphael Saadiq's Jimmy Lee, Jamila Woods' Legacy! Legacy!, Rapsody's Eve, Jenny Lewis' On the Line, Julia Jacklin's Crushing, Joe Henry's The Gospel According to Water, and Nick Cave's Ghosteen.

This is just not material that needs to be in the page. To put it as politely as possible: Ann Powers is not exactly Roger Ebert. Her views just aren't that notable. This section is meant to cover a period of 40 years. About a third of it is dedicated to covering an essay in Slate, going on to talk about, frankly, a bunch of very obscure musicians. The paragraph also uses some very political concepts like "intersectionality". This just sounds like some critic filling a word quota for her weekly column by picking buzzwords out of a hat.

I'll put it this way: should there be a paragraph in the article covering every opinion piece ever written that mentions concept albums? Or should it be restricted to including notable contributions to the body of human knowledge? I think it is clear that Wikipedia's policies and general style favour the latter. You're reading an article about concept albums in a broad sense and then you get a random paragraph at the end that is just incongruous with the rest of the article. Very annoying to have to come here and debate removing it when it is so obviously unnecessary. mrout ^talk 10:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not your private fiefdom. Stop playing the victim. Ann Powers has an article. So at least some editors think her views are notable. Add more material from the last 40 years because as you said that other views are necessary. Concept albums are still being made today. So we need more, not less, critical analysis of modern concept albums. Also, political philosophies are a standard and commonplace part of mainstream criticism. This material is only unnecessary and/or incongruous in your opinion. It flows perfectly well with the rest of the article. There's some truth to the claims of obscurity, although I wouldn't call Nick Cave obscure by any stretch of the imagination. 5.151.106.5 (talk) 20:19, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roots of the decline of the concept album

For consideration, if a better source can be found:

"But in the mid to late 1970's, concept albums grew to be plagued by the suffocating nature of ever more pretentious, self-conscious themes. These themes tended to drive the songwriters, and the quality of the individual songs suffered. A prime example of this was Styx' overblown and unintentionally humorous 1983 album Kilroy Was Here, a late and poorly received entry into the genre that effectively marked the end of the 1970's-style theatrical rock operas. (although Queensrÿche's Operation: Mindcrime (released May 3rd, 1988) was able to find critical and commercial success.)"^[1]

— AjaxSmack 15:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Nicolae Sfetcu. The Music Sound. 2021. p. 4386

[1] Nicolae Sfetcu. The Music Sound. 2021. p. 4386

[1]