Different track listings

OK, here's my question. Is it fair to let a different tracklisting alter the rating of an album. For instance, certain albums are sold at different stores with extra bonus tracks such as Best Buy exclusives or Target Exclusives, or some albums have removed or changed tracks from initial pressings(Like E1999 Eternal and Stillmatic. How should rating for an album determined? Should we judge the album based on the material that EVERYONE has, or should it be judged on the materail that is on the actual album of each individual listener. I can tell you E1999 Eternal is a classic to me with Crossroad or Tha Crossroads because i love both songs, but The 2nd version of Stillmatic without Braveheart Party can make a huge difference to a listener. Thoughts?

I don't think it's a fair to let a tracklisting alter the rating of an album. The rating of an album should be judged under normal standards, no matter what tracklisting we all have.

Wayne wrote:

I don't think it's a fair to let a tracklisting alter the rating of an album. The rating of an album should be judged under normal standards, no matter what tracklisting we all have.

So you're saying the rating should be based on which ever version of the album the listener owns?

T. Myers wrote:

Wayne wrote:

I don't think it's a fair to let a tracklisting alter the rating of an album. The rating of an album should be judged under normal standards, no matter what tracklisting we all have.

So you're saying the rating should be based on which ever version of the album the listener owns?

Exactly.

cool, i just wanted to make sure that's what you meant.

T. Myers wrote:

cool, i just wanted to make sure that's what you meant.

No problem.

I agree with Wayne the version does not matter it matters how the music sound to the listener. But I do think the track order is very key to the flow and vibe of an album. I think that is so underrated.

The original tracklisting is all that counts. What the artist envisioned as the album when released.

Bonus tracks should not add or take away to how you feel about the album. They are just freebies meant for the super fan and were likely kept off the album for a reason (not fit with the flow, old, etc.). An artist should also not be given the chance to re-write history by changing the album later, removing or adding tracks, etc. Blueprint 2 is judged by the original incarnation, not BP 2.1. Stillmatic is judged by the original version including Braveheart Party, etc. etc. You are not going to sit there and say an album is all of a sudden classic or better because of an expanded or deluxe addition. The album was what it was the day it dropped.

Co sign SRP all the way. To me thats almost like cheating if you want to claim the "other" version because it trimmed some fat from the original release.

Southern Rap Pro wrote:

The original tracklisting is all that counts. What the artist envisioned as the album when released.

Bonus tracks should not add or take away to how you feel about the album. They are just freebies meant for the super fan and were likely kept off the album for a reason (not fit with the flow, old, etc.). An artist should also not be given the chance to re-write history by changing the album later, removing or adding tracks, etc. Blueprint 2 is judged by the original incarnation, not BP 2.1. Stillmatic is judged by the original version including Braveheart Party, etc. etc. You are not going to sit there and say an album is all of a sudden classic or better because of an expanded or deluxe addition. The album was what it was the day it dropped.

Cosign.

Sometimes it makes a difference.

Cyne "Water For Mars"

One of my favorite albums from last year. The original (UK?) pressing is a nearly classic to me. Straight banging from front to back. No skips whatsoever.

The U.S. release; released like 6 months later, was VERY different. Beats were changed on some songs. The track order changed. They added some mediocre cuts, and 1 very wack remix. Shit took my rating from 4.75 stars to a 4.

A rare case, but relevant. Also, sometimes I don't like it when re-releases add remixes/alternate takes/b-side tracks. Sometimes it's just adding filler to a stone cold classic.

Alan wrote:

Sometimes it makes a difference.

Cyne "Water For Mars"

One of my favorite albums from last year. The original (UK?) pressing is a nearly classic to me. Straight banging from front to back. No skips whatsoever.

The U.S. release; released like 6 months later, was VERY different. Beats were changed on some songs. The track order changed. They added some mediocre cuts, and 1 very wack remix. Shit took my rating from 4.75 stars to a 4.

A rare case, but relevant. Also, sometimes I don't like it when re-releases add remixes/alternate takes/b-side tracks. Sometimes it's just adding filler to a stone cold classic.

I was about to post on this album. The only thing that made up for it was the sweet shirt I got along with the album.

While the other cuts brought the rating down it didn't bring it down as significantly for me.

Cise Starr wrote:

Alan wrote:

Sometimes it makes a difference.

Cyne "Water For Mars"

One of my favorite albums from last year. The original (UK?) pressing is a nearly classic to me. Straight banging from front to back. No skips whatsoever.

The U.S. release; released like 6 months later, was VERY different. Beats were changed on some songs. The track order changed. They added some mediocre cuts, and 1 very wack remix. Shit took my rating from 4.75 stars to a 4.

A rare case, but relevant. Also, sometimes I don't like it when re-releases add remixes/alternate takes/b-side tracks. Sometimes it's just adding filler to a stone cold classic.

I was about to post on this album. The only thing that made up for it was the sweet shirt I got along with the album.

While the other cuts brought the rating down it didn't bring it down as significantly for me.

Really? It did for me. A lot. lol