Talk:Gapless album

This article was nominated for deletion on 24 November 2008 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Pointless?

Isn't this article kind of pointless? There are lots and lots and lots of albums intended to be played gaplessly. It's sort of like having an article aiming to list all rock albums or something. Dingbats (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. I'd say like 50% of all rock albums released and probably 90% of all electronic ones are mastered gaplessly. Perhaps there should be an article about the concept of having gapless albums, how they work the way they do, etc. but having a list of them is ridiculous. BrianRecchia (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too, I couldn't believe there was a page that attempted to list all the gapless albums out there.. We'd need hundreds of people at least if we wanted to come close to completing that list. Computerdude28 (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are all saying, and I agree, but I think that this article could focus more on albums in which the tracks fade into each other in a way that it would be difficult to separate the songs (if the album was played continuously as a whole). I do think, though that live albums shouldn't be included. BauerJack4413 (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you all, in fact I think BauerJack4413 has the criteria perfectly (although admittedly it's still an awfully ambitious undertaking - there are lots of albums under this criteria as well). Pretty much every Pink Floyd album after the first two (including the film soundtracks) qualify. More Beatles albums would make the cut than what appear on the list as well (White Album?). MANY rap albums do this too - think Doggystyle and The Chronic, etc...also, any concept album is likely to have some seques between tracks that overlap track indexes (again, Pink Floyd, Yes, etc.). In fact a list of concept albums makes a lot more sense, is there already such a thing?--Curien1000 (talk) 05:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't been back this way in over a year...looks like a completely different article. That silly list is gone and there are sources cited AND notability has been established...apparently this all happened specifically because it was nominated for deletion (as it deserved to be at the time). I guess sometimes all it takes is to force the article to conform or be gone, eh? --Curien1000 (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, sure...

...but I'm not sure about the accuracy of this, and it's badly cited. Would this not be original research? It needs major sourcing to prove that it isn't OR.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate for Deletion?

How does one nominate an article for deletion? I would very much think that this article needs such a nomination, as others no doubt do as well. 41.245.158.10 (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about semi-gapless albums?

Some albums like Coldplays "Mylo Xyloto" have some tracks that are gapless, should they be mentioned on this page?LordLewery (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]