Talk:Synthesis (Evanescence album)

Is this really what we call a 'studio album' though?
Do two new tracks with remixes of all the other included tracks constitute a studio album? I'd like to see an example of a similar case that was called a studio album.  danny music editor  Speak up! 00:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's how it's described in this post on their official website although I agree that it's strange. My love is love 10:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a compilation album
The songs have been rerecorded and produced all over again. I don't see why you would call this a compilation album when the songs are majorly changed. A compilation album is an album with older, unchanged versions of songs, not newly rerecorded ones.--&#9666; ‎épine talk &#9836; 22:42, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a remix album
This is clearly a remix album: "A remix album is an album consisting mostly of remixes or re-recorded versions of a music artists' earlier released material."

- Wikipedia, Remix album

--Alocin (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * we should change it to that then.--&#9666; ‎épine talk &#9836; 19:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Album classification
It looks like this has been a discussion point in the past, but without much of a resolution, and now I've been reverted without explanation, so it looks like its time to have a discussion to get a consensus on this.

This album, Synthesis, is described as "reworked versions of the band's previous material with an orchestral arrangement and electronica music elements, in addition to two new songs". It's 90% re-recorded songs from their prior 3 albums.

The album is currently classified as the band's "4th studio album". However, usually remixed/re-recorded/reworked albums are not classified as a standard, "main" studio album, and aren't numbered like this.


 * Current: "Synthesis is the fourth studio album by American rock band Evanescence." Classified under "studio albums" on band template.
 * Proposed: "Synthesis is an album by American rock band Evanescence. The album includes reworked versions of the band's previous material with an orchestral arrangement and electronica music elements, in addition to two new songs." Move to the "Other albums" section of the band template, where things such as their b-side album resides.

This proposal is consistent with how this is usually handled. See examples like Love (Beatles album), Reanimation (Linkin Park album), In a Different Light (Everclear album), and virtually any acoustic or remix album that is primarily reworked material from other albums I can think of. Sergecross73  msg me  18:30, 5 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support proposal as proposer. Sergecross73   msg me  18:31, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Support proposal: 90% rerecorded/remixed/reworked songs originally released from previous studio albums? There doesn't seem to be any type of logical explanation to not word it the way Sergecross73 has proposed. — Miss Sarita 16:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Tentative oppose – The article says "two new songs were also recorded for Synthesis"—which I recognize is not a lot of new material, essentially equivalent to tacked-on "bonus tracks", but it's enough to show that the album doesn't entirely consist of reworked old songs. But even if the new songs are merely supplemental extras, the fact that a project consists of newly recorded arrangements of older material doesn't mean it is a remix album or is not a studio album. A re-recording is not necessarily a re-mix. Car Seat Headrest's Twin Fantasy (2018) is a re-recording of Twin Fantasy (2011), but the new one is still by all accounts a studio album in its own right. The kind of thing done on Synthesis is also commonly seen in jazz, traditional pop, and other genres where existing songs are recorded and re-recorded on new releases that are still considered as new "albums". Synthesis doesn't seem to sample elements from Evanescence's earlier recordings. Unlike Synthesis, Love and Reanimation both heavily rely on adding new sounds/arrangements on top of the bones of pre-existing recordings; meanwhile, In a Different Light seems to be classed as a studio album.I say "tentative oppose", though, because I would be swayed if members of Evanescence themselves had characterized it as a remix album (or similar language that distinguishes it from being just another "album", which is the normal way most people refer to what is more formally labeled a "studio album"), but that doesn't seem to be the case from what I can see. The initial announcement in Billboard seems to characterize it as a new "album", without framing it as a "remix" project or as some kind of compilation etc., though I'd be interested to see if it was characterized differently by other outlets or by the band members in other statements. —BLZ · talk 19:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem all that noteworthy that there are 2 new song - greatest hits or reissues often offer that much new content. Sergecross73   msg me  19:37, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that the inclusion of two new songs, by itself, is not a make-it-or-break-it point. But overall this looks like more of an album of rerecordings than a remix album. Those two things are not always the same. Being a studio album means something is a collection of new studio recordings, not necessarily new original songs. Even if the post-Sgt. Pepper's pop/rock expectation is that an "album" will ordinarily contain all new (or mostly new) original songs, that norm or critical framework is not what makes something a studio album or not. Unless these recordings are literal remixes incorporating elements of earlier recordings or Evanescence expressed a strong intention that they should be understood as remixes, I don't see how this is a remix album.Incidentally, I know the "remix album" article currently says a "remix album is an album consisting of remixes or rerecorded versions of an artists' earlier released material", but I believe the wording of this definition was intended to include remixes which graft newly recorded elements onto tracks derived from existing recordings. In other words, something like Love does not get disqualified from being a remix just because it incorporates newly recorded material. If we took that definition literally, as currently written, then Ray Charles's Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music would count as a remix album, or Car Seat Headrest's second Teen Fantasy would be a remix, because both of those are literally rerecorded versions of artists' earlier released material. None of the examples listed at "remix album" are wholly new recordings containing zero samples of prior recorded material.Another thought is to compare albums of remixes with albums of covers. A remix album can be a collection of an artist remixing their own earlier recordings (like Kraftwerk's The Mix), one artist remixing various others artists' recordings (like Aphex Twin's 26 Mixes for Cash), one artist remixing one other artist's recordings (as was essentially the case with the Beatles' Love), or various artists remixing one artist's recordings (probably the most familiar format, including the likes of Lady Gaga's The Remix). All of these are remix albums, regardless of who is the remixer and who is getting remixed.By analogy to re-recordings, an album with recordings of various artists covering one artist's songs is usually called a tribute album, but not a remix album (unless it's electronic music which typically necessitates remixing rather than "covering"). When one artist records covers of songs by various other artists, that's usually just understood to be a studio album, not a "tribute" or "remix" album; if this weren't the case, then releases like Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music (all covers), Louis Armstrong Plays W.C. Handy (all-new performances of one composer's songs, all of which had been previously recorded by various others), or Fakebook (11 covers, 5 originals) would be considered tribute albums or even remix albums just like 26 Mixes for Cash.So what should we call it when an artist records what are, in essence, covers of their own songs? Clearly it's not a tribute album, you can't tribute yourself because tributing is a one-way street (unlike remixing, which can go any number of ways). And we don't really have a special term for a "self-tribute" album. So by default it must be a studio album (unless there's very clear artistic intention to the contrary.)On some level I do understand the underlying desire to label this as a sort of "miscellaneous" release removed from the band's wholly original albums. It's why it's convenient that the Beatles have an agreed-upon "core catalogue", otherwise the list of their "major" albums would be peppered with more than a dozen rando alternates like Introducing... The Beatles, which meets the definition of a studio album despite being a minor work or afterthought. But even putting aside my view that Synthesis literally meets the definition of a studio album, I don't even see how its use of older compositions justifies it being labeled as something lesser or categorically distinct from a "major" album for Evanescence. Amy Lee certainly seems to have taken it seriously as the band's major new project, judging by her statements in the article, and not as a compilation or promotional afterthought. They even toured on this album, with the tour being named after the album. Like the two new songs, the tour doesn't prove anything by itself—but it does contribute to a big picture suggesting that Synthesis is not lesser than any of their other studio albums. —BLZ · talk 00:19, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Support proposal as proposer. --Alocin (talk) 10:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)