It seems some musicians aren't completely happy with their work years down the road. [Aside: George Lucas releasing Ep.4-6, the way "he wanted it to be, but didn't have the technology for at that time" quite frankly pissed me off. Sure it's his work, and he can do whatever he likes, but I'm sure a lot of SW fans were pissed, like me. I would much rather have the original films. Cleaning up the sound, putting in extra scenes, enhancing everything..when people do this, it changed what WAS, to something totally different.]
Anyway, that was just an intro to the possible discussion I will present to you now:
As said above, a handful of artists/muscians aren't completely happy with their work when they look back at it. But instead of letting it be, they decide to re-record it, so it sounds better! If not that, then maybe change the songs up a bit, remix, etc., and release it. Also, sometimes re-record old albums with a new singer. I'm not saying I HATE this idea, but I'm saying in almost all cases, the original is very much so dominant.
When albums were released a certain year, recorded in a certain place, with certain people, it has history in it. You can listen to the first 3 Opeth albums, and feel the imagery and the production wasn't so polished, hence it had great atmosphere. As technology progresses, cds keep sounding more and more sterile and polished, and less enjoyable, because of it (I know we had this discussion before in a different thread).
I just think the way works were originally created/recorded or whatever, that's the way it is, and the way it should stay. It's over and done with, going back and re-releasing the album enhanced or re-recorded so it sounds BETTER at this period of time just doesn't seem terribly logical to me. Obviously, if the record was recorded in your grandmother's basement and you can barely even make out that it's music, then that makes sense to re-record it a bit better...but if the albums or songs that are re-done, originally sound perfectly legible, then I don't get it.
Examples:
The Crown: Crowned in Terror ----> Crowned Unholy
they re-recorded vox with the original singer, who had returned, enhanced the drums, and re-recorded bass tracks. The original sounds much better.
Novembre: Wish I Could Dream it Again ----> Dreams D'azur
re-recorded the album, changed some songs, took some off, added some new parts, etc..
Anthrax: The Greater of 2 Evils
re-recorded tracks from the old albums, with the current singer, who didn't originally sing on the recordings. The original versions shit on them.
I also know that Dimmu Borgir is planning to re-record an old album..
I know there are more examples, but I can't think of any others now..basically The Crown cd spawned this whole idea of mine.
Sorry if I was repetitive in spots, but it was a stream of conscience, so I just typed whatever I was thinking. Discuss, folks.
Anyway, that was just an intro to the possible discussion I will present to you now:
As said above, a handful of artists/muscians aren't completely happy with their work when they look back at it. But instead of letting it be, they decide to re-record it, so it sounds better! If not that, then maybe change the songs up a bit, remix, etc., and release it. Also, sometimes re-record old albums with a new singer. I'm not saying I HATE this idea, but I'm saying in almost all cases, the original is very much so dominant.
When albums were released a certain year, recorded in a certain place, with certain people, it has history in it. You can listen to the first 3 Opeth albums, and feel the imagery and the production wasn't so polished, hence it had great atmosphere. As technology progresses, cds keep sounding more and more sterile and polished, and less enjoyable, because of it (I know we had this discussion before in a different thread).
I just think the way works were originally created/recorded or whatever, that's the way it is, and the way it should stay. It's over and done with, going back and re-releasing the album enhanced or re-recorded so it sounds BETTER at this period of time just doesn't seem terribly logical to me. Obviously, if the record was recorded in your grandmother's basement and you can barely even make out that it's music, then that makes sense to re-record it a bit better...but if the albums or songs that are re-done, originally sound perfectly legible, then I don't get it.
Examples:
The Crown: Crowned in Terror ----> Crowned Unholy
they re-recorded vox with the original singer, who had returned, enhanced the drums, and re-recorded bass tracks. The original sounds much better.
Novembre: Wish I Could Dream it Again ----> Dreams D'azur
re-recorded the album, changed some songs, took some off, added some new parts, etc..
Anthrax: The Greater of 2 Evils
re-recorded tracks from the old albums, with the current singer, who didn't originally sing on the recordings. The original versions shit on them.
I also know that Dimmu Borgir is planning to re-record an old album..
I know there are more examples, but I can't think of any others now..basically The Crown cd spawned this whole idea of mine.
Sorry if I was repetitive in spots, but it was a stream of conscience, so I just typed whatever I was thinking. Discuss, folks.
