Remasters: A debate

[The Butt]

The topic of remasters came up on the metal board I run, so naturally I am intrigued in seeing how people feel here; how many people here feel the same or differently about the whole matter, and what their reasonings for doing so are.

I hate remasters. I'm not knocking anyone that enjoys remasters, everyone views different aspects of the music to be more or less important than the person next to them. Which is great. But I hate remasters.

The reason I hate them, is that I view the production as an aspect of the music itself, similar to a specific bassline or drum fill on a song. I feel that for example, the muddy production of 80s thrash; or the putrid, swampy production of OSDM, is like a time capsule that instantly brings you to the time period the album was recorded; the production is one of the factors that exhibits and illustrates a specific album's place in metal history.

Listening to the thin, trebly production of Hell Awaits makes me feel like I am in 1985, experiencing it when thrash was still a relatively new concept. The high-pitched, reverby sound of Hvis Lyset Tar Oss instantly transports me to 1994.

Changing the production, IMO, is akin to entirely rerecording an album, or rearranging the riffs on a song. Remasters strip an entire facet of the music away, which is why I dislike them in 99% of cases. I feel that what record labels fail to realize, before remastering an album for rerelease, is that sometimes an album is supposed to sound muddy/tinny/etc. Supposed to sound like a product of its time.

IMO remasters are simply revisionist history, and nothing more.

 

[SoundMaster]

The concept or idea of remasters is cool, but the finished product is often an abomination, due to the compression.
Ideally, we'd have the ability to purchase remixes of our fav albums. I know most will consider the sacrilege, but when done right (Flotsam's "Doomday" album), it's unbeatable.

 

[The Butt]

I don't even have a problem with compression. Death Magnetic, for example, is tolerable sound-wise to me; were it not for the abysmally shitty songwriting, I'd listen to it. It sounds like a product of the time it came from (the last few years) and I'm okay with that aspect of the music.

For that reason, remixes are equally as bad to me as remasters. Tampering with an aspect of the music that IMO is as important as the notes played themselves, and should not be altered.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

A lot of the lo-fi productions that people praise weren't even intentional. You may find them preferable (I often do), but to say they were supposed to sound a certain way just because you find it convenient to pigeonhole a certain style and sound together is revisionist itself.

 

[The Butt]

Even when its not what the artist or band originally wanted, I still feel that the production is a sacred thing that again, cements an albums place in its respective genre's history and should not be tampered with. It is the same as rewriting a classic song, years later; for example, removing a section to shorten it, rephrasing a riff, etc. These are aspects of the music that make it what it is.

If I may use an analogy, it's the same with how I feel about the remaster of Star Trek: The Original Series; it's cool to watch a few times for novelty's sake, to pick up on things you didn't catch in the standard definition version, but its not the same as watching the original. TOS is simply supposed to look shitty from a visual standpoint; its supposed to look like the time it came from. Yes, if it were filmed today it would be recorded and released with the same clarity the remaster has... but to put it bluntly, it wasn't, end of story. It was a product of its time. And as a result, the shitty 1960s visuals are part of the flair of watching the show. The CGI rendering of the U.S.S. Enterprise is nothing compared to the blurry blue-screen visuals of the wooden filming model of the ship.

 

[J.]

totally agree with the ass. i want the original recording, no remastering, no fucking bonus tracks, no revised artwork. the fucking original everything

 

[HamburgerBoy]

That's sounding more like religious dogma than an argument now. Does it bother you knowing that an original release of an album may in fact not even be the original recording or production itself? And regarding Death Magnetic, do you prefer the brickwalled final version to the leaked one, on account of it fitting an era of shit production?

 

[The Butt]

J: Bonus tracks should be saved for compilations. Fuckers who tack them onto rereleases of albums (and as a result disrupt the flow of the album) need to burn.

HB: The original release of an album is the first recording and mix to be heard by the masses. It may have gone through various takes and mixes before release, but the first released version of an album is the version that bears the most historical significance, by far. You are making irrelevant side-points to misrepresent or discredit my argument, and it's not working.

As for Death Magnetic, yes I prefer the compressed version to the Guitar Hero mix; even if it is a shitty shit album, the compressed version is the album as it was originally released. The compressed version IS Death Magnetic. The Guitar Hero mix is just that; an alternate rendition of the album, that attempts to "fix" something that was simply the product of an era of compressed production.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Even though 95% of reissues with bonus tracks stick them at the end where it doesn't really matter provided a decent gap is provided? And what about albums where tracks were forced to be dropped due to LP constraints? For example, Total Eclipse was intended to be included on Number of the Beast, but they were limited to only eight songs so that one received the cut. Its inclusion may interrupt the flow in the sense that it isn't the flow you're used to, but it's the album as it was meant.

 

[The Butt]

Even though 95% of reissues with bonus tracks stick them at the end where it doesn't really matter provided a decent gap is provided? And what about albums where tracks were forced to be dropped due to LP constraints? For example, Total Eclipse was intended to be included on Number of the Beast, but they were limited to only eight songs so that one received the cut. Its inclusion may interrupt the flow in the sense that it isn't the flow you're used to, but it's the album as it was meant.

Even when its not what the artist or band originally wanted, I still feel that the production is a sacred thing that again, cements an albums place in its respective genre's history and should not be tampered with. It is the same as rewriting a classic song, years later; for example, removing a section to shorten it, rephrasing a riff, etc. These are aspects of the music that make it what it

Substitute "production" with "track list".

 

[HamburgerBoy]

OK then, I guess we should all just accept your word as law rather than what the artists themselves intended.

 

[The Butt]

Intent is irrelevant. It is historical impact which is the issue here.

People don't care about Total Eclipse being omitted from Number of the Beast, because Number of the Beast was first released without it. When Number of the Beast was released without it, Total Eclipse ceased to be a Number of the Beast song. Plain and simple.

Call me a traditionalist, but when I listen to an album, I analyze it based on every musical aspect. Riff phrasing, production, song structure, tracklist (basically the structure of the album itself), etc. If everything is not exactly as it was on its first release, I am listening to a tampered or misrepresentative product; a product that claims to be a specific piece of music, but is actually not. This is why remasters (or a subsequent release of an album in which anything is altered; added or removed) bug me.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Historical impact is happening whether or not you listen a given version of an album. I don't see how that is any more relevant to the listening experience than intent.

 

[J.]

then get this version like i did. problem solved. original release intact plus the omitted track

http://www.discogs.com/Iron-Maiden-The-Number-Of-The-Beast/release/385161

 

[The Butt]

HB: No, actually, you are wrong.

When you listen to a version of an album (a composition of music much like an individual song) that has tracks tacked onto the end, it is equatable to listening to a version of a song that has a musical section tacked onto the end.

It is not actually the song itself, it is an extended version of said song.

It is the same principle for listening to an album. You aren't listening to the album itself, you are listening to an extended version.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

When Number of the Beast was released without it, Total Eclipse ceased to be a Number of the Beast song. Plain and simple.

yeah because you say so.

 

[The Butt]

yeah because you say so.

As I said before, my saying so is irrelevant. Refute my point rather than making copout responses.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

HB: No, actually, you are wrong.

When you listen to a version of an album (a composition of music much like an individual song) that has tracks tacked onto the end, it is equatable to listening to a version of a song that has a musical section tacked onto the end.

It is not actually the song itself, it is an extended version of said song.

It is the same principle for listening to an album. You aren't listening to the album itself, you are listening to an extended version.

Or, when you're listening to an album with material omitted either for technical or censorship reasons, you're listening to an incomplete version and are missing the artistic context of the music out of some blind loyalty to release dates.

As I said before, my saying so is irrelevant. Refute my point rather than making copout responses.

You didn't make an argument. You simply said "It's not a Number... song because it wasn't a part of the original album". That's called dogma.

 

[The Butt]

Or, when you're listening to an album with material omitted either for technical or censorship reasons, you're listening to an incomplete version and are missing the artistic context of the music out of some blind loyalty to release dates.

No actually. The moment an album is released, it is implied that all aspects of the album are finalized.

You didn't make an argument. You simply said "It's not a Number... song because it wasn't a part of the original album". That's called dogma.

No its not, it's simply what happened. Total Eclipse isn't a NoTB song. Deal with it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No actually. The moment an album is released, it is implied that all aspects of the album are finalized.

[citation needed]

No its not, it's simply what happened. Total Eclipse isn't a NoTB song. Deal with it.

It being left off is simply what happened. Your statement on the meaning of that leaving-off, however, is backed up by nothing but your saying so.