Remasters: A debate

[Hubster]

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

+1

Fuck remasters. No true music fan wants anything other than the ORIGINAL release, in every aspect.

 

[ProphetofHatred]

Shitty demo quality 90's death metal ftw

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So I take it that most of the above have never purchased a demo comp before. Or is it different when you call it a comp? I.e. it would be total blasphemy if the first two Timeghoul demos were remastered and rereleased as separate EPs, but when remastered and repackaged as "1992-1994 Discography" it's now all OK?

 

[Onder]

God wtf I didn't know The Butt was trying to be this tight ass elitist now. Sometimes guys didn't have enough money in the 80's/90's for good mastering and their shit sounded like ass and it can sound much better with a proper remaster. Other times of course it's just a marketing trick so labels can release classic albums with the "REMASTERED" tag on it. (Even those can sound good tbh!). Sometimes a fucking famous conductor makes a recording of some symphony in the 50's and then fucking dies so it's now being reissued with a cleared out, remastered sound and people go "I didn't know all this shit was there before". Again you guys are humping all on one big fucking pile of shit and the discussion has zero meaning in the end.

 

[The Butt]

[citation needed]

No. Especially since you have failed to refute any of my points about historical impact and how it relates to music.

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.

It being left off the album, means that it is no longer a part of the album. Thats what being omitted fucking means. It doesn't matter what reason it got cut for; bottom line is, it got cut. Therefore, it isn't a part of the album.

Don't be daft. You're smarter than this.

So I take it that most of the above have never purchased a demo comp before. Or is it different when you call it a comp? I.e. it would be total blasphemy if the first two Timeghoul demos were remastered and rereleased as separate EPs, but when remastered and repackaged as "1992-1994 Discography" it's now all OK?

Remastering and releasing them as two separate EPs IS indeed different from remastering and releasing them as a compilation CD. Releasing them remastered, under their respective album names, is misleading and does not inherently show evidence of a tampered product. It attempts to pass them off as the original demos when they most certainly are not.

"1992-1994 Discography" is more forgivable because it isn't trying to pass itself off as an album of its own, but rather a rereleased collection of songs. It makes blatantly obvious what it is trying to achieve, and the fact that it is obviously tampered with. I still would not buy it unless it was absolutely the only way to track said songs down, but it is more forgivable.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No. Especially since you have failed to refute any of my points about historical impact and how it relates to music.

No, I did respond to that point already ("Historical impact is happening whether or not you listen a given version of an album"). Your job now is to link the claim that listening to a later version with (potentially) less historical impact is somehow relevant to your claim that one should not listen to non-originals. Further, you have to demonstrate that a minor change like a slight volume increase in any way alters the historical impact that album may have had were it released in that way.

It being left off the album, means that it is no longer a part of the album. Thats what being omitted fucking means. It doesn't matter what reason it got cut for; bottom line is, it isn't a NotB song.

Don't be a goddamn idiot. I know you're good at it, but here isn't the place.

No longer on the album implies it was once a part of the album, hence you just contradicted yourself boy.

Remastering and releasing them as two separate EPs IS indeed different from remastering and releasing them as a compilation CD. Releasing them remastered, under their respective album names, is misleading and does not inherently show evidence of a tampered product. It attempts to pass them off as the original demos when they most certainly are not.

"1992-1994 Discography" is more forgivable because it isn't trying to pass itself off as an album of its own, but rather a rereleased collection of songs. It makes blatantly obvious what it is trying to achieve, and the fact that it is obviously tampered with. I still would not buy it unless it was absolutely the only way to track said songs down, but it is more forgivable.

So now the issue is being misled? All reissues will state if bonus tracks are present, and many will regarding if it has been remastered or remixed. I find it hilarious you're complaining about authenticity and production when you apparently don't even listen to most demos in the first place. Unless you're saying that shitty third-gen MP3 rips are somehow more true to the original than a remaster from the original source.

 

[Onder]

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.

The Butt please tell me one more thing. Why the fuck would anyone complain about bonus tracks on a reissue? Why don't you just fucking NOT listen to them if you don't like them? You say they disrupt the flow of the album but they come AFTER THE ALBUM (usually). So what the fuck is your problem?

EDIT: Ok this is truly the last one fucking thing. Do you, The Butt, realize that old albums were mastered specifically for vinyl so the cd versions that came afterwards, (that you probably listen to - or their rips), are technically remasters, right?

 

[The Butt]

No, I did respond to that point already ("Historical impact is happening whether or not you listen a given version of an album"). Your job now is to link the claim that listening to a later version with (potentially) less historical impact is somehow relevant to your claim that one should not listen to non-originals. Further, you have to demonstrate that a minor change like a slight volume increase in any way alters the historical impact that album may have had were it released in that way.

People can listen to what they want. But listening to a remaster of an album is factually akin to listening to a version of an album with altered songs, the tracklist scrambled, etc. You are getting a skewed interpretation of the album since you are not experiencing it as it was originally released. This is fact.

If you are fine with listening to a misrepresentative version of an album, be my guest. But I'm not.

No longer on the album implies it was once a part of the album, hence you just contradicted yourself boy.

I contradicted nothing; my posts have been referring to the first release of an album; when I say "album", unless otherwise stated, I am referring to the original pressing.

Songs that get omitted before an album's initial release are simply not part of said album. Plain and simple. Again, this is what the word "omitted" means. Cut is cut. End of.

So now the issue is being misled? All reissues will state if bonus tracks are present, and many will regarding if it has been remastered or remixed. I find it hilarious you're complaining about authenticity and production when you apparently don't even listen to most demos in the first place. Unless you're saying that shitty third-gen MP3 rips are somehow more true to the original than a remaster from the original source.

Again; whether it states on the packaging that it is altered or not, it doesn't change the fact that it has been altered, so not every musical aspect of the album is there. The production and tracklist are facets of the music itself, as important as the notes played.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

People can listen to what they want. But listening to a remaster of an album is factually akin to listening to a version of an album with altered songs, the tracklist scrambled, etc. You are getting a skewed interpretation of the album since you are not experiencing it as it was originally released. This is fact.

No, they aren't alike at all. A reissue mastered slightly louder is not akin to, say, a reissue with an offensive song cut out or guitar solos re-recorded to save on royalties. The extent to which a reissue differs from the original product determines the extent to which the experience differs from that of experiencing the original.

And +1 what Onder said on the vinyl/CD front.

 

[ProphetofHatred]

I feel like the only one that actually likes the Rust in Peace remaster more.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I've only listened to a few parts of the remaster on YouTube (mostly the infamous changes), and yeah, I hope you're alone on that one. Off the top of my head I can't think of many as reviled as that one. Maybe that Somewhere in Time reissue which is supposedly brickwalled to fuck much worse than any of the other 80s Maiden reissues (haven't heard it myself).

 

[J.]

the darkthrone remasters were loathed when they came out. the INTENDED production was cleaned up and they tacked a fucking interview at the end.

labels just need to RE-ISSUE an album to make it more readily available. but leave everything alone. i guess that would be too easy for labels and not enough $

if idiots would stop buying every version with goddamn bonus tracks, tree leaves, ashes, pubic hair, and tin boxes.....

 

[waif]

I feel like the only one that actually likes the Rust in Peace remaster more.

Nope. The Megadeth remasters are a substantial improvement, especially SFSGSW which is pretty much unlistenable on the original CD.

A lot of old metal CDs sound like garbage because they were mastered for vinyl; Iron Maiden is a good example. The remastered Iron Maiden CDs bring the sound in line with the original vinyl.

 

[MoSeN]

I didn't read most of the previous posts because whatever, but I believe most people are usually so used to versions they first start listening to (a lot) that they can hardly stand a remastered version of them and some others are simply assholes sticking to originals. At the other hand there are always remasters which were horribly overremastered and they get shit anyway.

Personally I enjoy most remasters.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

A lot of old metal CDs sound like garbage because they were mastered for vinyl; Iron Maiden is a good example. The remastered Iron Maiden CDs bring the sound in line with the original vinyl.

lolwut



The originals sound perfect.

 

[SentinelSlain]

it pissed me off that I couldn't get hold of all the unremastered judas priest cds and know for certain they're not bootlegs. fucking remastering cuntwits. if they were money grubbers, the bonus tracks would just be on a single album of unreleased shit, instead of spread over all of the albums, to try and get people who already own every album to buy the remasters. fucking money grubbing bollocks.

all of that loudness shit pisses me off as well. I'm a bit sensitive to production and shit and I can hear they've raped it.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

People bootleg the older Priest CDs? I thought that you could still get them, at least as a lot, for somewhere in the $5-8 range pretty easily.

 

[SentinelSlain]

well you can, but i cba tbh. i have the original vinyl and the bloody remasters.

 

[waif]

The originals sound perfect.

I dunno about SiT, but what I said definitely applies to Killers.

Anyways, ITT: people being bitches

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What in the hell is wrong with the sound on the original Killers CD? It's a classic Martin Birch production, and would likely be my top pick for best sounding Iron Maiden album. I don't know what metal you listen to that it could be considered an example of "sounding like garbage".