Remixed, remastered, new, improved, slick, and shiny: yay or nay?

[NAD]

What do you think about remastered recordings? Good idea, bad idea, or does it depend on the album? Obviously a lot of extreme metal gets its charm from rough recordings, but do some deserve a makeover of sorts?

Example: Cliff Burton era Metallica should be remastered IMMEDIATELY. Did you know that there is a long bass solo at the beginning of Call of the Cutulu? It's there, and it's wonderful. Too bad it is nearly impossible to hear.

Example: Nearly every time I put on some 70s music in my truck while mom is driving with me she cringes at the remaster jobs. She says they sound thin and screechy, and nothing like the original.

 

[J.]

I don't really care. I think remastering takes away from the lore of the album.

I utterly despise the re-issues that come out with various "extras" for fanboys like bonus tracks, liner notes, new artwork, etc. These are blatant label cash-cows.

I say let an album go out of print. Screw the new fans.

But that's just me.

 

[JayKeeley]

Example: Cliff Burton era Metallica should be remastered IMMEDIATELY. Did you know that there is a long bass solo at the beginning of Call of the Cutulu? It's there, and it's wonderful. Too bad it is nearly impossible to hear.

I never knew that about the bass solo in Cthulu - and I must have heard that song a million times. Thing is, there is so much nostalgia attached to the Metallica albums (especially the sound) and I pretty much owned them when they were first released. For me, I would want them left alone - EXCEPT maybe Justice, and even then, only maybe because I've got so used to the invisible low end.

Rerecording songs fails on all accounts if you are used to the originals. If you've never heard the originals, and there is reason enough to re-record them (e.g. new 'permanent' vocalist), then I say go ahead and find the new audience.

Iced Earth redid songs for "Days of Purgatory" from their first two albums with Matt Barlow on vocals. I've not heard this album, but I hear it's good. Of course now, they'll need to do this all over again with Ripper Owens.

Gamma Ray redid songs on "Blast from the Past" with Kai Hansen on vocals, and they were a vast improvement. However, they also redid stuff that didn't need redoing - anything past Land of the Free basically. All the nuances in the guitar solos felt different. It just felt wrong.

Again, it depend on how familiar and attached you are with to the originals recordings.

 

[Erik]

The Crown (or rather, their label) plan to re-do "Crowned in Terror" with Johan Lindstrand... Now that's a cash-in if I ever saw one...

Generally my philosophy is don't fix what ain't broken... and the way I see it, the original recording is never broken. There are exceptions: re-rereleasing demos and such on CD or vinyl that were only ever available on tape before is a good thing, especially when they're mastered from the original master tapes. Old tapes can sound pretty cruddy. I am a big fan of the Vargnatt re-release, although the sound difference from the original isn't big in that case.

 

[NAD]

It took me about 5 years to notice the Cututjhashrdsorlro bass solo. Justice can stay that way as far as I'm concerned, Newstead's work on that record was completely worthless, that is the worst bass album ever.

I do like extended liner notes, but it does suck when the original release goes OOP and the only way you can get the CD is buying the Super Fun Happy version with 90 bonus tracks.

Dreamlord, you're mean.

 

[Erik]

It's getting pretty silly when the re-releases have more bonus tracks than there are regular tracks on the album. Case in point: Venom's "Black Metal" in the slipcase re-release version. I guess it's good value for money though. Another one is Unleashed's "Where No Life Dwells," which has 11 tracks: the re-release has 10 bonuses as well as new liner notes etc...

 

[J.]

Generally my philosophy is don't fix what ain't broken... and the way I see it, the original recording is never broken. There are exceptions: re-rereleasing demos and such on CD or vinyl that were only ever available on tape before is a good thing, especially when they're mastered from the original master tapes. Old tapes can sound pretty cruddy. I am a big fan of the Vargnatt re-release, although the sound difference from the original isn't big in that case.

I completely agree with this, though. If something is only available on tape and the artist has the only tape, then sure, release it on CD, kinda like what Arcturus did with the 2CD release of Aspera.

This is what I fucking hate:

"Candlelight Records are reissuing OPETH’s Orchid, Morning Rise and My
Arms, Your Hearse albums on October 20th in very limited edition logo
embossed tins. This edition is limited to a run of 2,000."

If that's not a cash-cow, I don't know what is.

Oh, and the recent two-for-one Roadrunner releases are fucking ridiculous.

 

[JayKeeley]

It's pretty rewarding tracking down a hard to find item as well. The fun is in the chase if you have the time and money.

 

[Ayeka]

It's getting pretty silly when the re-releases have more bonus tracks than there are regular tracks on the album. Case in point: Venom's "Black Metal" in the slipcase re-release version. I guess it's good value for money though. Another one is Unleashed's "Where No Life Dwells," which has 11 tracks: the re-release has 10 bonuses as well as new liner notes etc...

Heh, two of the mere four or five Vemnom songs I think are any good are Black Metal bonus tracks I think the number of bonuses on those CDs were kinda silly, especially how Angel Dust appears three times now on Welcome To Hell, but you can't say that doubling up an album ain't value for money, eh? If you're getting 10 extra songs free, you're mad to say no!

 

[Demonspell]

I normally only buy remasters if there is significant bonus material included (under which endless alternate tracks do not qualify) and I don't own the album in its original state.

 

[ScottG]

The more time goes by the more I think remasters are a scam.

In the beginning, I had no problem with something coming out again with significantly better sound. These days it's all the other things associated with remasters that are ridiculous. Changing artwork, changing song order, putting in promotional material from people who never owned the album when it was new, etc. etc. Maiden is one of the most guilty examples of this.

Nothing ever beats the original. The way you remember it is what makes it what it is. Remastering basically is just a convenient excuse for bands/labels to make more money (I like to compare it to the director's cut trend in Hollywood movies). Seems like it doesn't matter how "wrong" something is at the time cause hell, "We'll just put the damn thing out again." If only the common man could just go back and fix all the perceived mistakes in his life, right?


Don't get me started on all this limited edition-digipak crap going on these days either. I've been forced into holding the position that if I can't get a definitive version in a good old jewel case, then I will refuse to buy anything. Will record companies never learn?

 

[Erik]

I agree with Scott here. One of the very worst offenders is Peaceville. For example, At the Gates' albums "The Red in the Sky is Ours" and "With Fear I Kiss the Burning Darkness" were released in 1992 and 1993 respectively. In 1995, Peaceville re-released both in a 2-CD set. Now that's all well and good, but then they re-released both again, now as separate releases without bonus tracks but in a slipcase (ooh) around 2001 sometime. Now that's bad enough, but in 2003, they've re-released both separately AGAIN, now in digipaks with remastered sound and bonus tracks. There are four versions out of an album that was released 10 years ago... Come ON.

They've done the same thing (mostly excepting the 2CD bit) with lots of their stuff including Anathema, Katatonia, ("Tonight's Decision" was released in 1999. Re-release in slipcase with 2 bonus songs in 2000. I kid thee not.) My Dying Bride, Darkthrone... Music For Nations are also doing some very questionable stuff regarding Opeth. The "special edition" of Blackwater Park which came a year or less after the original version, for example...

 

[JayKeeley]

Now that's bad enough, but in 2003, they've re-released both separately AGAIN, now in digipaks with remastered sound and bonus tracks. There are four versions out of an album that was released 10 years ago... Come ON.

Yeah it's shitty, but in my case, I just got whatever was convenient! Would I prefer the originals? Of course but there's no way of telling which version you're getting when you place an on-line order.

They've done the same thing (mostly excepting the 2CD bit) with lots of their stuff including Anathema, Katatonia, ("Tonight's Decision" was released in 1999. Re-release in slipcase with 2 bonus songs in 2000. I kid thee not.) My Dying Bride, Darkthrone... Music For Nations are also doing some very questionable stuff regarding Opeth. The "special edition" of Blackwater Park which came a year or less after the original version, for example...

The same shit happens with DVDs. Army of Darkness has come out in different versions maybe 6 times already.

I don't like it either, they should just make one definitive version, but like I said in another thread, this is a business. It's up to the consumer as to whether they want to play ball or not. For those desperate to hear something that is HTF, then at least they get a chance with a re-release.

Better than downloading of the net, no?

However, what labels do with Iron Maiden (for example) is beyond a joke.

 

[Erik]

For those desperate to hear something that is HTF, then at least they get a chance with a re-release.

Yes. What's WRONG is illustrated perfectly by the "Tonight's Decision" example. Released in 1999, perfectly available everywhere until re-release in 2000. Stuff like that can be motivated by nothing but greed. I say labels should just keep pressing the originals as long as/if there's demand for them.

 

[Black Winter Day]

aeternus just re-released "beyond the wandering moon" and "and so the night became..." with NEW ARTWORK and bonus tracks! i that's not blasphemy, i don't know what is...

 

[Black Winter Day]

the new album covers are shitty, by the way

 

[JayKeeley]

Yes. What's WRONG is illustrated perfectly by the "Tonight's Decision" example. Released in 1999, perfectly available everywhere until re-release in 2000. Stuff like that can be motivated by nothing but greed. I say labels should just keep pressing the originals as long as/if there's demand for them.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not disagreeing with you mate.

However, here's my question: what's worse? The label re-releasing 12 months after the original release with bonus tracks and a slip case, OR the fanboys willing to buy it all over again?

Being devil's advocate: if I was a record company, and I knew Opeth fans, for example, would just buy and buy and buy each and every release, I might try to take advantage. I would be catering to demand. Simple economics really.

 

[Erik]

THIS is blasphemy:

Original:

First Kristian "Necrolord" Wåhlin cover ever to grace a record, and we all know what great things he went on to later. Beautifully moody piece that fits the music. Back has band photo. EDIT: Does the image above actually work? It seems a little flakey...



Re-release:

Logo on white. All artwork and photography removed.

 

[Erik]

However, here's my question: what's worse? The label re-releasing 12 months after the original release with bonus tracks and a slip case, OR the fanboys willing to buy it all over again?

Being devil's advocate: if I was a record company, and I knew Opeth fans, for example, would just buy and buy and buy each and every release, I might try to take advantage. I would be catering to demand. Simple economics really.

Well, I happen to be overtly idealistic and ignorant of harsh reality, and I quite honestly believe that the proper reason to run a record label is to get music you enjoy out to others who would, and not to make money. I do realize that this obviously isn't what happens with labels as big as MFN and Peaceville.

I don't like making money off music at all, in any way. Not bands, not labels. I have very conservatively underground thought patterns concerning stuff like this.

 

[Ayeka]

In the beginning, I had no problem with something coming out again with significantly better sound. These days it's all the other things associated with remasters that are ridiculous. Changing artwork, changing song order, putting in promotional material from people who never owned the album when it was new, etc. etc. Maiden is one of the most guilty examples of this.

What's so bad about the enhanced CDs? I thought they were bloody well fine...I do remember people kicking up a fuss about the re-releases in replica vinyl sleeves (which I still haven't seen )...I'm there thinking "Well, if you ain't going to buy them, why do you care?". I mean, really, why do you care?!