Reissues are on one hand good, on the other hand purely marketing schemes. The fact is that heavy metal albums go out of print. A record company goes out of business, an album's print run gets sold out and for whatever reason does not get reprinted. The album disappears from the distribution chain. It's not available anymore.
At some point somebody decides they can make some money selling the album again. Fair enough. Bravo! Music should always be available to those who want it, even if it sucks, without having to deal with some fucko on Ebay.
Of course this idea of reissuing is abused. Albums which are already available get repackaged and put right back out on the market all the time. They might put a cardboard sleeve around the outside of the case. Ooh! Those goddamned bonus tracks are almost a given. They might "increase the value" by slamming two (or more) releases that were never intended to be connected onto one CD, or in one package. (I'm guessing there will never be a four CD House of Atreus super re-issue, because that would make sense). The capacity of a CD is abused and the capacity of a vinyl record is seen as an inconvenience once again.
But there is one more evil they can introduce to an album when releasing it a second (or third, or twelfth) time.
They can remaster it.
This is extremely tricky territory. For a long time, albums were mastered specifically for the vinyl album. That same master was then slapped onto the tape and the CD. Those who claimed that the vinyl sounded better were right. Eventually, the CD became the standard and dominant format and albums were mastered for that format. As time went on, the obvious lack of care and quality in the original CDs became apparent to even the densest fan. Remasters can serve a purpose.
(Nowadays, albums are mastered for CD and that master is slapped on the vinyl release.)
In the infancy of the 'underground' heavy metal 'industry,' albums were rushed. The musicians went into the studio, figured out their sounds, recorded all of their material (with no digital editing available), and mixed it in one week. Two if they were lucky. Words can't describe how ridiculous that was and the results were indicative of the bad atmosphere: Many albums sounded like shit. There is no reason to believe mastering was going to be any less rushed, so revisiting some of these McMetal albums can result in making the details of some previously murky material more audible.
Then there are 'modern standards.' Recording and mixing technology improves as time goes on, and albums made with the old technology don't sound as shiny and new as current releases. Musicians that take two months in a studio and had their material mastered to CD standards have no reason to go back and "improve" the sound. An album competently recorded in 1980 still sounds fine today. Yet they'll still go in and fix it shiny and new. And people will buy the same album again.
The danger of remastering is that the process can change the basic sound quality of the material. This is music. Sound matters. Certain characteristics of albums can be enhanced, or muted, and it's going to be determined by the standards of the day it is remastered, not by the intention of the artist the day it was originally recorded. I believe this is a corruption of the material. Mastering engineers these days, especially in "loud music," don't understand the importance of sonic dynamics and will push everything in the red zone no matter if it's a searing riff or a flute accompanied by acoustic guitar. Everything louder than everything else should not be a universal philosophy.
And if musicians will "fix" a live album in the studio, if George Lucas can destroy fond childhood memories of millions of moviegoers with his "updates," then I refuse to believe that heavy metal musicians who release "remastered" or "remixed" albums are not also fucking with the content. If Ozzy Osbourne can completely replace the performances on "classic" albums to avoid royalty payments, then anybody can take an old recording and change the material on it. Do the ends justify the means? Do heavy metal fans deserve to know in concrete terms when old albums are fucked with in this matter?
How sad is it that we have to ask these questions?
Just wait until a more advanced audio system becomes the standard format and all of the old albums are going to have to be reformatted, er, "remastered." A great many great albums are going to be destroyed in being changed from a stereo format to surround sound or telepathic injection or whatever comes next.
The original master on the original format the release was intended for is the only real version of a recording. Any remastering, remixing, or other such knob-twiddling update is a fraud.
At some point somebody decides they can make some money selling the album again. Fair enough. Bravo! Music should always be available to those who want it, even if it sucks, without having to deal with some fucko on Ebay.
Of course this idea of reissuing is abused. Albums which are already available get repackaged and put right back out on the market all the time. They might put a cardboard sleeve around the outside of the case. Ooh! Those goddamned bonus tracks are almost a given. They might "increase the value" by slamming two (or more) releases that were never intended to be connected onto one CD, or in one package. (I'm guessing there will never be a four CD House of Atreus super re-issue, because that would make sense). The capacity of a CD is abused and the capacity of a vinyl record is seen as an inconvenience once again.
But there is one more evil they can introduce to an album when releasing it a second (or third, or twelfth) time.
They can remaster it.
This is extremely tricky territory. For a long time, albums were mastered specifically for the vinyl album. That same master was then slapped onto the tape and the CD. Those who claimed that the vinyl sounded better were right. Eventually, the CD became the standard and dominant format and albums were mastered for that format. As time went on, the obvious lack of care and quality in the original CDs became apparent to even the densest fan. Remasters can serve a purpose.
(Nowadays, albums are mastered for CD and that master is slapped on the vinyl release.)
In the infancy of the 'underground' heavy metal 'industry,' albums were rushed. The musicians went into the studio, figured out their sounds, recorded all of their material (with no digital editing available), and mixed it in one week. Two if they were lucky. Words can't describe how ridiculous that was and the results were indicative of the bad atmosphere: Many albums sounded like shit. There is no reason to believe mastering was going to be any less rushed, so revisiting some of these McMetal albums can result in making the details of some previously murky material more audible.
Then there are 'modern standards.' Recording and mixing technology improves as time goes on, and albums made with the old technology don't sound as shiny and new as current releases. Musicians that take two months in a studio and had their material mastered to CD standards have no reason to go back and "improve" the sound. An album competently recorded in 1980 still sounds fine today. Yet they'll still go in and fix it shiny and new. And people will buy the same album again.
The danger of remastering is that the process can change the basic sound quality of the material. This is music. Sound matters. Certain characteristics of albums can be enhanced, or muted, and it's going to be determined by the standards of the day it is remastered, not by the intention of the artist the day it was originally recorded. I believe this is a corruption of the material. Mastering engineers these days, especially in "loud music," don't understand the importance of sonic dynamics and will push everything in the red zone no matter if it's a searing riff or a flute accompanied by acoustic guitar. Everything louder than everything else should not be a universal philosophy.
And if musicians will "fix" a live album in the studio, if George Lucas can destroy fond childhood memories of millions of moviegoers with his "updates," then I refuse to believe that heavy metal musicians who release "remastered" or "remixed" albums are not also fucking with the content. If Ozzy Osbourne can completely replace the performances on "classic" albums to avoid royalty payments, then anybody can take an old recording and change the material on it. Do the ends justify the means? Do heavy metal fans deserve to know in concrete terms when old albums are fucked with in this matter?
How sad is it that we have to ask these questions?
Just wait until a more advanced audio system becomes the standard format and all of the old albums are going to have to be reformatted, er, "remastered." A great many great albums are going to be destroyed in being changed from a stereo format to surround sound or telepathic injection or whatever comes next.
The original master on the original format the release was intended for is the only real version of a recording. Any remastering, remixing, or other such knob-twiddling update is a fraud.
