Things that annoy you about re-issues

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Pretty much everything about reissues/re-releases is fucking annoying and I avoid buying them any chance I get.

The only band to do reissues correctly seems to be Devourment, which is funny. The 1.3.8 release has been issued twice, and it itself is a reissue of their album and demos + a new song, and it looks fine (both times) and sounds great. When they reissued Butcher The Weak they remastered it to fix the horrid production on the original (you can hear them switch chords, so fucking annoying) AND added a new version of Babykiller with Mike on vocals.

 

[rms]

I thought people bought CDs for the music, not some bullshit cover art.

 

[Nightmare_Heaven]

One of the worst examples of changed cover art I've ever seen has to be the re-issue of Blut aus Nord's second album by Candlelight records.

The original version released in 1996, has this quite frankly gorgeous classical painting for the artwork (click the image to make it bigger btw):



Very nice, choc full of detail and everything. Beautiful pictures of misty forests and Aurora Borealis in the booklet aswell.

Re-issued in 2005, with this somewhat lame (in comparison) CGI landscape picture:

Also, the booklet is still just full of this CGI landscape stuff (if not CGI, then photoshopped) and all this text in a foreign language that I can't read. Great.

Just absolutely unnecessary in my opinion. The original artwork is SO much better.

 

[Onder]

Or this.

 

[Solipsist]

Wow, I have never seen that Master's Hammer version of the album cover before, and the arrangement/colors just look awful.

This 2-in-1 album reissue artwork didn't look so bad though (in fact, it looks pretty bad-ass):

The Master's Hammer band logo is my favorite band logo next to Deathspell Omega's.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I thought people bought CDs for the music, not some bullshit cover art.

When it comes down to it, yes, but it really sucks when you see a classic album get a half-assed re-issue changing what used to be an amazing cover.

 

[Onder]

The cover is very important for me.

 

[Psychonaut]

I prefer the original cover art. I consider myself a collector of sorts and only want original stuff. Sometimes you can't get it but them's the breaks.

My biggest pet peeve right now is releasing an album, I snatch it up, and a month later some super deluxe version with a DVD and free subscription to Hustler all packaged in a vase from the Ming Dynasty is released and I HAVE to have it. Then I have to listen to the wife that I bought two of the same CD, which is far worse than spending the money.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

I think the cover art contributes to the music in a way.

 

[Koude Haat]

Wow, I have never seen that Master's Hammer version of the album cover before, and the arrangement/colors just look awful.

This 2-in-1 album reissue artwork didn't look so bad though (in fact, it looks pretty bad-ass):

The Master's Hammer band logo is my favorite band logo next to Deathspell Omega's.

This is actually a good reissue imo.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

One of the worst examples of changed cover art I've ever seen has to be the re-issue of Blut aus Nord's second album by Candlelight records.

The original version released in 1996, has this quite frankly gorgeous classical painting for the artwork (click the image to make it bigger btw):



Very nice, choc full of detail and everything. Beautiful pictures of misty forests and Aurora Borealis in the booklet aswell.

Re-issued in 2005, with this somewhat lame (in comparison) CGI landscape picture:

Also, the booklet is still just full of this CGI landscape stuff (if not CGI, then photoshopped) and all this text in a foreign language that I can't read. Great.

Just absolutely unnecessary in my opinion. The original artwork is SO much better.

To be fair the original cover is stolen from some artist also It is an awesome cover yeah, but I still like the new one too. I agree the booklet w/ unnecessary unreadable text is fucking gay, but Candlelight fucking fails at layouts and shit sometimes. Their re-release of BAN's The Work Which Transforms God is HYSTERICALLY bad. Compression artifacts on the front cover, REALLY SHITTY booklet layout, and the CD face says "The Work Wich Transforms God." How the fuck do you screw up so badly?!! By comparison the re-releases of the early BAN stuff are much better.

 

[DarkBliss]

I think the cover art contributes to the music in a way.

I disagree. Lyrics do, but cover? For instance, At the Gates' TRiTSiO has a pretty unremarkable cover; I don't think that even once I had the desire to examine it closely. Just a plain red background with patches of black color, big deal. Nothing interesting about it The lack of a lyrics booklet makes the entire package even less remarkable. True, some cover art catches your eye, but some is just ugly or not particularly noteworthy. That shouldn't really impact the listening experience, imo.

 

[Onder]

This looks good for example. Do want.

http://cgi.ebay.de/CARNIVORE-Retali...ryZ33290QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

TRiTSiO has a pretty unremarkable cover; I don't think that even once I had the desire to examine it closely. Just a plain red background with patches of black color, big deal.

You do realize how petty/silly this sounds, right? Why make a judgment on art if you haven't even bothered to look closely or appreciate it. Sorry, I don't buy that. I hope you don't judge all visual art by just what the sum of their parts is.

Cover art can enhance a good album but given that it is pure aesthetic and music is more than that, I can't find anything necessary in good cover art that would make or break an album.

 

[rms]

Cover Art is merely a way to grab attention, if it interests you have a higher chance of downloading/buying/trading w/e...

 

[waif]

The one exception to the changed cover art thing is Megadeth's Killing Is My Business.

 

[cookiecutter]

As most of you have said bad bonus tracks and changed cover art are the worst

 

[DarkBliss]

You do realize how petty/silly this sounds, right? Why make a judgment on art if you haven't even bothered to look closely or appreciate it. Sorry, I don't buy that. I hope you don't judge all visual art by just what the sum of their parts is.

Cover art can enhance a good album but given that it is pure aesthetic and music is more than that, I can't find anything necessary in good cover art that would make or break an album.

Yea, I suppose that did sounded contradictory. Meh. What I meant was that I found nothing eye-grabbing about it that warranted a closer inspection. And examining/obseving it doesn't enhance the music for me in a any significant way.
Basically, what I wanted to say, you've expressed in your second paragraph.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

OK. Yeah I know usually you are more fairly judging and repress your really negative opinions so it confused me when you just hastily judged that cover.

 

[CF87]

For me:

Two albums on one CD.

When the cover art is divided into two separate small pictures on the sleeve.

The cover art is changed completely.

Indeed. I had Unleashed and Grave reissues like that(two albums on one disk) and besides that being ridiculous the colors on the back,etc.. just did not look right. Century Media reissued some Unleashed and Grave again properly so sold those buying these new reissues. Across The Open Sea booklet for example folds out where it's like a poster which is neat.