Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 1:23:29 GMT
I always see it as a potential rip-off when artists do this. "Here, I'm out of ideas, so buy another version of what you've already heard." No one's obligated to buy it of course, but it still seems somewhat lazy and uninspired.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpha128 on Mar 23, 2018 1:57:13 GMT
I always see it as a potential rip-off when artists do this. "Here, I'm out of ideas, so buy another version of what you've already heard." No one's obligated to buy it of course, but it still seems somewhat lazy and uninspired. I agree. I don't really see the point of, e.g., Manowar re-recording their debut album from 1982 and releasing it as Battle Hymns MMXI in November 2010. I own the original but not the remake. On the other hand, I did purchase the self-titled sixth album by Burning Point. This was their first album with ex-Battle Beast singer Nitte Valo, and about half the tracks were re-recordings of earlier Burning Point songs. For that reason, some critics did dismiss the album as a cash grab. But I had never purchased any Burning Point albums before, largely because I was unimpressed with their original vocalist (also their guitarist). So for me this was a great introductory purchase for this band. |
|
|
|
Post by bravomailer on Mar 23, 2018 2:08:12 GMT
I think McCartney remixed and improved Let It Be by deleting the lush nonsense that Spector added in, much to McC's dismay. He cited it in his suit to dissolve the Beatles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 23, 2018 3:03:10 GMT
It doesn't happen often. I know of a few instances in metal that were done either for legal reasons (Ozzy's remasters), because of singer changes (Iced Earth), or because the old stuff had shitty recording quality (Testament).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 6:07:44 GMT
I agree. It is somewhat lazy but I like Harem Scarem's 'Mood Swings II' more than the original album and the songs sound heaps better and a lot of their fans agree on that perspective so in some cases it is a good idea. 
|
|
|
|
Post by cypher on Mar 23, 2018 16:53:46 GMT
How about releasing an album, then releasing the same album the following year, but with the sequence of songs altered, and some added instruments?
This is what folk singer Eric Andersen did with "'Bout Changes 'n' Things", and "'Bout Changes 'n' Things Take 2", in '66 and '67.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2018 17:51:08 GMT
Even danny elfman talks about how remastering is a joke, in an embarrassing oingo boingo interview.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamesottosweetheart on Mar 23, 2018 23:17:15 GMT
I always see it as a potential rip-off when artists do this. "Here, I'm out of ideas, so buy another version of what you've already heard." No one's obligated to buy it of course, but it still seems somewhat lazy and uninspired. In my opinion, it can be a treat when songs are re-done because the original recordings can be from when the singer was younger. One of my most favorite female singers did an album like this and in my opinion, the re-recordings are better than the originals because her voice only got better as she got older. Here is her album's front picture.  God bless you and Tanya Tucker always!!! Holly (a fan of Miss T since 1991) P.S. On the other hand, in my opinion, it can be a crime when the songs are re-done with someone else doing their leading compared to who did the leading during the original recordings. (still irate over the remaining Oak Ridge Boys re-recording songs that my late beautiful precious Steve Sanders did the leading for) |
|
