Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[benn600]

I just have to proclaim my sincere disrespect and disgust for artists who re-release albums.  There are many I can think of off hand but I won't bother naming them.  My definition of breaching this rule is releasing a CD--typically a quite popular album--and then re-releasing the same album as a deluxe or expanded edition with 2 - 6 more tracks.

This causes me great pain and diminishes my appreciation for the artist.  This disappointment can easily extend to include greatest hits albums with a new track or two.  Then, we are buying the whole CD for very little real benefit.

On the other hand, I have a few top-favorite artists who have never fallen down this pit.  Greatest hits albums have their place but they should not include new material.  It's defeating the purpose of the title of the CD.

A big time artist recently did this and I mistakenly stumbled onto the Facebook fan page for the re-release.  Total disgust.  Everyone was commenting how awesome it was to get more music by the artist.  In this case, it's also a laziness on the artist's part.  They may have already been recorded from the previous session.  It's destroying the "album" mentality.  Clutters up libraries.  Wasted purchases.

It is merely an excuse to pump more content into the world of music without constructing a full-length album of great new material.  A quick sale of a few cheap tracks.  Of course it works well for those who download tracks one at a time.

I think music is losing some of its power held several years back.  Lastly, I am so incredibly sick of hearing people get sick of songs because they were overplayed on the radio.

That's my rant for the next few months.

[newsposter]

"looks like I'm going to have to buy the White Album again....."

Agent K, MiB

[jkrzok]

I don't mind getting the Beatles' re-releases; the sound quality is sufficiently improved to make them worth it. And they waited 20 years. Some bands, like the Stones, do remasters every few years it seems.

That said, I don't care for remastered releases in general. My question is always "Why didn't they master them right in the first place?" Perhaps technological advances can account for some of the need but when a 2 or 3 year old album is remastered some shenanigans must be going on.

And I absolutely loath "deluxe" albums coming out some few months after the original release. If the songs weren't good enough to make the first release then why bother. Or perhaps they weren't really finished with the first release? No, it's all about squeezing dollars from the fans. We no longer wear out our recordings so they find other ways to buy the same music over and over again.

[Daydream]

From my experience there are 2 reasons for this:

1) The album wasn't initially mastered through a full digital chain (I have CDs till very late 80's that came out as AAD) so for quality and / or to take advantage of the new technology albums get re-released. These may be worth it if the upgrade is real or one should stay the hell away from them if they experience the compression level of today mastering (thank you I'll stick with my analog processed release from the '80's)

2) Second reason - pure economics, micro, macro and anything in between. Albums have a certain shelf life, after that they go out of print (entirely or just in certain markets). To still generate interest in the material new editions are mastered (completists welcome to your deluxe editions) or - the ones I hate the most - here come your Greatest Hits edtions. When the Greatest Hits run out of print we're invited to a new Greatest Hits wave, slightly different than the first and so on. I'm a devoted fan of a certain band, but as much as I like them for decades now, the joke is that there will be at some point a release of "The Best Of The Greatest Hits"!

Going back to create some more custom fields to deal with the madness...

[dcwebman]

This doesn't bother me too much anymore since I can do the download of those new tracks like you said. I'd rather do that and get more from that artist than do without. What bothers me more is artists that put out a U.S. version, then release it say in the U.K. with an additional song, then somewhere else with another song, etc. Trying to get all those additional songs to make one complete album is costly because usually you can't download those different versions.

[benn600]

What bothers me more is artists that put out a U.S. version, then release it say in the U.K. with an additional song, then somewhere else with another song, etc.

This has also caused me great grief.

I'm not so upset with remasters because if it truly is the same songs, just remastered, I am not necessarily going to miss them.  You've still got the song in some form...and it's the original, which holds a lot of relevance forever.

When artists re-release CDs (contemporary, brand new artists) and a Facebook page is created for it, people should boo and say get back to the studio and finish your CD.  Don't just throw a few quick tracks at fans to make a buck.

[newsposter]

I'm to the point where I *only* buy compilations, live albums, or 'greatest hits'.

[MrC]

This has also caused me great grief.

It may be time to reset your ideas of what matters in life...  and what doesn't.  This hardly approaches "great grief"; when it hits you, you'll know it. 

[rick.ca]

This hardly approaches "great grief"; when it hits you, you'll know it.

Now that was harsh. Would a simple "Your grief is meaningless" not have been enough?

[benn600]

Just sick of everyone focusing around making a quick buck when it leads to grief and annoyance of thousands--plus diminishing the art of music.

Simpsons episode where Homer annoys thousands of people to make a few measly dollars -- auto dialer system.

[benn600]

To elaborate a bit more.  It's a sense of betrayal.

If I am totally following a particular artist and loyally purchasing everything they release day one or two, then I would consider myself a fairly important fan.  I have always been interested and truly aware of all their mainstream efforts.

Then, they release this new CD with basically a little bit of new content.  I feel betrayed and taken in by that artist.  Just like when someone gets cheated at the check out line or a store or restaurant.  Many people will never go back!  If an artist decides to shove the same cake out into my favorite bakery with a NEW cookie on top, I may just say "What's this?"  Perhaps it feels like an insult.

When I really think about it, I think it is more to do with the labels.  They sign an artist and receive rewards for the big time artists especially.  With these re-releases, I honestly think in many cases they are the labels saying "let's squeeze some more from the public."  As long as the artist doesn't say no (if able), then they'll go for it.  There is a fine line between a nice and innocent band/artist and a fully commercialized product that is truly and simply trying to make money...not reward listeners with pure and tasteful music.

[rick.ca]

If it's any consolation, when you observe what artists and their distributors have to go through to earn a living—as their dinosaur of an industry changes and adapts—you can say to them, "Your grief is meaningless." By the time the dust settles, physical media will be dead. You will have installed MC's purchasing agent plugin, which will only purchase, rent or subscribe to content it deems sufficiently original, pure and tasteful.

[benn600]

I don't question what you're saying in the least.  HOWEVER, the example I have in mind has absolutely no trouble selling...millions and millions of copies.  The ones that don't sell can't afford to be re-released.  They do this when they are so popular that the few people who didn't buy will give in just because it's a special edition.

[rick.ca]

It will be your responsibility to configure your purchase agent plugin to ignore those suppliers, and seek out the struggling but talented artist who needs your support. You should find the plugin particularly good at the actual function of "ignoring"—largely because it doesn't have a clue what grief is.

[benn600]

Some topics are just too big for me to deal with.  I also regret not having more time to make intelligent posts that I won't later regret or want to revise many times.

[hit_ny]

By the time the dust settles, physical media will be dead.

You really believe this ?

Everyone says it but that don't make it true for every label out there.

Weren't CDs supposed to kill records. Not happened yet.

Ahh but its that generation that only buys music they download so they have no concept of what owning the physical object actually means. But thats for convenience. Does it necessarily mean they never buy a physical object ?

It's destroying the "album" mentality.  Clutters up libraries.  Wasted purchases.

Of course it works well for those who download tracks one at a time.

I think music is losing some of its power held several years back.

Do you mean the 'physical' object here ?

I do recall someone on the board here keeping several versions of the same album and tagging it appropriately. Could not understand the reason for it.

[benn600]

If the physical media truly died, imagine interviews on talk shows.  No more album containing the cover art?  Now cover art glued to cardboard?

It's not that I feel I need physical media (any more) ... always thinking about ways to reduce physical media.  Going to start another thread relating to this.  Physical media storage debate: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=53952.new

[Magic_Randy]

"looks like I'm going to have to buy the White Album again....."

Agent K, MiB

Many of us will. I got the new mono and stereo White Album.  I must have purchased this album 6-8 times.

[rwarn852]

I agree that re-releasing everything for a quick buck is wrong. I did enjoy the Beatles ones though.

[Mr ChriZ]

CD was never sufficiently better than Records, it was just more convenient.

You tried to buy a new film on Video Cassette recently though?