Best Ever Albums

Re: Remasters? --Good or bad?

RFNAPLES — Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:01:22 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 08/03/2010 12:01

40footwolf wrote:

RFNAPLES wrote:

Remasters are GOOD. Generally better sound and more tracks (unreleased, demos, alt takes, etc). Often better booklets too.

I'm fine with adding unreleased tracks, singles, B-sides and stuff like that, but I really don't like alternate takes and demos. They really cut up the flow of the album, to me.

Yes they can disturb the flow of the album but sometimes they put the extras at the end. I find it intriguing to listen to alt takes and demos, often wondering why they weren't released. I don’t collect albums for their historicity but for the music.

Re: Remasters? --Good or bad?

40footwolf — Tue, 3 Aug 2010 03:22:21 GMT

Author: 40footwolf

Posted: 08/03/2010 07:22

RFNAPLES wrote:

Remasters are GOOD. Generally better sound and more tracks (unreleased, demos, alt takes, etc). Often better booklets too.

I'm fine with adding unreleased tracks, singles, B-sides and stuff like that, but I really don't like alternate takes and demos. They really cut up the flow of the album, to me.

Re: Remasters? --Good or bad?

RFNAPLES — Tue, 3 Aug 2010 00:09:45 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 08/03/2010 04:09

Remasters are GOOD. Generally better sound and more tracks (unreleased, demos, alt takes, etc). Often better booklets too.

Re: Remasters? --Good or bad?

Anonymous — Mon, 2 Aug 2010 16:01:28 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/02/2010 20:01

I'm not entirely sure what to type in this thread but to answer the orignal question, a bad point would be 'Would the artist have liked this'?

Considering that a lot of classic albums get remastered after the artist has died, they're not there to give their approval of whether they would like the music to have sounded a particular way.

Re: Remasters? --Good or bad?

Mr. Shankly — Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:19:49 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 08/02/2010 19:19

Cryptozoologist wrote:

The Beatles remasters were mind-boggling, and I believe the John Lennon remasters coming later this year will be the same.

I agree. The Beatles remasters were done very tastefully and with the utmost care, but some aren't. With some, they crank up the compression so much it just ruins the sound, especially with acoustic instruments.

What are some remasters that haven't been good?

Re: Remasters? --Good or bad?

Cryptozoologist — Mon, 2 Aug 2010 12:19:41 GMT

Author: Cryptozoologist

Posted: 08/02/2010 16:19

The Beatles remasters were mind-boggling, and I believe the John Lennon remasters coming later this year will be the same.

Re: Remasters? --Good or bad?

Boogn1sh — Sun, 1 Aug 2010 19:57:00 GMT

Author: Boogn1sh

Posted: 08/01/2010 23:57

Generally I agree that remasters are pretty pointless if the original is good. I liked the 5.1 mix of The Flaming Lips Soft Bulletin, but it had more tracks...

random question concerning remasters, which version of Stooges Raw Power is best?

Re: Remasters? --Good or bad?

thomas697 — Sun, 1 Aug 2010 02:55:48 GMT

Author: thomas697

Posted: 08/01/2010 06:55

I think it depends on genre, I dont have any examples at the moment, but I just know that Metal albums should be left the way they are

Remasters? --Good or bad?

Mr. Shankly — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 22:02:32 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 08/01/2010 02:02

So I used to be a big believer in remastered CD reissues. I bought into the notion that the remaster would sound better, and I would rebuy albums to update them. Some remasters are a major improvement, but some actually sound worse as warmth and dynamics are sacrificed for clarity that is sometimes a little too clear. It might just be my stereo, but the instruments on the high end especially, like cymbals and tambourines, just sound harsh to my ears with a lot of remasters. Recently, I listened to tracks from the Big Star box set and some of the Pogues reissues, and I just felt like I was getting a headache. I don't want to hear the high hat that much! And the mandolin is high-pitched enough as it is. It shouldn't be compressed. And then sometimes the powers that be revise history, like in the Doors first album reissue (Well, Jim cussed more then and times have changed so even though it's more obnoxious and over the top, let's put it back in. Also, let's correct that weird pitch thing and make the Doors sound like an ordinary garage band again) WTF!

Anyway, I'm curious, what's been your experience with remasters? Which one's sound good, and which one's sound too compressed? Are remasters in general a ripoff scam on the part of the record companies? What makes them worth buying? At one point in time did some remasters start to suck soundwise? Is it just my stereo or my overly-sensitive ears? Let me know what you think. I'm curious.