Independent releases getting Re-recorded and/or Re-released

[PanheadWarrior]

What albums are we allowing to be uploaded when a small independent band releases an album, gets noticed by a record label, and then the record label has them re-release the album with better mixing, and better mastering? Sometimes they will re-record things. A lot of times, they will add a track or two or three.

For example, someone added an album called Songs to Burn Your Bridges by a band called Project 86. It was originally released in November 2003 on the band's own label Team Black. This was the version that was uploaded to the site. However, Project 86 signed to a record label shortly after, and the album was re-mixed and re-mastered and then re-released less than a year later. It was re-released on Tooth & Nail Records under the same name with 3 additional tracks on June 1, 2004. In these types of situations, I know some purists would want only the original release on this site. However, most everybody will always prefer the newer release with the better production and sometimes additional tracks.

So for Songs to Burn Your Bridges By, I tried to modify this older album and update it to the newer album, but after explaining how it was re-released, the original 2013 album ended up staying and the newer 2004 release was deleted. I am disappointed in this decision, as I rate the 2013 release 80/100 and the 2014 release 85/100 as 2 of the new tracks are 2 of the best songs on the entire album, and the better production makes the entire album much more enjoyable. Therefore, the 2014 album would make my chart for Top 100 Albums of the 2010's, but the 2013 would not make the same chart, as it is far inferior.

You may think this is a one-off and doesn't happen very often, but I can cite other examples if need be. So what can we do about these situations? Can we agree on some terms that as long as the album is released under the same name within a year or two of the original release, we can just have the newer album on the site? Or maybe if the albums have different tracklistings, we allow both albums on the site and let people choose their favorite between the two? Whatever is decided, I think allowing only the older release with the lesser production value is the wrong choice.

Thoughts?

[PanheadWarrior]

In addition to the Project 86 example, here's 2 more examples:

Another band, Pillar, released an album called "Fireproof" on a small label called Flicker Records on May 21, 2002. They then signed to a major label called MCA Records and re-mixed and re-mastered the album. They changed the track list order, renamed 2 of the songs, and added a Radio Mix of the first single as an additional track. They re-released the album on June 10, 2003 under the same name with completely different artwork.

Another band, Skillet, released an album called "Collide" on a small label called Ardent Records on November 18, 2003. They then signed to a bigger label called Lava Records and re-released the album under the same name on May 25, 2004 with an additional track and a different track list order and slightly different artwork.

In all instances, the newer major label releases are far superior and those are the versions most people will have in their collections. And in all instances, the newer releases were released within about a year or less of the original release. So that means the older versions were only sold for about a year or less before they stopped selling copies of those older albums.

I would love to add the newer versions of all three albums to my charts, but I can't. Two of the bands currently have the older releases listed on this site, and only one band currently has the newer release listed on this site. Personally, I don't think the older versions of any of these albums need to be represented on this site. I don't think anyone would think the older versions are better than the newer versions.

What can we do about this?

[albummaster]

Hi PanheadWarrior, thanks for the post. BEA only lists the original version of each release (not multiple versions). At some point in the future, BEA may support multiple versions of each release but for the moment using the original release makes the site easier to administer as it avoids the inevitable debate and arguments about which 'master' release should be chosen for the 100,000 releases that are here (and this would be quite time consuming and possibly lead to lengthy disagreements over which release is 'better' which is not a great use of time). Aside from the releases you have highlighted, we also have albums from Jimi Hendrix, The Clash, The Beatles etc that are also affected so it's not BEA picking on any particular artist and this is something that has been site policy since the site was born. I've no doubt BEA is missing some fantastic re-releases (sometimes better than the original versions) but having the original release rule in place keeps the site relatively easy to administer & ensures the album stats can be assigned to a single version of a release.

Most of the time if a re-release is added by mistake, the details will be updated by data moderators to match the details of the original release, or it will be merged into the details of the original release (if it already exists on BEA). Occasionally, an album might slip through the net and stay on the site if it's not picked up by anybody but re-releases shouldn't really be on BEA so if you've come across any, the details are due for correction.

[PanheadWarrior]

Ok, thanks for the explanation.