Remixes and Reissues

[Rocket2Russia]

How do you feel about artists re-releasing material as different mixes than the original? I think specifically of Raw Power when I ask this. A lot of purists/people who bought the record in 1973 claim the Bowie version is better, but a lot of people who heard the record after the dust had settled were left dissatisfied and were more interested in the loud, distorted 1997 Iggy mix. Which do you prefer? Why?

Also, with Reissues in general, do you prefer they just reissue the album itself, or do you like to have a long row of deluxe editions and legacy editions on your shelf/hard-drive? Do you ever listen to the actual bonus material?

I find myself favoring deluxe editions of my absolute favorite albums moreso than with albums I just admire. A "deluxe edition" of VU's discography in Peel Slowly & See complete with demos and B-sides and live versions, the whole nine yards, actually gets some play from me; however, the Luxe & Reduxe Slanted & Enchanted, though the liner notes and packaging are great and I enjoy the album, seems like a waste of money when I realize that spending under half the money would have bought the part of the album I actually listen to.

[acdcrock]

If some of my favourite albums came out as a deluxe edition with extra stuff I'd probably buy it, if the price is reasonable. I haven't been alive for many of my favourite albums so I can't find any of the original '87 Appetite For Destructions but the only difference is the date the disc was issued, nothing else. I don't like albums that are full of remixes of the same song, I remember seeing one album like that and I decided not to get it because about 5 or 6 six songs were just alt remixes. I can't speak for the difference between the original and '97 versions of Raw Power, think I only have the '97 one.

[afterstasis]

i usually check out deluxe/expanded editions of albums i enjoy when possible, but won't buy an album twice to do so.

i rarely have time to check out demos, live versions, or alternate takes but the desire comes up from time to time and some bands definitely shine in those areas.

[clashcityrocker10]

On the topic of remixes of albums, it's really a case by case basis. Sometimes the new mixes work, other times they don't.

As for re-issues in general, I usually won't go out and buy the "ultra deluxe extended legacy edition" that adds another disc or discs to an album. I'm pretty sure the only album I have this for is London Calling, but I'd have to check, which I can't do right now. That doesn't mean I'm necessarily opposed to buying these, most of the ones I've seen just haven't grabbed my attention, or I already own an album that gets re-issued as such, and I'm not going to drop $20-$25 for some bonus material. I find albums that get re-issued with a few bonus tracks tacked on at the end much more preferable. I have a good amount of albums like this, and I generally really enjoy the few extra tracks. Also, they usually don't cost much more than the album by itself.

I might want to pick up the new edition of *****es' Brew.

[neckermanncj]

however, the Luxe & Reduxe Slanted & Enchanted, though the liner notes and packaging are great and I enjoy the album, seems like a waste of money when I realize that spending under half the money would have bought the part of the album I actually listen to.

whatever bro, I actually bought those first, so I didn't have the album before so I didn't worry about paying for something I already have. Also those bonus discs are just as good as the album/you're crazy.

[RetroGaming]

As far as Raw Power goes, Iggy's mix is one of the worst musical recordings I have ever heard. If the album had been recorded with distortion, then I wouldn't mind it being distorted. But Iggy's mix is mixed so loud that it distorts what would otherwise be just a loud recording. Bowie's mix is still loud at higher volumes (It actually makes my ears hurt if its loud enough, which has never happened to me with Psychocandy, White Light/White Heat, Loveless, etc.) without any of the "mixing distortion." I have no problem against distorted sounds when they're part of the recording, but distortion due to mixing is just unacceptable, in my opinion.

I also recently listened to the original mixes of Tommy and Who's Next (as opposed to the remixes available today) and I vastly prefer them to the remixes. I can't think of any other album that I've specifically heard remixes of, though.

I have, however, heard a ton of remasters which are not better than the originals. Especially after comparing remasters to original sources of things by The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, The Cure, etc. I've found that most modern remasters tend to make everything louder without keeping the original dynamics intact, which I feel strongly against. I do not doubt that remasters can be done correctly (I will cite The Stone Roses (I take this back, heard the vinyl version and the new CD is not even close) and The Field Mice reissues as examples of valid improvements over their predecessors) but most are not true to the original, which I can't support.

I don't mind bonus tracks or whatever, but when I put things on my mp3 player I only put on the original track listings of albums (so things like The Who deluxe editions that just append the bonuses to the albums don't have 25 tracks). If I really care about the artist I'll add in supplemental compilations like a singles or b-sides collection as well, but otherwise I will not put demos/live albums/alternates/etc. on my mp3 player.

[darkwinterbeast8]

I'm alright with reissues if that is the only version available.

[Oscar-Rio]

did you guys get that neon indian remix album? thanks, by the way you know who you are.