FIRST AND LAST AND ALWAYS POLL

[DGP00666]

What is your choice?

... just in case!

[Quiff Boy]

92 version was lacking in many ways - the bass was too low in the mix, the drums had no beef and the guitars were an echoey swamp.

[hallucienate]

92 version was lacking in many ways - the bass was too low in the mix, the drums had no beef and the guitars were an echoey swamp.

that about sums it up for me

[Francis]

Thank god I haven't heard it then. The first one was disappointing enough.

[Quiff Boy]

fortunately they had the good sense to include the original mixes of "walk away" and "no time to cry" on "...overbombing" so you can still easily get those two tracks on cd in their original beefy state

[Electrochrome]

Are we talking about the CD version (92)?

There's quite a difference between the vinyl and CD versions of FALAA, I think. The CD just sounds...weak, compared with earlier versions of the songs (vinyl), to say nothing of live. There's no oomph on the CD, they need to turn up the bass, the power, everything. You can barely make out certain guitar parts, and even SKOS could be much better...

[Quiff Boy]

which reminds me, i must ask lars if i can borrow his original cd (ie: non 92)

i seem to recall it was much better, nearly as "phat" as the original vinyl...

[mh]

Only one possible answer here. There's more "digital remastering" up me bum that there is on that 92 travesty. RRRRRRRR - FIGHT!!!!!

[Spiggy's hat]

92 version was lacking in many ways - the bass was too low in the mix, the drums had no beef and the guitars were an echoey swamp.

But apart from that, what did you think?

[Francis]

So which Cd have I got? Sounds much more up-tempo than the vinyl did when I first heard it in 85. Maybe I'm just more tolerant these days.

[Quiff Boy]

look in the top-right corner of the back. if its the remastered version it will say "remastered 1992" or something like that... most cds seem to be the 92 version.

[Francis]

look in the top-right corner of the back. if its the remastered version it will say "remastered 1992" or something like that... most cds seem to be the 92 version.

<Tippy toes down the stairs trying to avoid the squeaky floor boards. Sh!t. Shhhhsh! Soz. Yes. Digitally remastered in 1992. Oooh! Look! The Specials. Now that takes me back...>

[hallucienate]

look in the top-right corner of the back. if its the remastered version it will say "remastered 1992" or something like that... most cds seem to be the 92 version.

I got one that says that and one that doesn't Both French pressings

[paint it black]

http://www.myheartland.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=3803

[Purple Light]

I apoloise for ruining the 100% tally for 1985 but the 1992 version means a lot to me in nostalgic terms so I voted for that. Big difference though & in muscial terms I'd gor for 85 on bass alone.

[CellThree]

Oh for goodness sake. Why is it that everyone bashes the f*ck out of this remaster of F&L&A. I aint heard the original version of the album,

That's why you don't understand why we're bashing the 1992 version.

[itnAklipse]

In reply to what Black Horizon said: i think there are plenty of bad songs on FALAA...bad as far as Sisters songs can be bad, of course...those pesky Wayne-songs. Live they work quite well, but, gimme the worst song of the b-side anytime over the best song of a-side (Black Planet, i guess).
Because of those songs, i think Floodland and VT are both superior, as there's not a single bad song in either one of them. Exactly because Floodland and VT are so coherent in their soundscape, they are really one work instead of just albums with some songs in them, this makes them much more relevant works than FALAA, which is basically not even a thematic album but just a collection of songs (this is not to say that there's no theme(s) to it, or that it's not coherent at all, just that it's not anywhere close as refined as the later albums).
Besides, i could listen for a year some of the melodies on Floodland alone. And i wish i was wrong went on for 20 minutes. Etc.

dei

[ryan]

i only listen to FALAA on vinyl

nuff said

[nigel d]

92 version was lacking in many ways - the bass was too low in the mix, the drums had no beef and the guitars were an echoey swamp.

echoey swamp.....yes.... they were definately watered down .

[Hojyuu-obi]

look in the top-right corner of the back. if its the remastered version it will say "remastered 1992" or something like that... most cds seem to be the 92 version.

Very easy to recognize the difference:

On the '88 version the printed side of the CD is black w/ white lettering, '92 remastered version silver w/ black lettering ...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v187/ ... ing004.jpg

Also the matrix numbers are different:

'88: 240 616-2
'92: 9031-77379-2

[hallucienate]

Another thing I don't get,
blah blah blah

sounds like a side oner to me.

[Loki]

On the '88 version the printed side of the CD is black w/ white lettering ... Also the matrix numbers are different: '88: 240 616-2 ...

Yah! That makes me a white on black 240 616-2 kinda guy as previously mentioned Here

Ta Tom.

[hallucienate]

and for those of you still looking to see if your copy is the remastered version or not: click

[hallucienate]

Oh FFS!!!

Don't get it? Most of us really, really like all three sisters albums, in all their formats and variations. But we're all different and are allowed personal preferences. My personal problems with F&AL&A are the poor production and some to the Hussey tunes. I don't give a fuck if you think it's the greatest sisters album ever, I prefer another one.

Now that you've managed to get a reaction from someone can you please piss off and get back to lurking?

[claws]

Black Horizon: The 1992 remaster of FALAA is just fine. The others who doesn't like it are just being nerdy & trying to be special by saying that 1985 version is faaar better.... However, neither version of FALAA beats Floodland in my opinion... It's faaar better than Vision Thing though.