Heartland

may interest some (not if it's one of my usual bombs)

http://www.wordmagazine.co.uk/content/o ... nd-quality

BTW, it starts off with Joy Division not Genesis so relax

I miss the option of 'really depends on the moron behind the mixing desk', so I have to let this one go.

IZ.

Hate to be a nostalgia snob, but sometimes the older versions are better just because of the flaws-- I'd rather have an atmospheric favourite, often, rather than one that sounds absolutely perfect. I love demo tracks, especially! To take the Sisters as an example, Garden of Delight-- just didn't feel right when I heard The Mish doing an official version of it. The low quality recording really just suits that song, as far as I'm concerned.
I also have a bunch of Dean Martin and Bessie Smith remasters that just give out the wrong feeling entirely: can't explain it.

Depends. There are some originals that could really do with a good remastering (cos the original was botched for one reason or another), and as long as it's done right then yeah, the remastered version is better. There are other originals that were perfectly fine to begin with and in those cases remastering is just yet another record industry con to screw the customers.

This reminds me of the debate "modern mastering vs mastering back then" - I agree that many recent productions don't allow much dynamics since every track sounds more or less heavy compressed to make it sound loud and sterile.

If remastering means adding this producing philosophy to older production I'll probably don't like it but like mh says it's ok in case of restoration needs etc.

It can be pretty hit & miss

I think that the recent re-master of Disintegration is stunning, whereas the Furs albums were just re-releases with extra songs.

Given hi res formats that can be played these days, it'd be nice if bands could venture more into that realm.

ever hear the first CD release of Porno Steve, it was shocking!

James Blast wrote:ever hear the first CD release of Porno Steve, it was shocking!

That's consigned to the car player now since I got the remastered one.

I didn't want to bash on about The Cure, but I've enjoyed all their remasters.
The Seventeen Seconds one is divine.

Not really looking forward to the Mixed Up one that appears to be imminent.

If it's a good album it's a good album. A decent remaster will enhance the goodness.

Since there is nothing perfect in this world remasters or originals are somewhat the same to me.

Remasters which deserve the name usually differ from original albums.
Therefore - to me - they are different interpretations of stuff. Just like a
meal you decide to season in a different way today ... sometimes it turns
out fine, sometimes not.

Mostly I prefer the version of stuff I got used to earlier ... otherwise I
had not even started to listen to it all that often. Once fed up (which
definitely happens to most of the stuff), no remaster - or in the other
direction original - can get me back on track.

Some music does however survive everything with me.
Quite a pleasure, and even more the longer the run.

On Led Zeppelin Remasters, in Since I've Been Loving You you can hear Bonzo's bass drum pedal squeaking.

That is all.

depends on. we got very very bad example of so-called re-mastering with tsom's F+L+A. we got few others that are good.
but generally i'm agree with Iz's and Doc's statements.

I don't think there's anything wrong with an album being adapted to better fit the medium it is presented on, so if it's done alright I'd say go for it.

However, the endless string of bonus tracks does bother me. They were not included for a reason originally, quite probably, thankyouverymuch.

Most of the time I like those extra toppings
Can you ever have enough Peel Sessions, live tracks, 12" mixes, etc? I don't think so!

No, that's right, but just stick 'em at the end of the actual album because it doesn't fit in with my listening patterns

They invented a 2nd disc for that stuff

Remasters are no better than the people doing them or the reason for creating them. Some are good and some are bad.
Placebo have just remastered an album they released one year ago for no apparent reason - its either a marketing a ploy or they were unhappy enough with the original release (which is pretty compressed) to spend the money on re-releasing it.. Without hearing both versions, how can you tell?

I liked the Disintegration remaster but didn't like the Entreat one which was kind of thin for my ears - all polls should include 'it depends' as an option!

radiojamaica wrote:They invented a 2nd disc for that stuff

exactly, I hate it when they "just stick 'em at the end of the actual album"
for me, a good record has a beginning and an end, you can't just put some extra tracks on that.

I don't need to have all those extra's but if I buy something new, I make sure I get the most compleet package.
sad though to think of all that good stuff that only gets a spin or 2.

edit

Ok...I clicked the linky and listened to the comparisons on the video...my crappy PeeCee speakers really didn't do the music played any justice...so I plugged in my "HiFi" and had a listen with semi decent speakers and amp...

There was an audible difference in some of the tracks selected...Did they sound better?...yeah. But that's about all I can say on the subject as I'm not a musician or a music producer.

Can someone do a decent version of The Heartbreakers album L.A.M.F. ?? Pretty please