6 replies to this topic

[DeathDude]

This was a question I started to think about, as I am listening to a remastered copy of a 10 year old album by the name of City by Strapping Young Lad, did the album really needed to be remastered? In this case, not really, the original CD which I also own, sounded really good soundwise, but I wanted to check out the remastered edition to a. get bonus tracks, b. read the new linear notes written by the mastermind himself Devin Townsend, c. see what it sounded like to see how the remix was handled. The remaster was done very well, no doubt, as the instrumentation and keyboard effects sound much better, but overall not necessary, since the album is not that hard to find nowadays.

So the question I present is this. Should albums be remixed and remastered at all?  Or should they just be left alone?

I'm not just talking old albums, but new albums too, which seems to be the norm with some labels remixing albums after they have only been out on the market for some time.

Should an albums original sound be updated to todays sound quality? Or should artists/labels, leave the original albums alone and let the quality of that particular mix, be the only showcase for new fans to hear of a bands sound.

I will also extend this question into areas, such as rerecording vocal, guitar, bass, drums sound for older albums as well, should they be touched or leave them be?

So thats the question, now whats your thoughts.

[Juni Ori]

Remixed? Hardly never.

Remastered? It depends.

10 years old? No frigging way!

30 years old? Sometimes yes. I own several remastered cd's, including Pink Floyd, Hurriganes, Led Zeppelin, etc. But on the other hand I'd almost rather listen them from lp-records.

[Mighty Midget]

I don't think there is a final answer to this one. It all depends on the reasons why the albums are remastered/remixed. Take this one album as an example:

"Raw Power" by Iggy & The Stooges. The original release was mixed by David Bowie, and Iggy Pop and the fans hated the mix. Later, Iggy remixed the whole thing closer to what he wanted. I can see nothing wrong with that. An artist is unhappy with the result, and later get to remix an album to be able to stand by it. Great

Another one would be if a band who were very much into sound, found that the technology at the time their album was initially mixed/mastered, it was impossible to get that sound. Later, with new technology, it suddenly became possible, so they remixed/remastered that album to, again, get it closer to what they really wanted it to sound like in the first place. Again, all cool.

Then we have the band who remix/remaster an album because it would mean a boost in sale numbers coz of people who must buy anything and everything that's got that band's name printed on it. To hell with that, the band and the record company.

[DeathDude]

Granted most of the time though, its usually the labels decision to do a remixing and remastering job, sometimes with the artists input and sometimes without and or to make a quick buck, if its a band and or artist that left that particular label. Not many artists usually push for an updated sound, save Steven Wilson from Porcupine Tree, who did that to remaster his older albums,  Up the Downstair, Signify, Stupid Dream, Lightbulb Sun, to update the sound with a 5.1 mix and all that.

I think remixs and or remasters that are done, are best if they a. included bonus tracks, give me a reason to pick it up besides, oh the sound was horrid, so lets remaster it, preferably not demos, its not always the case where there is a full song available, but if a band or label has to pick between a full song and a demo, I'll take the full song. b. Extended linear notes and or lyrics printed, if they weren't before. Interview the band, or key members, or get a journalist to write something about the album in question, it adds to the album and gives us listeners a perspective of how the album was made, if there were any circumstances, or whatever the case may be, see: Helloween, Megadeth, Queensryche, for good examples,

When this happens think that makes a good remaster job, that also provides a little something for the listeners who may have to fork over cash if they already own the album in question.

[dantheman363]

Yes, I do think albums should be re-mixed and re-mastered. Are they always going to be better than the original, no. But that is up for the public to decide.

[El Quia]

There is always the problem of the loudness wars, too. That can bring a bit of a problem when the only reason to remaster it is to make it louder. Remastering, specially in the case of old albums can sometimes be a necessity. Re-mixing, not so much, except when, as MM pointed up earlier, the artists do it to get closer to its original vision and sometimes just for fun too (although if the end result is worth it... well, it's highly variable). But the bit of the loudness war is quite a problem, and leads to a few issues... issues that usually get more noticeable when converted to lossy compression formats like MP3 and the such.

To understand what I mean with the loudness war, check this wikipedia link: http://en.wikipedia....he_loudness_war

[Nick]

I usually dislike remixed tracks. Usually they do that with movie soundtracks, and add a techno style to it. Eeegh