Album re-issues....?

Question

Do you love 'em or hate 'em? Why?

Answer 1

Depends.

I love to see the re-issue of an older album, especially when said album has been out of print for a while. Remastered editions are always nice (although some times, the original ends up sounding better), but they seem like more of a money grab. Any re-issued album should either a) be a re-release of a long out of print album or b) a remastered album wth at least 5 or 6 bonus tracks.






NP: "1999" - Prnce

Answer 2

I look at it from the point of view if they're giving you anything extra. The Motorhead reissues all came with bonus CDs that had full live shows on them, bonus tracks and other rarities. The Ramones had the same thing (except on the same disc). There were two reissues for the group Trouble and they gave you a bonus DVD with it as well as a really good remastering job.

I buy a lot of Japanese imports and a lot of times they sound better than any remastering job that could be done. If you truly wish an album would be remastered go pick up an early Japanese pressing of it instead, you'll be much happier.

The one label that I do trust to do a superior remastering job is Rhino. The work they did on the Ramones discs and the Black Sabbath box set was amazing.

Answer 3

The only purposes of a re-issue are:

1) To pump more copies of the album into the market to reduce its rarity.

2) To improve the sound quality.

3) To give collectors a little something extra.

The new Traveling Wilburys compendium is an example of a re-issue done right, as are the Pavement deluxe editions (which are a feast for collectors without costing a fortune). The only re-issues I dislike on principle are those that actually trim songs from either the original or other, earlier re-issues.

Answer 4

I hate the re-issues that come out a couple months after the original CD. It is a slap in the face to the real fans, the re-issue will have 3 new songs on it. It is pointless to buy a whole CD for 3 songs, that's where iTunes is nice, but still you already bought the CD you shouldn't have to keep buying it.

Answer 5

I like the idea, but it's really annoying to have to re-buy an album I already have instead of getting something I don't have. But I'm a sucker for bonus content, especially if it includes previously unreleased songs. I still haven't bought the reissue of "Downward Spiral" but I plan to eventually. But I do think it's necessary for older artists to go back and re-master their old albums...Black Sabbath desperately needs to do this because their albums sound like they were recorded in a shoe box. The Beatles really could stand to reissue their whole catalogue - remastered and with bonus artwork/liner notes.

Answer 6

It really depends on the album and what they do with it. If its an out of print album that I'm dying to get my hands on, then yes.........otherwise it could go either way.

I loved Let It Be. . .Naked, I prefer the album without the Phil Spector production behind it

I didn't really like The Legacy Edition of Jeff Buckley's Grace, yes they added another disc of 'previous unreleased material', but they tampered with the production of the original album, and altered the sounds of some of the songs, one being Hallelujah, which took away from the signature and mood of the songs.

Answer 7

Not a fan of reissues. Part of a great album's legacy is the original sound of the recording. It also allows you to trace the history of rock..As I mentioned recently, I still have vinyl and a record player and the music sound great, especially KISS Alive 1 ;>) !

Answer 8

wow, mixed on that one.

i love original albums. i just have a thing for vinyl (strange, i'm too young to ever have bought any when they were the main source for music). the artwork is just that; art. you can hang it on a wall, something you can't do with cd's, and now, downloadable music (i hate that- downloading music sucks). and it seems like the record companies are just trying to make more money on something they already got rich off of.

but you can get demo's and extra tracks that weren't on the album originally.

so, no definite answer over here for me.

Answer 9

I'm all for it if there are bonus tracks

edit: my answer probably sucks lol... as evidenced by the number of thumbs I got, but it's true. Other than modernized sound quality (as LnR said) there's no other advantage to it except maybe a never-before-heard studio track that they decided to remaster and include, know'what I mean?

Answer 10

I'm REALLY on the fence about them. Very rarely do I find the sound quality to be significantly or noticeably better, although at times, it is. However, it's nice when the artist includes something from the vault. However, with the advent of downloading, there's no real need for me to buy the same product twice.