Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Radio & Music >

Albums: the definitive version

00:43 / 25.05.03

Another thread has just made me remember a pet hate: the strategy of releasing different versions of albums as an attempt to increase sales. The worst example of this that I can think of off-hand is Goldie’s Timeless, where the vinyl had different tracks than the CD had different tracks from the limited edition double CD. In order to hear everything you had to get hold of all three versions.

That’s an extreme example (very extreme: the standard CD release included tracks not on the limited ed.) of what seems to be a standard release policy: different versions for different territories. This strikes me as an utterly pointless tactic now that file sharing’s such a big thing; not even the most hardcore of fans is going to fork out for the US release just for the sake of one track when they can download it for free and rip their own definitive version of the album.

I guess my question is does anyone think that there’s ever a justifiable reason for this? The only one I’ve ever heard is that cultural differences could mean certain tracks could jeopardise an album’s prospective sales in some territories, but that’s quite obviously rubbish.

There are two other aspects of this: limited editions with extra tracks (UK people should be familiar with Universal’s habit of chucking out ‘Special Edition’s of every one of its releases) and the repackaged album, a la Bjork’s Debut, which ended up including Play Dead after that track got some major chart action. Do these inclusions harm albums, or are complaints of this nature simply musical snobbery? Should an album be, in a sense, pure?

Also, can anybody think of more examples along the lines of the Goldie one mentioned?

The Return Of Rothkoid

03:40 / 25.05.03

different versions for different territories. This strikes me as an utterly pointless tactic now that file sharing’s such a big thing; not even the most hardcore of fans is going to fork out for the US release just for the sake of one track when they can download it for free and rip their own definitive version of the album.

Filesharing aside, I think the important thing to remember is that, certainly in the case of Australian releases, initially we got more tracks because the chances of artists actually coming and touring was slim to nil. It's more common now, but certainly only with quite established names. So I guess in a way they're not necessarily aimed at the big fan; they're meant to give the little guy in Arsehole, NT, something to make up for the fact that said act will never actually make it to their shores in a performing role.

That's for Oz, certainly. I don't know why it's done in Japan, but I do know it's quite common for there to be "audiophile" versions of albums, particularly jazz ones, just for that market. Whether that indicates an obsession with hi-fi that isn't considered to exist elsewhere, I don't know.

Remastering and rereleasing albums (that there's already a thread on, I believe) is a different thing; it can, in the right hands, be the most genius thing ever.

10:56 / 25.05.03

"Remastering and rereleasing albums (that there's already a thread on, I believe) is a different thing; it can, in the right hands, be the most genius thing ever"

yes, but also sometimes terrible. lets not forget the appaling remastered, remixed cd release of Raw Power. all the best aspects (specifically superfuckinloud guitars) were totally lost in a pointless retrospective re-mix session by Iggy. Sure, the original Bowie mix was technically flawed, but that was what made it so good. EVERYTHING was distorted. I have the heavy vinyl re-issue that came put a few years before the cd re-master and even that sounds wrong because of the good quality vinyl.
Its SUPPOSED to be a wall of white noise!
A lot of old sixties stuff gets re-issued with two mixes of the whole album on the cd (length being one of cds good points), one in original mono, and one re-mastered/stereo/remixed etc. I saw this on a re-issue of The Zombies Odessey And Oracle, and it seemed a good way of doing it.

13:23 / 25.05.03

I'm shock-o-lad!

The guitars are way louder (therefore better) in the Iggy remix of Raw Power - the Bowie one just cuts the top of everything and makes it all tinny!

Bowie mix = wall of noise due to poor quality

Iggy mix = good quality, but still a wall of noise cos eveything's TOO LOUD!

Either version is still miles better than the vast majority of other things made by humans though, so each to their own.

19:01 / 25.05.03

hmmm i may have to go back and listen to it again. The one thing i do remember about it the last time i played it (in a club) was that the crowd actually didnt look at me like i was pissing on their mothers grave (it was a shitty indie club).

im not sure if thats a good thing or a bad thing....

16:51 / 26.05.03

To release or re-release an album in this way shows the true cynicism at the heart of a band; at least it does for modern albums which came out six months ago and are being re-released with new tracks, live tracks etc.

I currently would like to talk to all 23 members of the Polyphonic Spree about this, after they announced they would be re-releasing 'The Beginning Stages of...' with live tracks and a DVD of live performances. Bastards.

I think the worst bit about this is that as I say, you have to be extremely cynical to put out an album with extra bits, the main reason of which would be to snare fans into buying 'product' (uurgh) they already own so they can complete their collections. They are your biggest fans, so you treat them like shit. Nice.

Remix albums (as a stand alone); re-mastered albums if you felt something wasn't right about your work; stuff like that, it's dodgy, but OK. Releasing new albums with different tracks across formats, or re-releasing them shortly afterwards with add-ons, is wrong and any band who does it should be ashamed.

So take your robes and fuck off back to Texas.

17:10 / 26.05.03

albums on vinal usually have less songs than cds cos the record company want djs/ vinyl junkies to buy singles on 12".

09:52 / 27.05.03

A subject for bitching that's just sprung to mind;

Does anyone else find it kind of unbelievable that there are now *three* different CDs featuring the material from the Gorillaz album (that is, the original, a remix album, and a B-sides album), despite the fact that it only featured about four great tracks and loads of filler..

..talk about stretching a small amount of music as far as it can possibly go! Essentially turning an EP/mini-album's worth of good stuff into three entire 60 minute+ albums .. bit cheeky really..

17:27 / 27.05.03

There's the DVD, too, which contains nothing of substance that couldn't previously be found elsewhere.

at the scarwash

18:55 / 27.05.03

I like remix albums quite a bit if the remixers are worthwhile. The idea of releasing a different version of an album is fine too. I like to tweak the shit out of my wretched tracks, so why shouldn't talented artists be allowed to do the same? I have War Inna Babylon by max romeo and the upsetters and Superape by scratch perry and the upsetters. The overlap of tracks is so frequent that they are almost the same record, Superape being the version. But they each have an entirely different feel, and both are essential to my collection. It's not at all the same thing as releasing an enhanced version of an album with just a couple of throw away tracks tacked on, but an alternately mixed album, or even the Gorillaz scenario I think are just fine, if not always necessary. And anyone who feels the need to be a Gorillaz completist gets what they fucking deserve anyway.

06:43 / 28.05.03

i really don't like seeing a record i have be rereleased w/ a bonus CD w/ material on it a year after it comes out, if it was added to the album, i can kinda under stand that, but after a year of owning it White Stripes: White Blood Cells comes out w/ a binus disc of 2more songs and a DVD the same when No Doubt: Rock Steady comes out the same, that pisses me off, i mean i COULD buy them again, but i'd have the SAME disc i've have for quite a while, plus an additional one, that's more annoying than having two copies of the same CD w/ more material on one than the other...

i'm not a fan of the rerelease w/ only a few extras on it, there should be a LOT of extras if a band REALLY thinks that people will buy it again... i in fact am a fan of the b-side/remix CD, coming out a year or more after the initial album came out... tho it may seem like a stop gap to some, to me, in the midwest w/o a chance to get british singles or even much domestic ones, to get ALL the tracks, and i guess i'm a bit of a completest

11:02 / 28.05.03

Japanese albums traditionally have extra tracks to prop up the domestic market. Like everything else, albums are very expensive there, and the bonus songs are designed to get shoppers to buy the local version instead of the cheaper import.