 Re-Recordings, and the Metal Community |
Almost everyone in the metal community has an opinion about the re-recording of albums, but what is it that makes fans turn their backs on the bands that re-record, and what makes those fans and other praise specific re-recordings? I break down what it is about these releases that tip the scales so dramatically for the fans. Originally posted on September 12th, 2010 | ||
|
|
|||
|
Re-Recorded material. It's one of the biggest hot buttons in metal today. With many bands coming up on their twenty plug year anniversary, some of these legendary bands, and even some newer acts, have started dabbling in re-recording their material for many reasons. Some will cite that it is in honor of a specific band member that has fallen, while others will just say that it is to reflect the current sound of the band, or reasons similar to those. Not one, however, will admit whether it was done to make a few extra bucks on the side, which seems to be the case many timesover. At least, that's what many die hard fans of bands that re-record material will say. I've seen and heard it all before, and have joined into it myself, seriously angry about the re-recording of earlier Arch Enemy material, though a noble idea in the execution with Root of all Evil, and the absolutely furious feeling I, as well as the metal community, shared at the re-recording of the debut Exodus album Bonded by Blood. It seems more and more like there are many bands out there pushing the limits of what their fans would find acceptable, and it's just, well, not acceptable in many cases. While a re-recording of past material, for one reason or another, is often a touchy subject, there is no denying that sometimes it can be beneficial. While no full-length albums re-recorded by any band come to mind as beneficial, with exception of Six Feet Under's Graveyard Classics II which re-recorded an entire AC/DC album in the Death 'n Roll style and a) benefitted those who hated the style by essentially wiping it out, or at least putting it to it's last legs, and b) gave us all a mighty good laugh. While the effort was a noble one, it didn't aid in the re-recording being a positive aspect. It seems that releasing full-length releases of re-recorded material is not the best way to go for bands, as many fans will be up in arms about buying the album again, and typically finding it to not live up to the standards of the original album. There have been various reasons given for the re-recording in the first place, however, it seems any kind of re-recording of already available material, unless absolutely necessary, will just cause fans to look at it as an attempt to pry more hard earned money from their wallets, and often a slap in the face to some members of the band. Take the infamous ozzy Osbourne reissue of Blizzard of Ozz. One would imagine that this re-recording's upset would have been enough to deter bands from doing this, given that the bass and drum tracks were re-recorded, and many out there felt it to be, not only a slap in the face of the musicians involvede in that original recording, but also a disgraceful thing to do entirely. Why re-record the instruments when a simple remastering would have worked out nice? Were they that horrible in the final mix (not in performance or composition) that they simply needed to be redone by other musicians? If a musician cannot re-record the music himself, then perhaps it's not wise to redo them, as it does cheap the album overall, and leaves it sounding hollow in the listener's heart, as well as a stab in the back to the loyal fans. But nothing set the metal community off worse then the re-recording of Bonded by Blood. In the band's DVD Shovel Headed Tour Machine, it is pointed out simply that they wanted the recording to sound modern and up to date. However, by re-recording the music and including new vocalist Rob Dukes in place Paul Baloff (R.I.P.), who isn't even alive to put his voice into the "modernizing" of the album, simply makes it appear that this recording is more of a slap in the face of the listener, as well as Baloff's name and contribution. Yes, Rob Dukes is a huge Exodus fan and even has the album's artwork tattooed on his skin, but even though it may seem like an honorable thing to do, having a vocalist so dedicated and inspired by the band, pull the vocal duties, and release the album in the fallen member's honor, it just seems to cheapen the album in the long run, making the re-recording seem more like a plea for money instead. Had the album just been remastered, or re-recorded and sold at very little cost instead of the full price of a traditional full-length, many fans, perhaps, would not have looked down on it so much, but in the end, it all just looked like dollar signs. Today, remastering technology has come a long way, and fans would be more appreciative of purchasing a remastered copy of a full-length over a re-recorded one. If a band, or a label, wants to do something right, why not spend the money from a recording session to make a classic sound better then ever, put it on a high quality disc such as a gold factory pressing, and include some additional unreleased material to make it worth while. This worked out great for Gallows Gallery by Sigh, and makes the perfect example. The original master of this recording was so bad that the band immediately pushed for a remaster of the album, and three years later it happened, and it sounds fantastic, not only pleasing the band, but also pleasing the fans. Recently, Metal Mind Productions reissued some more recent Destruction albums, remastered them, and they have never sound better, having no real need for any form of re-recording. Also, if you want to do something in honor of somebody, why not issue unreleased material that was recorded by that individual in a special compilation, and maybe have proceeds from that release go to a charity somewhere. That's another way to get fans to back up such a move from labels or bands, regardless of whether their intentions are pure, or motivated by capital. Even re-recorded albums would look less about money if a portion went to a charity, since then part of it goes to something worthwhile instead of lining someone's pockets, making the fan feel good about themselves as well for doing something that goes to charity. I know, I've been suckered into buying a lot of crap (and I do mean crap) only because most, if not all, the proceeds go to charity. It seems the safest bet for bands to re-record their material and actually have it accepted is through bonus tracks, or even an EP, though the latter is risky. On the final Beseech album, Sunless Days, the band placed two bonus tracks on the digipack edition. Yes, it costs a lot more then the traditional release, typically, for other editions outside the jewelcase, but then it simply becomes bonus material for a collectable instead of a cheap knock off of an original. Included here was a re-recording of "Manmade Dreams", a song that appeared on their second full-length album Black Emotions, one of the band's darkest, and most important releases in their short career. The song wound up being horrible, but did reflect the more modern sound, and caused no controversy other then lacking what made the song special in the first place. Another move is to release a CD Single or an EP based on a song to promote an upcoming album, and tack on a re-recording or two as the extra songs. Iced Earth did this recently on their I Walk Among You single, which I own and picked up solely to hear Matt Barlow sing some of the better tracks off Framing Armageddon. However, in the case of Iced Earth, double jeopardy comes into play. Matt Barlow was the original vocalist, and many fans were irate that he had quit the band, and Tim "Ripper" Owens (known for his time in Judas Priest, also as a replacement vocalist to Rob Halford) came in to try to fill his shoes. While he did a noble job and helped bring the band into a bigger spotlight with his performance on The Glorious Burden, Matt Barlow is, and to many, will always be the voice of Iced Earth. Due to this, many of the fans wound up being displeased by the vocals on Framing Armageedon and The Glorious Burden, and there are some out there, such as myself, who would love to hear Matt belt out the tunes on those fantastic albums. However, the only one that would make the most sense to re-record would be Framing Armageddon, which is actually the first part of a two part conceptual piece, so having two vocalists actually winds up hurting these release in the long run. This is one of those rare times that re-recording would greatly benefit the band. Really, what it boils down to is not the fact that the material was re-recorded in the first place, but rather how it's made available to the fans. If bits and pieces were made available as bonus material on upcoming full-lengths, or perhaps even charitable donations or just tracks on a Single or EP to encourage fans to grab a cheap, affordable release to promote an upcoming release, or even just flat out free, fans won't really go up in arms and even turn their backs on the band or label. However, it's when there's a great profit to be made off an album by one or more parties, inside or outside of the group, then the problems occur. It's safer to not anger your fans (those who pay your bills...to an extent sometimes) by just remastering a classic and putting some unrelease material on it, such as a demo or bonus tracks that were recently recorded, such a re-recordings of songs! But, until bands start to realize this, and not just some labels that specialize in making classics sound better, then there will always be a real problem, and often a great divide amongst fans of metal, as there will be those who buy/support/enjoy the re-recorded material, and those who will find that said material to be a move of greed and insult. This doesn't mean every album in existence needs, or even should be reissued, but it's just a suggestion for bands in the long run to appease their fans if the need to "re-record" or "modernize" their material ever comes about.
|
|||
