Terrible Album Remixes

[boki]

That sounds like the Icky Flix DVD. They re-recorded everything on it, but you could choose the soundtrack. I don't think I ever bothered with the new versions, though I saw them play along to the DVD live when it was released back in 2001. It was a great gig, but I certainly didn't feel like they'd improved anything.

I never bothered with the new soundtrack because they did it in 5.1 and I've never had that kind of setup.

Fucking hell, they've managed to actually make Monster worse?!

Ever had a jagerbomb mate.

[magval]

Don't suppose youse ones are interested in the remix of Cradle of Filth's Cruelty and the Beast that came out last week? Any metal fans among you? No goffs?

That was an album that was famously decried by metal fans as being poorly produced but as is often the case with these things, I'm too close to the original sound and can't get on with the new version.

My main issue is you can can still hear the bass, but you can't hear the bass being played, if that makes sense.

[boki]

Love me some Metal and Goth, but haven't really had any compulsion to listen to Cradle, TBH.

[DJ Bob Hoskins]

Hasn't a remix been included with the Monster anniversary reissue because Scott Litt wasn't happy with his own original mix?

Yep, he says as much here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19hhctlleNo

Saw REM at Slane Castle on the Monster tour in '95, actually. About 19, I was. Oasis supported, among others.

That was my first ever gig : ) I was 15 (and an obsessive R.E.M. fan), and it kind of changed my life.

Anyway, totally with the OP and others. I listened to about half of the remixed version and just facepalmed my way through it. Now, I really like the 1994 original and think it's a bit unfairly maligned, but that's by the by. Mainly I just hate this kind of 'straight' remix album. I just don't get it. It always just seems to me like taking a brush to a famous painting and going 'let's paint that sky a bit more blue and maybe make that tree in the background stand out more'.

U2 revising tracks from Zooropa and Pop (an album which has a lot of parallels with Monster and which I also think is a decent record) bugged me in the same way. I know, of course, that the original versions still exist and I'm not forced to listen to the new ones or whatever. That's not really the point. What annoys me is in some cases it just shows up the artists' lack of faith in their own prowess, and ability to judge their work. It's basically saying "there was something wrong with the original which we want to correct", which somehow makes me respect them less. Once the art is out there, just leave it alone. It is what it is.

See also the recent Beatles remixes. I adored the 2009 remasters, because they sounded like the records I love, but clearer. The remixes are just the sound of someone trying to improve on masterpieces. A pointless and impossible task.

[Glebe]

^Listening to a few of the remixes on YouTube, interesting to hear Stipe's more prominent vox, but I definitely prefer the original versions. Nirvana had Litt mix the vocals on a couple of In Utero songs because they weren't happy with how Steve Albini had buried them in the mix.

You where at the Slane show too, DJ BH? It was quite exciting to see them live... I remember wandering off to get a beer during Oasis, wasn't all that bothered with them tbh... Sharon Shannon joined REM during their set, I remember. Besides Oasis and Shannon, I couldn't remember who else supported, thankfully the details are on Wiki!:

1995

On 22 July 1995, R.E.M. played Slane on their first concert following Mike Mills's appendectomy. They were supported by Oasis, whose album (What's the Story) Morning Glory? would be released 3 months later and would return to headline the event in 2009. One fan threw a rock at the stage as Oasis prepared to play "Roll with It". This provoked Liam Gallagher to say, "If you don't like it, go fucking hang yourself". In 2009, this performance was described as being by "a lairy mob with attitude and half a dozen memorable songs to their credit".

The following performed at Slane Concert in 1995:

Luka Bloom
Spearhead
Belly
Sharon Shannon
Oasis
R.E.M. (headliner)

And now I remember Spearhead having lots of fun onstage. The Oasis rock-throwing sounds familiar, I certainly recall a football being thrown onstage and Liam kicking it about, I think?

Ooh look REM's set is on YouTube!

[popcorn]

Yep the Monster remix is a bit gash but found it an interesting curio. Why would you take out the tremolo guitar from the chorus of Kenneth? His excuse was something like "it was an overdub", so the backwards guitar lead wasn't?

It still seems to be in the remix, unless I'm listening to the wrong thing?

[DrGreggles]

Hasn't a remix been included with the Monster anniversary reissue because Scott Litt wasn't happy with his own original mix?

Saw REM at Slane Castle on the Monster tour in '95, actually. About 19, I was. Oasis supported, among others.

Not fussed about the remix disc, but the demos and live stuff are great.

[buzby]

It still seems to be in the remix, unless I'm listening to the wrong thing?

It's not there in the A/B comparison in that Scott Litt interview clip that DJBH posted above.

I have to say that Scott Litt has one of the most annoying voices ever.

[a duncandisorderly]

the real problem is Edgar never had much sense of quality control: when TD were working as a band, and having to pass things through a decent label, they remained largely consistent in quality.....

I'm out right after 'force majeure' myself. 'epsilon' is great in its original form, but the other solo albums just show how much he depended on baumann/hoenig & franke. I'm given to understand that chris franke has a large cache of tapes in uncertain condition, but no interest in revisiting the past. possibly this is because of stuff like 'green desert', which edgar got away with pretending was a 1973 piece, & which started him off down this route of ret-conning his new toys onto older material & then passing it off as definitive.

steve wilson contacted my oppo during the preparatory stages of the 'in search..' boxed set, explaining that he needed someone acquainted with the material to cast an ear, so to speak, over the 5.1 he'd been able to conjure of 'phaedra', 'rubycon', 'ricochet' & some other bits. he'd not had access to much by way of multitracks ('submixes' & the odd overdub, either for reasons of cost or carelessness, are all that survive).
my oppo passed the files to me because he didn't have the wherewithal to play them.

most of it works really well as immersive, because the orchestration is not typical of an orchestra or band in a proscenium/stage setting, but there was a bit of 'ricochet' where he'd found a chunk of guitar on its own track, & stuck it pretty much in its own channel. I took the opportunity to switch it off entirely. nice to have the option.

[purlieu]

I'm out right after 'force majeure' myself.

Yeah, everyone has their switch-off point when it comes to TD. My favourite is actually Tangram, and the era with Johannes is probably my favourite (other than the largely hideous White Eagle), but I think it'd be fair to say that most of the '80s stuff has at least some value and is mostly well written and produced for its time, up to Optical Race at least. After that it's swiftly downhill and pretty much stays there until the brief 2005-2007 renaissance and then Ulrich's arrival in 2014. Perhaps not coincidentally, those eras are the ones which largely consisted of Edgar and whoever else was in the band making solo tracks and them being stuck together as an album.

I'm given to understand that chris franke has a large cache of tapes in uncertain condition, but no interest in revisiting the past. possibly this is because of stuff like 'green desert', which edgar got away with pretending was a 1973 piece, & which started him off down this route of ret-conning his new toys onto older material & then passing it off as definitive.

Yeah, it's a real shame that Franke isn't interested in at least letting someone else have the tapes, because the In Search of Hades box is superb, and I'd love a similar set to cover 1980-1983 and maybe even 1984-1988.

[Famous Mortimer]

"Hyperborea" is my switch-off point, well, just the incredible first track, it gets a bit shit after that.

[purlieu]

Some later stuff which is worth your time:
Persistence of Memory Pt 2
Mirage of Reality
Electron Bonfire
Metaphor Pt 1
Persistence of Memory Pt 1
Shadow and Sun
The Apparently Lunatic Hierarchy
Roll the Seven Twice
La Ravolte Eternelle Le Combat du Sang
Madagasmala

[Absorb the anus burn]

Nah.... Switch off at Poland.

[a duncandisorderly]

Some later stuff which is worth your time:
Persistence of Memory Pt 2
Mirage of Reality
Electron Bonfire
Metaphor Pt 1
Persistence of Memory Pt 1
Shadow and Sun
The Apparently Lunatic Hierarchy
Roll the Seven Twice
La Ravolte Eternelle Le Combat du Sang
Madagasmala

I will investigate these; I'm not entirely prejudiced against the post-franke stuff, but even once I get past the 80s timbres (digital synths, drumboxes), the spontaneity is missing.... I've listened to hundreds of the live recordings from the 70s band, & my own band works in much the same way: getting ready for our recent gig, I was asked "are you going to do such-&-such?"
"no," says I, "we're winging it this time. they want to hear summat new. nothing prepared at all."
for me, the exploratory nature of the band was lost at around the same time as they modernised the equipment. for other people, the early stuff, things like 'zeit' particularly, are unlistenable. it's one of my favourite albums.

[popcorn]

It's not there in the A/B comparison in that Scott Litt interview clip that DJBH posted above.

Oh, I see. On Spotify there are two versions - the 2019 remix and the 2019 remaster. The tremolo guitar is still in the remaster.

[purlieu]

A remaster just subtly changes the final mix - makes it punchier or whatever - but doesn't actually alter the content. A remix goes back to the original tapes and changes levels, effects, even adds or removes instruments.

[popcorn]

A remaster just subtly changes the final mix - makes it punchier or whatever - but doesn't actually alter the content. A remix goes back to the original tapes and changes levels, effects, even adds or removes instruments.

Not necessarily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See, for example, the 2017 OK Computer remaster, which took the fairly drastic step of mixing the synth arpeggios through the entire last act of Let Down. An improvement imo.

But yes I take your point. I really had just found the wrong thing on Spotify.

[Dyl Spinks]

I'll buck the trend here and say that the new Monster remix is absolutely amazing. Love it.

[purlieu]

Not necessarily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See, for example, the 2017 OK Computer remaster, which took the fairly drastic step of mixing the synth arpeggios through the entire last act of Let Down. An improvement imo.

That makes it a remix. Lying bastards.

[a duncandisorderly]

That makes it a remix. Lying bastards.

grey area, especially when marketing people get involved & 'remaster' is what they want to put in the adverts &c.

'remaster' can include remixing, if the job requires going back to the multitrack tape (or stems), but in an ideal world it should come out the same, only without the dropout, hiss, loss of HF & so on that an old stereo master might have, if it's survived at all.

these old stereo masters may not have been as well looked-after as the multitrack, & will have been used to make the vinyl master (which is eq'd & level matched to make the cutting of the master disc practicable; the end result of this process is a vinyl disc that sounds as close as possible, within the limits of the medium, to the earlier stereo master).

sometimes the 'vinyl' stereo master tape(s) were all they could lay hands on when the first CD of something was made, early 80s. there were often dozens of these masters made, so that pressing plants in other countries could make their own master discs. I never understood why they didn't just make multiple copies of the inverted stampers from the original master disc.
perhaps buzby...

anyway. sometimes when you go to remaster something from the multitracks, things aren't the same as the first time you did it. might be a different desk, different monitors, different outboard equipment (effects & so on). might be that the original mix wasn't automated, or some other stuff was 'flown in' during the mixdown... all difficult, if not impossible to duplicate.

& then there's the artist. they change their minds about things. jeff beck called george martin about something he didn't like on 'blow by blow' or 'wired', I forget which....
"can we change it?"
"no, jeff. the album's in the shops."

so a reissue is a chance to fiddle about too.

[popcorn]

& then there's the artist. they change their minds about things. jeff beck called george martin about something he didn't like on 'blow by blow' or 'wired', I forget which....
"can we change it?"
"no, jeff. the album's in the shops."

so a reissue is a chance to fiddle about too.

Lots of albums contain different versions of songs, though, don't they? Like you get a different version of Smooth Criminal depending on how recent your copy of Bad is, apparently.

I've always longed to read a detailed account of the differences between the Smooth Criminal versions, but seemingly the MJ fans, unendingly devoted as they are, choose to spend all their time obsessively cataloguing reasons for his innocence rather than his life's work.

[purlieu]

I've done it with my own music countless times, especially now stuff like Bandcamp effectively allows you a constantly dynamic version of your music.

But yes, it was relatively common for a while. I think Madonna's Like a Virgin has one of those tracks that depends which version you have. And as a FSOL fan, their Amorphous Androgynous album The Isness is a bastard to keep a track of, as four different mixes have now been released. When they finally did an 'official' release of the Abbey Road Version for Record Store Day a couple of years ago half the tracks were alternate mixes that had never been heard before.

Then you get differences between different countries. Sometimes the US label mangles the album entirely (Mansun's first two records spring to mind), while at other times it's subtle. From the Discogs entry to Talk Talk's Laughing Stock:

CD pressing variation: Most pressings of this album on CD have tracks 3 & 4 overlapping for about 30 seconds. The US Polydor version has no overlap, offering the full versions of both songs. "New Grass" is about 6 seconds shorter on the US CD though. The US version of "Taphead" features a faint 4-second instrumental fragment at the beginning not found on the UK CD.