Most Remastered Album

It's a good record though.

How about "What's Goin' On"?

"Don't Stand me Down" has been done twice, hasn't it?

Elvis Costello's catalog is like twice-baked potatoes at this point.

OTM about "Raw Power" upthread.

Glenn Gould's 1955 recording of the Goldberg Variations. I think this has been remastered 5 times on CD alone, not even counting batshit insane stuff like the player piano "audiophile re-performance" that just came out.

Also isn't the Raw Power remaster in fact utterly dudley given that Iggy, like, ran the original guitar tracks through distortion or some such bullshit...? Did I hear wrong...?

Elvis Costello's catalog is like twice-baked potatoes at this point.

-- Davey D, Thursday, October 25, 2007 5:31 PM

I'd add that the Costello catalog is more like the over-ripe turnip that grew in the soil that was amended by the compost from the disguarded omelette that had a filling of reconstituted scalloped potatoes that we're made from the twice-baked potatoes.

xpost re Raw Power. It makes it sound like a Motorhead live bootleg, yes. Opinions tend to be pretty polarized about whether it's a true and faithful rendition of the original vision or a solipsitically hamfisted ruination of a classic album.

The Raw Power remaster is a bad joke. Utterly unplayable, if you happen to want to save your speakers.

Yeah, they (and by "they" I mean whatever hack-ass engineer shrugged and said "You're the boss, Iggy") totally fucked Raw Power. All it really needed was a run through the Louderizer; now it sounds like the worst shit Estrus Records ever excreted.

Isn't Raw Power more of a remix?

i've only heard the remastered version and i think it sounds cool :/

When I first got it I thought "Wow, this is AMAZING!!!". Then after a while I thought "aaach, this is stupid".

Yes, it is a remix and therefore a remaster as well.

C'mon folks, of course it's better than the original David Bowie-aborted monstrosity!

Negatory good buddy. Though the cd version that came out eons ago has particularly bad sound, the good old-fashined vinyl version is wicked.

Motherfucker, I'm gonna have to track that down.

OK then, somebody be a bro and post a nice rip of the vinyl.

Anybody else heard those so-called "Ebbetts remasters" of Beatles LPs? I got the whole lot of them yesterday and I am simply freaking out over the mono versions of "Revolver" and "Pepper." It's causing me to give "Pepper" a critical re-evaluation, as I've never been a big fan... it's like a whole different album.

/end gush

I dunno if it's the same "remasters", but I just DLed the "Purple Chick" editions of all the Beatles shit in mono. Haven't even really dug into it yet, but am really looking forward given how much I prefer the mono of Village Green and Piper At The Gates Of Dawn.

Here's the Hermenaut article where Chris Fujiwara argues that the new! improved! Raw Power actually made the first version listenable/better. He's nutz for preferring Raw Power to Fun House and for hating on the midwest but there's plenty of good food for thought. Still like the first issue better, but definitely having the approved version out there changed everything about how I hear it.

When I first got it I thought "Wow, this is AMAZING!!!". Then after a while I thought "aaach, this is stupid".

SO, so OTM, altho I do appreciate that a coupla tracks' fade-outs were extended by 30 seconds or so. And to be fair, NEITHER version really sounds very good at all (and the vinyl was no better!)

xpost. Interesting aricle that. I thought "Search and Destroy" was the only song that Bowie didn't touch, leaving it as the only Iggy-produced track, yet Hermenaut refers to it as "Bowie's mix". Or am I wrong about that? This is one of the things that makes Iggy's claim that the newer mix is more representative seem kinda bogus to me.

"Both Welles and Iggy came from the Midwest, arguably the most horrible part of the United States and the place where its placelessness is most pure. Welles goes to the limit of this placelessness, its border, to find its end in"

This part of the article is stupid and irrelevant to his point. What a moron.

Yes it is a remix not a remaster. And the Iggy version is (even) worse than the original.

Previous threads on this subject:

Raw Power remix -classic or dud?
Raw Power
RAW POWER is the only Stooges record that merits a 10/10.

Oh and isn't the answer Dark Side of the Moon? I thought I heard that at some point. I guess Pet Sounds probably competes (though at least one of those is a remix).

What was the FIRST remastered album? The first time I was even aware of remastering was when I deliberately chose the "remastered" version of Zappa's "Sheik Yerbouti" on vinyl, back in the mid-80s. As a marketing angle it was totally successful. I had no real notion of what it might mean but paid slightly more for it anyway.

remember "gold" cds?

Oh god, the biggest scam in history. "The gold makes the 1's and 0's sound better!"

SO, so OTM, altho I do appreciate that a coupla tracks' fade-outs were extended by 30 seconds or so. And to be fair, NEITHER version really sounds very good at all (and the vinyl was no better!)

-- Myonga Vön Bontee, Thursday, October 25, 2007 7:03 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

otm, there really needs to be a re-remix that's a reasonable midpoint between the other two versions.

First remastered re-release was probably Artur Schnabel's complete set of Beethoven Piano Sonatas, the most famously crap-sounding recordings in classical history.

The way I understand it, the masters were cut on sub-par material, and the 78's pressed on sub-par shellac, all due to economic privations of the time. From the first rerelease of the cycle on LP down to the most recent CD edition engineers have tried to improve the sound in a million different ways, which is kind of just as much a tribute to the greatness of the performances...

What if they got the Kind of Blue speed wrong yet again, and they had to do yet another remaster? Columbia would be stoked. First time I ever noticed paying attention to these was the Mobil Fidelity half-speed masters of vinyl LPs, I think my brother had Zenyatta Mondatta in that form.

I did a thread search and this looks as good a place as any to post/discuss - but my friends and I absolutely despise the AC/DC remasters of the past ten years - seek out the early ATCO/WEA releases, the original vinyl or the Aussie releases - 'cause dang the dreck released since and including Bonfire is close to unlistenable. Oh - and who here with me is up for Slayer re-issue/re-masters - those suckers are OOP/deleted I believe...

I rilly rilly hope the BOC remaster series continues on to Mirrors, Cultasaurus Erectus and Fire Of Unknown Origin. Even aside from sound quality upgrades, the bonus tracks in this series have been great.

Agreed totally. Also On Your Feet or On Your Knees.

I don't mind the Ac/DC remasters, they sound good to these ears.

Interesting aricle that. I thought "Search and Destroy" was the only song that Bowie didn't touch, leaving it as the only Iggy-produced track, yet Hermenaut refers to it as "Bowie's mix". Or am I wrong about that? This is one of the things that makes Iggy's claim that the newer mix is more representative seem kinda bogus to me.

In the liners to the reissue/remix, Iggy pointed out that in the original mix of "S&D", they included audio from a sword fight they staged in the studio. He said that wasn't recorded very well and was barely audible on the vinyl anyway, so he dumped it for the new version of the album.

Wasn't the New mix done with more separation on a bigger board as well? (48 tracks or something?)

"What was the FIRST remastered album?"

I am pretty sure Philips made sure those first ever CDs sounded good enough to impress as much as possible, which means that probably some old analog recordings were digitally remastered already in 1981-82.

I believe the first bunch CDs to be rereleased (and remastered) after having previously been released on CD were "Space Oddity", "Hunky Dory" and "Ziggy Stardust" by David Bowie. (Happened after EMI bought his back catalogue rights from RCA)

And speaking of Bowie, he belongs very much in this thread. Some of his 70s albums have now been released in 5 different CD versions since the 80s.

The Iggy version of Search & Destroy is definitely slightly different to the Bowie version, not just in terms of mix - there's some extra vocals (just "yeah" or "hey" or something) on the Iggy version (that I hate after being used to the original).

Last night, I was searching for The Cars’ “Drive” on my service of choice… in addition to the original track, I found “(2016 Remaster),” “(2017 Remaster),” and “(2018 Remaster)” versions. Wtf(!)

poll when?

xp If they're really different remasters, I'm guessing they're just done off the same digital transfer, but it would be tragic and hilarious if they actually pulled the original analog tape and ended up wearing it out. It's happened - David Bowies's "Heroes" (full-length LP version) and the original mono mix of Frank Sinatra's "One for My Baby" have a brief chunk in them that's completely unusable thanks to poor handling, and they're both contenders for the single greatest recording either have made.

Lol at the Pet Sounds post upthread. "It's a good record though."