i fully expect it to be on Re:Call 2 as they included the likes of the re-recorded Holy Holy and Velvet Goldmine on Re:Call 1 despite being released in 1974 and 1975 respectively.
Because they're a waste of space? I mean, a few of the mono ones were interesting, but an edited version of the same mix...why? I mean, there's a completist factor, but it's not like there's any musical differences, there's just less music.
I've no problem with single mixes if they are different to the familiar version of a said song (e.g. UK 45 mix of 'The Jean Genie'), but edits on a rarities collection seem pointless. Aside from a nostalgia for 'the version you heard first', why have a cut down version of the same song you already have in full form?
I'm assuming they'll be consistent throughout the series, and they included single edits on the first volume. There's plenty of room for them (otherwise we'll be getting a five or six track 'bonus album', which would go down like a cup of cold gravy with a hair in it). It's not like the inclusion of the single edits will be bumping a whole lot of fantastic unheard songs. The Re:Call discs are NOT rarities collections: they're singles collections. Some single mixes and b-sides are rare, some are dead common. Rarity is not a compilation criterion. The inclusion of the original single versions of familiar tracks is the raison d'etre of a singles collection. I think you've simply misunderstood the premise of the sets.
That's the US single mix. I'm not sure what the difference is between the UK single mix and the album version. Edit: found it... The familiar version was released in edited and remixed form (4'22" instead of 4'31" and much more echoey than the album version) as the the first single from Diamond Dogs (RCA LPBO 5009).
it's a little more complicated than that, but there are several differences in the mix. in my opinion the single mix is superior to the album version, it's a little more thought out. the "echoey" comment is misleading and refers to the reverb effect that comes in towards the end of the track.
Collectors and Completists by definition will have everything already and as 'collectors and completist' perhaps they not mind the odd difference in editing or eq-ing. Perhaps some like it just because it's another version for their collection. There will be a few who want each and every Bowie audio artefact ever put on tape, but they are not the target of these sets and probably really belong in the fourth category. Casual fans and new fans I'm not sure will buy it, when they can buy the core albums singly. But some of those newbies will fit into a third category: There's a type of buyer who likes the idea of completeness as long as it comes in a neat and tidy single-format box that fits alongside their other boxes. They don't mind a bit of surplus as it still fits in the box and can be ignored. These people probably do not mind the odd problem in sound as they are not even aware of them and enjoy the music. And I think many of the people above will want to know that they the best-sounding version they can buy. There is a fourth category outside those three and that is the seasoned Bowie fan, the completist, the audiophile, the total-perfection-seeker-in-all-aspects – all rolled into one package. I wonder what percentage of fans this covers? 1% of 1%? And my feeling is that nothing can realistically ever be done for them. I suspect that I'm the fifth type. The cherry picker. I know which Bowie I like, I do my homework and I buy the things I want on CD or LP. I don't buy the box. And I don't especially care if I can't hear Mick Ronson inaudibly swearing on a particular version of Hunky Dory because I'm too busy enjoying the overall sound and the songs and after I can choose which version I listen to as my preference.
Which category is the person who just wants it all in one place, in one collection, in great sound. I mean I am fine with multiple boxes in a series, but I love stuff like the complete Bob Dylan and Miles sets. It puts it all there, takes the work and guess work out if it and is easy to store
That would be nice but I would have accepted, consistent, excellent mastering rather than a mix match of masters with some real turkey's that were included in the 5 years box. I fully expect Golden Years to recreate the horrible Nassau Coliseum master, I will complain, and be told by many members here to shut up and be happy for what we have. Do I fit a category?
You would think that anyone associated with Bowie would be aware how terrible Nassau sounds and make it a priority to fix it.They seem to have taken a lot of care with Five Years and I am hopeful they won't let Nassau come out in it's previous form. Ever the optimist!
There was a 24bit 2.0 mix on the 40th anniversary set. If it's a downmix, it was downmixed back then. I've never heard the 5.1, so I have no idea if it i a downmix.
the 24/96 on th 40th is the standard mix CD master in higher resolution is it not? i believe Ken Scott's mix was only presented in brickwalled 5.1 until the Five Years box.
I have a first press Diamond Dogs which is the best of this period. Missing Young Americans so would buy that as individual Lp and Station to Station if the mastering is very good. I prefer the later to the Berlin Trilogy which is rather overrated especially if you take the track 'Heroes' away. However any box set containing less than 6 studio albums is a rip off.