Has to be: So glad I have most of the WG RCA's. Might just play that one later. And check Karma Police from last night, that one was hanging in the air the entire show. Warm bath for Yorke and the boys. Wish Andy Partridge watched it.
Don't talk to me. I've had the wrong cd and LP sent twice by totally different artists, record sleeves with huge brown coffee spills described as VG+, shattered records and of course (like you) records I ordered that mysteriously don't exist any more or have to be ordered from America even though the seller is listed as UK based. What's worse is when you leave negative feedback they complain. 200 Euros on Discogs right now, but I'd rather not.
Ironically, Bowie was a lot like Madonna when it comes to the back catalog - played it lots in concert, but didn't seem to give a flying you-know-what about the older records or how they were presented. Was always about the next thing, even after consumers mostly stopped caring about it. Of course, in Bowie's case that eventually started to pay off with The Next Day and Blackstar... Maybe in another decade Madonna will stop releasing total garbage and put out a couple of late masterpieces herself.
I've got a quite early pressing I ripped for my FiiO (Bobil/Rasputin) but I'd like to hear an EMI100. Outside! (That's not an invitation for a fight!) Edit - actually I just checked - BTWN got to no1 in the charts (UK), but I see your point.
They certainly know what some of the collectors want, the Station to Station box had the RCA cd and AAA vinyl + Ziggy 40th was AAA too. I assume these reissue campaigns aim at a different public. Collectors that care more for completeness (see complaints about missing single edits, personally I couldn't care less) and more general music enthousiasts that just want all the Bowie albums and don't mind about the less than optimal sound.
Here's the link to that blog for those that haven't read it: 25 Years Ago-Ish Part 5 I found the whole thing a fascinating read, if a little worrying.
He probably had more struggles with the record company suits than any rock god deserves and we can imagine, maybe sort of gave up. 50 years of source tapes and different producers and who knows maybe some of those crucial master tapes had the smell of sour grapes from DeFries' wine cellar. At least Visconti took care of Blackstar, didn't he post a picture of handling the first repress ?
But to please everybody they could easily have made it sound good and worthwhile buying for audiophiles. I still can't believe they screwed up that first box so much. I agree with you about the edits - they're just catering to a tiny minority who wouldn't find them satisfactory anyway.
I think Bowie truly didn't give much of a crap about his older work. Or perhaps it just took a serious backseat to whatever it was he was working on at the moment. I do think he didn't have a deep emotional attachment to much of his own older work. The guy who produced it was very different from the post-drugs, post-drink Bowie, and the work that did have a lot of personal meaning (like Low) surely brought back some bad memories of difficult times.
surely you jest? crushed like every bowie album has been for decades. if they're for a "tiny minority" and the general listener "couldn't care less" then don't include them at all. but if you choose to include them then a) get them right, and b) include them all. if they fulfilled this simple task (i.e. do it right or don't do it all) then why would they be not be found "satisfactory"?
Sept. 2015 was the release for that, yes? I think that the closer you got to the epicenter of Empire Bowie, there were probably other more pressing (npi) matters to be dealt with than scouring the world's vaults for the ultimate "Hunky Dory". (That's not intended to be dismissive. I know it reads that way. And yes, I know the man himself kept busy with the play and such.) Makes one have a grudging respect for the ABKCO model. Prince and Bowie were both "emancipated" artists, eventually, and (coincidentally? As a result?) there seems to be some chaos surrounding their masters.
Not correct to think he didn't care about his earlier records. His songwriting process since the late 70s showed that he was constantly revisiting his previous work. Self reference is one of the defining features of Bowie.
Was solely talking 'bout the process of handling the repress, not the sonic qualities (I still have not played it loud, maybe someday).
Yeh - some are digital reconstructions. I've no problem with the edits if they are real - even good needledrops, but you have said they're reconstructions, so pretty pointless. It reminds me of the wonderful film Pet Sematary. But I would rather have Sweet Head than a shortened TVC15 (I could have phrased that better). I remember him at the time of release boasting about how it was " mastered like an old record would be" (paraphrasing).
Man can only handle a certain amount of praise. Separates the boys from the men how one handles that.
there are several that are accurate but too many that are not. also the needledrops have not been of an acceptable standard (if i can do better with my modest set up then there's a problem). the reason for their inclusion is simple - re:call attempts to round up the relevant singles/versions/edits that received official issue that differ in some way (however minor) to what's on the albums. Sweet Head and the like should not, based on this remit, be included. outtakes etc should (and will) be included on future expanded releases. this is going to run and run after we're gone. then he's quite simply full of 5h1t.
I think you're totally right, but isn't it just a little too narrow a frame of reference? That's my view of the Recall discs. They could have been so much more.
not to me, i think it's the right approach. however, and i know i'm well into broken record territory by now, it needs to be done with more care and attention. adding stuff that's been issued in the digital age is all well and good but it's not "of the time" which is what i think these boxes should be (thus i'm not in favour of including revised editions and remixes). but it's obvious by now that you'd do it differently to me and we'd both do it differently to Parlophone... it's a no win really. i buy them because i'm a collector, there's very little so far that i'd bother with if i wasn't.
Yeah, in light of the present conversation, I think this is valuable reading. I don't doubt there was some laziness on the part of whichever label was involved at the time, but it sounds like the materials didn't get the care they deserved from anyone over a long period of time.
I don't expect the next box will have learned by the last two's mistakes. I've finally conceded and gone for the old RCA CDs. Trouble is, I shall still pick up the subsequent box and any others that follow. I'm not helping the situation with my apathetic purchasing but what is one to do? For those who have been living with just the 1999 remasters, from Low to Scary Monsters, are you expecting a significant upgrade to be gained with the forthcoming releases? I can't comment on those as I have had the Rykos for years and skipped those editions.
It's a weird thing: I personally have no actual need for the box sets, as I have nice original or early UK (and in a couple cases, US as well) copies of everything up through Never Let Me Down. But I have bought both vinyl boxes, and I will buy the other boxes. I guess that's primarily because I'm a fan, but there are definitely times when I question the wisdom of my ways...
packaging, no. flimsy box of mediocre design, no sleeves on records (plain, poly-lined white paper), two inserts. soundwise it's good but not exceptional as far as i recall. "Heroes" includes the French/English version of the title track. note that there are three pressings, the original is French, but two German pressings also exist (all include the French/English "Heroes"). Illustrated db Discography Forum • View topic - France