If I buy a box set it's because there's an album that's drawn me in. Outtakes give me an opportunity to peer behind the curtain, to get a deeper appreciation of the music I love. I rarely think about whether the outtakes are better or worse, they're additions. I also love demos. And yes, I listen to them all more than once.
I tend to be nonplused by outtakes …. Unless they’re longer versions that were cut down for LP/CD capacity considerations …. though perhaps those aren’t actually outtakes. Multiple live versions …. Sign me up! Outtakes …. Meh.
when I was young, and a completist, I thought rare, newly discovered outtakes would bring me everlasting joy and make my life complete, fill a void, so to speak, but I found they inevitably would languish on the shelves and never get played again, great reason for buying them but the thrill of victory (purchase) ended up being more important that the actual material .. I'm not knocking them, they're just not my thing anymore. Bootlegs fall into the same category now too ... must be age
Really don’t need them, if I have to have them put them on a second disc rather than stuffing up the end of a favourite album with crap. And don’t sandwich them into the middle of an album. Or just release it all on a separate archives set. Same with ith Blu-rays, I couldn’t care less about extras or bonus content most of the time. I don’t mind a decent commentary, or a good behind the scenes doco, but just give me a nice clean print of a favourite movie and I’m happy.
Mostly, outtakes and other ephemera let us imagine that we can extend our love affair with our favorite albums. The artist isn't going to make more of that type of music at that time, so the best we can hope for is that there's something more in the vault that will expand what's available. The truth is that most of the time, they are curiosities rather than revelations, and the outtakes/etc. that I listen to once and file far exceed the number that I consider essential.
I read an Amazon box set review once that asked - 'who would want all these outtakes, why not just the master take when they got it right?' Now, this was a Charlie Parker box - a musician who, if anyone, promises the possibility of genius with every fugitive note. The Monkees, say - not so much. Then the masters might be enough. It varies. It's not just a matter of genre, though. Jazz, obviously, relies more on spontaneity and the idea of achieving the 'definitive' version is something of a contradiction. But in pop, also, there is sometimes a wealth of extra material that can be almost as compelling as the official story. Look at Good Vibrations and other Beach Boys sessions. Or Zappa Project/Objects. Or the continuing career of Jimi Hendrix. And then there's a third thing: sometimes for a super-fan it's the slight variation that's the key. You've got the iconic version memorized, imprinted on your brain, through thousands of listens. There are no surprises left, no new information to be gleaned. An outtake, no matter how slight and inferior, gives you a new and fresh moment with your loved one.
I want to hear the uncut version of Warning just before I die, As ugly, boring and revolutionary as Tony Iommi's playing is
In the case of more "historical" musicians or recordings, outtakes simply offer more content from an artist and time of which a limited amount survives. Getting a newly discovered alt take from a Blind Lemon Jefferson, say, is pretty exciting for fans.
Info as well; one fun thing I enjoy on occasion is to put the proper album and the outtake discs on random play and see what comparatives come up.
Doubt the artists are worrying about the "why." They may be mildly interested in the "how much for me?" depending on their share of the rights. If they signed away everything, they most likely don't give two Schlitz.
The “outtakes” on Neil Young Archives Vol 2 practically double the amount of amazing songs from 1973-1976 from Mr Young. So, outtakes have value. Not always, but in some cases, they are amazing.
Easy, to the artist, the outtake is a work in progress. It is like a first, second, third etc draft of a novel a writer is working on. The creators are focused on the work in ptoject, not the product that made the finished project. a lot of The Beatles Outtakes, a lesser band could have a career off of it. But listening to them makes me how the Beatles "fairy dust" made the shine, something a lesser band could do.
Don't care for most of them. It can get tedious with some artists, won't mention any names. Some out takes are great they show the development of an idea, I like that process & enjoy witnessing it,but a 1/2 dozen out takes of one song is a bit much for me unless they're really informing or interesting. Like this Hard A$$ Rocker started as this Cutesy Little Love Song To My Pet Racoons. I didn't articulate that very well huh? sorry squire
You're probably right, in a lot of cases to. I enjoyed the Acapella version of Because from Abbey Road,things like that light me up, but if I recall correctly there was a lot of yawning through Anthology. There's even waste on some of Fripp's box sets. In fact Robert's put a few too many box sets out. I wish he'd stop. Sending me to the poor house for Fripp's sake.
Outtakes vary in quality by a very wide margin. @Wildest cat from montana mentioned it already (and maybe someone else has as well), but some of the Dylan outakkes on Biograph and the Bootleg Series releases represent some of the best material of his entire career. Here's a strong record: Seven Curses Percy's Song She's Your Lover Now Abandoned Love Caribbean Wind Up to Me Series of Dreams
Except that for many artists, outtakes ore more than just half-baked noodling. Some artists like Bob Dylan, Neil Young and Bruce Sprignsteen were so prolific in their artistic prime, that many of their outtakes equal or exceed the quality of their officially released material.
Frankly, I don't understand the title of this thread. There's nothing mysterious about the appeal of outtakes. If you're a big fan of a particular artist, it's perfectly understandable that you would be interested in hearing unreleased material - particularly if that material was recorded around the time of an artist's creative peak. If you were a fan of Steinbeck and learned that he had written an unpublished novel around the same time as The Grapes of Wrath, wouldn't you want to read it? If you were a fan of Alfred Hitchcock is learned that had filmed a version of North by Northwest with a different cast, wouldn't you want to see it? Recorded music is no different. There are plenty of examples of unreleased or unfinished albums by well-known artists. Sometimes those albums were unrelased or unfinished for good reason. But by no means always. When Bruce Springsteen was at his artistic peak, he would record three songs for every one he released on an album. And I'm hardly the only person who thinks he left some of his strongest material off of Darkness, The River and Born in the USA.
One part of Dylan's story of course ties in bigtime with the fascination for outtakes; the original version of "Freewheelin'" with four tunes being replaced in 1963, supposedly by Dylan's own hand, being pissed off he couldn't perform "John Birch" on Ed Sullivan. Now I can understand having a grudge for a while over something like this, but it will be 60 whole years since that fateful showdown coming up! What is going on with this story? Did Bob have it written that the original album as he first wanted it is never to be released forever? I can't understand this one aspect of Dylan's legend!
I just picked up the 7th volume of the Miles Davis Bootleg Series. This one is 2 CDs of outtakes and a 3rd CD including a live show. I'm finding that I like it more than any of the other 80's Miles that I've heard, apart from maybe Aura and Siesta, and now I'm thinking that I need to investigate that period some more.
