If you want a no-noised 78 transfer of the original 1942 version, get a copy of Now That's What I Call Christmas. For the worn out original master, get a copy of the Voice of Christmas 2 CD set, the Stardust VA comp, the Legendary Years boxed set or the 20th Century Masters Christmas CD on Bing Crosby
That LP is called The Very Best of The Everly Brothers and only the stuff originally released on Cadence was re-recorded.
I think Squeeze have done it! WHY? But then someone explained it was a way the band could regain the rights to the music and publishing. Shame that it involves the fans though!
Yes, it definitely annoys me. Got no new songs? Write some, then!! I like it when old material is reinterpreted in a new style when performed live, though - a la Bowie and Dylan, etc.
As well as Country Honk, I felt they should have included: Reggae Honk Prog Honk Dance Honk and Lounge Honk.
Not if it's interpreted in a new and different way. At the same time, if the re-recording has very legitimate financial reasons, as Squeeze did with Spot the Difference.
If the question is am I expecting a new old Elton John song about Queen Elizabeth any day now... the answer is yes.
I recall a 'Badfinger' album, wherein Joe Molland re-recorded a bunch of their hits in a glazed-sounding, digital '80s style. I suppose he was low on cash, so I could empathize; but moves like that shoot holes into credibility you might need later. The one that gets to me the most is the Stealers Wheel re-arrangement of the "Everything Will Turn Out Fine" single on Ferguslie Park. I actually like both versions, but am very disappointed the first, single take has never been made available on CD. That one's every bit the record that "Stuck In The Middle" is.
This release consists of one CD of re-recordings 20+ years later and one CD of remixes by selected artists of the time (2005). It's pretty great.
Agree . - Will add re: OP's purposing that "annoy" seems a bit much. I'd simply not listen to, or purchase, it. What I have purchased is usually done as a more acoustic version, live &/or with orchestra or string section & on each, there's at least one new song added, others' having a couple. These are also selections from artists' catalogs, not doing a track-by-track re-recording of an entire album. Richard Ashcrort - Acoustic Hymns Basia Bulat - The Garden The Cranberries - Something Else
And in this case, the same musicians played on those re-recordings, and they were recorded in the same studio. And everyone at their best. I like these re-recordings as well as I do the originals.
It's their choice but I don't have to listen, let alone buy this crap. And if they do it the tracks should be labeled properly as "new recording" or "alternate version".
Yes, I hate it. What went out and sold well should stand. I particularly hate it when they re-record a 60s/70s track with trendy modern production and then say, "This is how I always wanted it to sound..."
as long as both original versions and re-recordings are both available, it doesn't bother me--i can pick whichever version i like--and if they are a band like squeeze that never sold tons of records, i might buy the re-recordings just to feel like i have thrown money in the right direction.
Sometimes an artist may not be completely satisfied with their record (Due to lack of time, budget, even experience or technology used) Imagine you write a great song being a competent musician but years later you say "I can do it better now that I play better" Or you have some kind of deadline or not much studio time and then say "I wish I had worked more on that song" Those are strong reasons to me. Also, It's my song, I will record it as many times I want!!!
I'd rather they completely re-record something than change the mix or add/replace parts to the original version. Dave Mustaine and Ozzy did it.
as a kid in the states, this is all totally correct and still fascinating--two different bands basically starting from the remixed release of "slide it in" album--more, if you count all of the larger and smaller line-up changes. i grew up with "1987" breaking in the states, so i have more of an attachment to that sound, but can appreciate both.
I like it, but only when the re-recording is less good than the original version. Otherwise, when the new version sounds fresh and exciting (known as 'relecture inspirée' here), I don't see the point of releasing it.
It doesn't annoy me if the rerecordings are comparable to or better in quality than the original versions. (That was the case with some of the songs the Buzzcocks and Gang of Four rerecorded post-2000 from their classic era; I enjoy those alternate studio versions.)
