Music Banter - Bonus tracks, special editions, box sets: your thoughts?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)

- - Bonus tracks, special editions, box sets: your thoughts? (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/79654-bonus-tracks-special-editions-box-sets-your-thoughts.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1507044)

I don't get why an European release of an album is often different to that released in the US or other country.

Because albums are/were a lot cheaper in the US than they are in Europe because they were forced to lower the prices of CD's over there by the American Government. To stop people in Europe buying the cheaper American releases they would put extra songs on the European releases to deter them.

Also it meant if any American fans wanted the extra songs they'd be forced to buy the more expensive European versions that didn't come under the American governments jurisdiction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by James (Post 1506825)

Bands like Radiohead are a good shout because they're b-sides and non-album singles are very valuable in their own right. The Daily Mail is one of my favourite tracks by them, and going back, Bishop's Robes was as good as many of the songs on The Bends.

I would definitely have to agree the OK Computer b - sides are awesome too, I thought they just did what all bands should do with deluxe editions don't put in a tin of crap that no one really asked for and put out stuff fans actually want to hear.

@Trollheart

What you said reminded me of a childhood friend who was a big nirvana fan that hunted down EVERY rare nirvana album sold in other countries like Outcesticide and tracked down all the individual rare songs in the singles.

This was around the Mid 90's before the internet facilitated the search but somehow he managed to get most of them outta sheer fandom.

thnx to him i got to hear most of Nirvana rare songs way before they conveniently put them on a box set.

I don't mind a few bonus tracks at the end of an album, some bands will even include a whole EP as the bonus tracks on an album. I do find a lot of special editions with a second disc of out-takes, live tracks, b-sides, demos etc to be a waste of time as they usually just scrape the barrel. I do love when you get a live DVD or something, like with Swans' To Be Kind. Another good example is the edition of Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables by Dead Kennedys I got a few years back which included a DVD with some very entertaining live footage as well as interviews.

Personally I absolutely hate bonus tracks. It seems like the record label companies are re-releasing the classic albums in bonus track editions only. It's a record label scheme to get potential album buyers to purchase the recent releases with bonus tracks as the record companies knows that just about everyone has a copy of a regular issue of a particular issue. I search for the regular issue albums without the bonus tracks but it seems like most of them are out of print and hard to find. I'm forced the purchase the bonus track albums until I can find a regular issue copy. iTunes and Amazon is a solution also until I find a copy but it's not the same as owning a cd or lp. In addition, these label record companies are releasing different versions of a particular album; regular issue, deluxe issue, super deluxe, super deluxe plus on cd and not to mention on vinyl as well as mp3. It's a tactic to get the consumer to purchase all the different versions as these record companies are losing their share of a profit as the decline of cd sales fall and they are trying to compensate the differences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trollheart (Post 1506793)

I'm talking here about albums that are specifically released on the basis of one or two tracks being new, the likes of a greatest hits compilation with one new track or two, or a live album with one or two new studio tracks. The Eagles spring to mind, but I'm sure there are many others. When you see a "new album" announced and then realise it's exactly the same as one you have but there is one or maybe two new tracks on it. Or remixes of your favourite stuff. Or re-recorded, double Dolby mega-enhanced-whatever-the-**** versions. How do you feel? Do you want to buy them, think they're a ripoff, buy them even though you feel they're a ripoff or ignore them?

Sort of case in point currently: Pink Floyd's "new" album. I know it's being discussed in the PF thread but this is not just about that album, though it does illustrate the point very well. Is it right to ask your fans to pay for a bunch of material that wasn't deemed good enough for your last album, but now you want to cash in on it, and then as Gilmour says, "Pink Floyd is not in my future", so there'll be no more? Is that not a two-fingers to the fans, who were told a new album was on the way?

And then there are those "definitive editions" of their albums, with like ten discs per album, costing a king's ransom. If you're considered a true Floyd fan, maybe you feel you have to buy them to have them in your collection, even though they're bank-breakingly expensive.

But as I say, this is about more than the pink ones. Many artistes release several versions of albums --- different covers, different track on the Japanese release, another on the US one etc --- and as I say there are many GH compilations that you wouldn't buy but then there's a "new track" stuck on it so that they can tempt you.

Does anyone have opinions on how this is done? Does it annoy you, are you bothered? Do you grab every single new item from your favourite band, even if they release the same album in, say, a blue, a red and a green cover? I'm just wondering how people feel? I mentioned years ago how annoyed I was that the then-recently-released "Eagles' Greatest Hits" was exactly --- and I mean to the track --- the same as the last one, and yet people were expected to buy it. Am I alone here? Do you all think I'm making something out of nothing as usual, or does anyone else get annoyed about the constant moneygrabbing tactics of labels and maybe artistes, who seem to want to squeeze as much money out of their fans as possible?

Good questions 'Trollheart'. I'll answer that by specifically referring to box sets. At one time some of them featured unreleased material ( be it demos or unreleased songs ) that was arguably BETTER than what appeared on the original albums. Case in point: the 2001 Kiss box set. Demos of songs like 'Deuce', '100,000 Years', and 'Love Gun' have a less polished, and ultimately more appealing sound to them. In a very real way, those demos are closer to the Kiss sound than the versions that we've ultimately grown to love. Subjective of course, but you understand what I'm saying.

The Allman Bros. 1989 set 'Dreams' is another example. The roughly 4 minute demo for that song is much better than the original 7 minute version on their first album. When it comes to "jamming", less IS definitely more, in my opinion.

Having said that, I can understand what you're saying when it comes to some unreleased "gems" that should've REMAINED unreleased! Point well taken!

I will say that so-called "deluxe" versions over the past five or six years have definitely become a joke! It seems like the "suits" want to give EVERY release from a major recording artist the "deluxe treatment", even when some of them are simply not worthy of it. And if they are, they provide a REMIXED, or WORSE, re-recorded version of the same album in some cases. Frankly, that's simply DISGRACEFUL ( :eek: )! In short order: ANY true landmark album DOESN'T need to be remixed OR re-recorded ( :soapbox: )! Enough said on that!

Great thread and comments everybody pro and con ( :) ).

Listening to the new Alpha Mike Foxtrot from Wilco. So far so good, rarity compilation done in the right way.

Depends a lot on which band and what genre of music. With Electronica, there is usually rereleases with different mixes and remixes ...and I like some of the ReMix variants of songs better than the original

A great example is Front 242s "Front By Front" album on Wax Trax in 1988.. The original version of the album had a remixed version of the song "Headhunter" ( the V.3 version) but not the original V.1 version which I prefer over the one that was on the album

When Sony bought out Front 242s catalog in 1992, they re-released the album with the V.1 Version as a bonus track as well as remixes of other songs, plus a few unreleased tracks: In this case, it was well worth repurchasing the album

Quote:

Originally Posted by Musicwhore A-Z (Post 1509443)

\And if they are, they provide a REMIXED, or WORSE, re-recorded version of the same album in some cases. Frankly, that's simply DISGRACEFUL ( :eek: )! In short order: ANY true landmark album DOESN'T need to be remixed OR re-recorded ( :soapbox: )! Enough said on that!

Great thread and comments everybody pro and con ( :) ).

Eh it's not always so bad. Rudy Van Gelder remastered several jazz albums that had ****ty quality and made them perfect.