Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives :: View topic

I will never comprehend why bands decide to slow songs down when they re-record.

I would for example LOVE re-recordings with Overkill; I never really liked their early stuff because of Blitz vocals, and sometimes a bit tinny production (there where much better fat and full productions all over the place in the 80s) but with Ironbound and The Electric Age they truly prove they have much more good stuff to give. Actually those are the only two albums I really like with Overkill, songs are even better than their classic songs... In my opinion!

i have to admit i don't like the thrash re-recordings i've heard. destruction, testament, sodom, etc... that modern thrash production style really gets my goat. it just sounds stale, makes all the bands sound identical to each other, and never leaves any breathing room.

Destruction's Thrash Anthems would be what you're looking for, then. A lot of people have gripes about the production on the early Destruction stuff, which is understandable, as the production jobs on those albums are fucking weird (I love 'em, myself). Basically, it's what you'd expect: they're beefed up with a modern production that doesn't always suit Mike's riffing still. The performances are energetic enough, though, so it's not a desaster.

thrashinbatman wrote:

I will never comprehend why bands decide to slow songs down when they re-record.

I love how Triptykon play some older CF songs live and make them slower. Wish they would re-record some of them like that if its possible, but I don't think Tom has any rights to that material these days.

Re-recordings are almost always a shit idea. Fear re-recorded their classic album The Record. I refuse to listen to it. It's usually the band being lazy or running out of ideas. If you have a classic album, why the hell would you record it again? Do you actually think anyone's going to like it more? The only exception I can see is if the material in question is roughly recorded early work that wasn't really done justice.

It's a valiant effort in Suffocation's case, but it just won't be the same without Cerrito. Sorry.

I guess we will find out? Won't we?

I don't agree with rerecording. Its integrity should be kept, as is. Same goes for movies. Leave them alone, the original is what is 'meant to be'.

Author:	Rocka_Rollas [ Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:28 am ]
Post subject:	Re-recording albums and shit
I was thinking about recent Manowar crappy re-recordings of their "classic" albums, that it's totally pointless doing A WHOLE ALBUM again... However, Running Wild did something really good with their First Years Of Piracy back in the 90s; they recorded some of their early material (that wasn't even long ago by then) and not only had a more beefy production and improved vocals, but also played it faster most of the time. That is a good example of how re-recordings should be done. I would for example LOVE re-recordings with Overkill; I never really liked their early stuff because of Blitz vocals, and sometimes a bit tinny production (there where much better fat and full productions all over the place in the 80s) but with Ironbound and The Electric Age they truly prove they have much more good stuff to give. Actually those are the only two albums I really like with Overkill, songs are even better than their classic songs... In my opinion! Now this is a decision that must be done carefully; they could probably spend their time in the studio and create another cool album, or they could just inject some new spirit into their old classic songs, turn up the speed and volume a notch and just go for it. Bobby Blitz has a much cooler voice today than back in the early days, and I really like how tight and precise they are right now. That would make for a GOOD re-recording. I have trouble coming up with another band that could do it as well as Overkill has the potential to, but maybe you others have some ideas! Are there any other existing examples like The First Years Of Piracy?

Author:	Acrobat [ Sat Feb 15, 2014 7:01 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Overkill re-recordings would be horrible. Imagine the 1980s classics (with their classic sound) rendered with the shit-boring modern, Nuclear Blast production? No thanks. Overkill still have some energy as a band and Blitz is still a great vocalist but the drum sound they have nowadays is awful. That, and Bobby G's absent would be felt greatly. You could probably just get a modern live album from them and you'd be satisfied. I can't agree about The First Years of Piracy, either; they completely miss the menace of the originals. It is, however, an interesting release just because it's one of the earliest metal re-recordings (Suicidal Tendencies maybe did one a year or so later, I think).

Author:	Rocka_Rollas [ Sat Feb 15, 2014 12:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
I understand what you mean, and I do like old school productions a lot; but I'm not against modern productions as some others are. Just that Overkills ditos wasn't that good. There's just "something" about those albums that never clicks with me personally. Also, I must say again that Bobbys vocals now are way better than before. For me it only sounds like some whiny guy howling about, but nowdays he just sounds fucking badass.

Author:	Diamhea [ Sat Feb 15, 2014 5:54 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
The only early Overkill album that could benefit from higher production values is Feel the Fire, but then again most of that album's appeal is due to the anachronistic aesthetics and Blitz's crazy wailing - so it would probably nullify itself on principle.

Author:	Machine_Dead [ Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Hypocrisy - Catch 22 V2008 comes to mind, although I do like the original version, it was interesting to hear how they managed to give Catch 22 a little bit more of a sharp edge with that re-recording which makes it sound less alt metal influenced.

Encyclopaedia Metallum: The Metal Archives https://forum.metal-archives.com/

Re-recording albums and shit https://forum.metal-archives.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103711	Page 1 of 1

Author:	simonitro [ Sat Feb 15, 2014 6:41 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Re-recording albums aren't always favorable and usually criticized with 2 reasons... 1. The band is being lazy. 2. We already have heard those songs before... why do them again? It does come annoying and somewhat pointless... however, there are always good exceptions for example Twisted Sister's Still Hungry is actually damn good. Yes, the first 9 songs are remade again but the band added several small notches that made those old good songs to be great. On top of that, there are 7 more songs. There are some that are songs that were made but were never released in an album and some are brand new songs and they are well done. This makes it worth the listen. So, if a band wants to make a re-recording, it is best to put an effort into it and make it worth listening or you could stick to an old saying: if it ain't broken, DON'T FIX IT!!!

Author:	CF_Mono [ Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:50 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
And then there are legendary albums that get re-recorded, and are stripped of the very things that made them so legendary and fun to listen to..... Yes you, Gorgoroth...

Author:	ShaolinLambKiller [ Sun Feb 16, 2014 1:42 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
I hate re-recordings of albums. I don't buy them. I don't seek them out. Anyone thinking these are great ideas don't get it.

Author:	SleightOfVickonomy [ Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Re-recordings generally suck but I'd give Virgin Steele's "The Book Of Burning" a chance because the new versions sound incredibly powerful. You feel they're adding something but don't take away the freshness of the originals. Overkill re-recordings would be terrible. Personally I think Blitz always sounded great and I love "Feel The Fire" and "Under The Influence" mostly because of his vocals. I'm too much of a Running Wild fan to hate "The First Years of Piracy" and so I won't but the fact is those new versions lack the magic of the first three records from which they were plucked. The only band I'd stomach a re-recording from is probably My Dying Bride because when they remade "The Return Of The Beautiful", a song from their first album on "The Dreadful Hours" in 2001 it sounded really really great. In fact, most of their old material would benefit from their updated values.

Author:	Rocka_Rollas [ Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:35 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Hey hey hey I think almost nobody understood my point of this thread... Read it instead of just posting stuff hahaha I also really dislike re-recordings of ALBUMS, but recording SONGS of different early albums can work great Like Running Wilds First Years Of Piracy! I am NOT NOT NOT talking about re-recording full albums More a kidn of "Best of" (which is only good for new listeners to get) but inject new life into the songs. And should be when done in a top-of-the-game phase like Overkill is in right now. Way better now than they have ever been, but that's my opinion. I think they could outdo any of their old stuff if they did it again. And no, you shouldn't touch stuff that were already perfect. But my opinion on early Overkill stuff is that they lack a bit of energy and the vocals are irritating. They are much tigher and faster now, and Bobbys vocals are much better now than back then.

Author:	Acrobat [ Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:39 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Destruction's Thrash Anthems would be what you're looking for, then. A lot of people have gripes about the production on the early Destruction stuff, which is understandable, as the production jobs on those albums are fucking weird (I love 'em, myself). Basically, it's what you'd expect: they're beefed up with a modern production that doesn't always suit Mike's riffing still. The performances are energetic enough, though, so it's not a desaster.

Author:	Turner [ Sun Feb 16, 2014 12:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
i have to admit i don't like the thrash re-recordings i've heard. destruction, testament, sodom, etc... that modern thrash production style really gets my goat. it just sounds stale, makes all the bands sound identical to each other, and never leaves any breathing room. edguy re-recording their first album was a great idea, simply because the vocals are soooooo much better on the 2000 version. i do have a soft spot for the original's guitar tone, but it's overall just that bit rough and shitty. one that i've praised before and will again is manowar's battle hymns - somehow, joey managed to re-record the album and give it the same production job as ugly kid joe's america's least wanted. plus adams' voice really worked as he aged and they detuned. they've sadly gone way too far with that now, but

Author:	Alsandair [ Sun Feb 16, 2014 7:13 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
I see what you are saying and yes, better keep it to that since I believe there was a thread about re-recorded albums just recently. The thread title is a bit misleading perhaps. I actually agree that this is the best way to shine light on some forgotten/ill-recorded material. It's most worthwhile for bands who benefit from a shiny modern production but couldn't get it on some early material. Cynic could do this with a track from Focus or something. Vader is a decent example as well with XXV (though it is a stand alone release it wasn't a redo of any one complete work), a sampling of older material redone with their current production standards. Still not a necessary thing to do imo, but if new production benefits the material its hard to reject completely.

Author:	thrashinbatman [ Sun Feb 16, 2014 10:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Testament's First Strike Still Deadly both accomplished and failed at this. Some of the recordings are much better than the originals and beef them up considerably (Into the Pit, Disciples of the Watch), but some are slow and lose their heaviness (Alone in the Dark). I will never comprehend why bands decide to slow songs down when they re-record.

Author:	dreadmeat [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:12 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
I just tripped over one the other day [I bought it] Desecration - Gore And Perversion 2 Apparently it was so shocking and vile when it came out most copies were burned or destroyed [censorship] so they rerecorded and reissued it a few years later. http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Desecration/Gore_and_PerVersion_2/56953 http://www.discogs.com/Desecration-Gore-And-PerVersion-2/release/917682

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Kveldulfr [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:18 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
I prefer that bands would record something different based on a particular album than just trying to replicate what they already did. I think Evinta was a good idea for MDB; a bit overlong but the idea of reworking the songs into a totally different, yet not that opposite direction was cool. thrashinbatman wrote: I will never comprehend why bands decide to slow songs down when they re-record. Depending on the style, it can work really well. If Inverloch re-records a Disembolwelment song slower with the production of their Ep, I think it would be incredible.

Author:	BURlAL [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:47 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
thrashinbatman wrote: I will never comprehend why bands decide to slow songs down when they re-record. I love how Triptykon play some older CF songs live and make them slower. Wish they would re-record some of them like that if its possible, but I don't think Tom has any rights to that material these days.

Author:	AcidWorm [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:56 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Rocka_Rollas wrote: I would for example LOVE re-recordings with Overkill; I never really liked their early stuff because of Blitz vocals, and sometimes a bit tinny production (there where much better fat and full productions all over the place in the 80s) but with Ironbound and The Electric Age they truly prove they have much more good stuff to give. Actually those are the only two albums I really like with Overkill, songs are even better than their classic songs... In my opinion! This surprises me. Personally I find the production on The Years of Decay to be the perfect balance. This is where they beefed up the crunch a bit but still kept it gritty and natural sounding. Horrorscope went a little too far in my opinion. The early stuff has a heavier NWOBHM flavour and so the production suits what they were going for very well. WHile I enjoy their new material more than most of the thrash albums being released today from all of the 80s bands I cannot put them even in the same league as their early material, and that includes the songwriting. The new albums have a lot of tracks I skip over with a few rippers I will listen to like Ironbound, and Drop the Hammer Down. I also disagree on Blitz's vocals. I prefer his early voice as it has aged a little, although still fairly strong (can't say the same about poor Tom Araya). And as ANA said the production isn't perfect on the new stuff. It still sounds a bit funny, and it could be the drums (been a while since I have heard it) like he said. Anyways I never like the ideas of re-recordings as every one I have heard is a let down. Modern production is shit for thrash, and generally bands have aged and just are not as good as they were 20-30 years ago.

Author:	aaronmb666 [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 7:20 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Id like to see Deicide do that, at least rerecord a song for a special edition, etc. Something from Once upon the cross, the way it should have been, twice as fast.

Author:	Evil_Johnny_666 [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:00 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Turner wrote: i have to admit i don't like the thrash re-recordings i've heard. destruction, testament, sodom, etc... that modern thrash production style really gets my goat. it just sounds stale, makes all the bands sound identical to each other, and never leaves any breathing room. I pretty much hate it most of the time when bands re-records songs or albums, but I must say I'm kinda with Sodom. I don't know why people keep referring to The Final Sign of Evil as a true re-recording because more than half the songs were never actually recorded before. They did re-record the In the Sign of Evil tracks because it was first meant as a full length. I agree that it doesn't sound that good though, it has a weird production and a strange sloppiness to it (and I like sloppy stuff like the original songs). Otherwise I have to admit their re-recording of Outbreak of Evil from 1987 does sound pretty nice.

Author:	Rocka_Rollas [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
ANationalAcrobat wrote: Destruction's Thrash Anthems would be what you're looking for, then. A lot of people have gripes about the production on the early Destruction stuff, which is understandable, as the production jobs on those albums are fucking weird (I love 'em, myself). Basically, it's what you'd expect: they're beefed up with a modern production that doesn't always suit Mike's riffing still. The performances are energetic enough, though, so it's not a desaster. Unlike Overkills kinda "not so energetic" early albums, stuff like Infernal Overkill is fucking relentless. I can't imagine a modern production doing it any good. The drums are sloppy, but it fits the atmosphere perfectly. It sounds like what it says... Bestial invasion!!! I can't get into "sloppy" Overkill (which isn't even that sloppy compared to Infernal Overkill), which is why I think they would be a good candidate for a re-recording session of a bunch of songs that are quite good but not the best performance/sound. I am pretty sure that Overkill will not do it, and I'm not expecting it, in an interview or two with Bobby he says that they wanna live for today and not look back at was good then, and that is good. At least saying it when it's true, unlike other bands who just say they are awesome (like... I don't know, Paul DiAnno? Metallica for sure haha)

Author:	SoldierOfHell [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:27 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Just to know, what Overkill cd/song do you hear as bad performed/produced ? Because to my ears their production is a typical 80's prod, and I dont hear anything to complain about their performance neither

Author:	Rocka_Rollas [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:24 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
I don't know, there's not really nothing wrong with it or anything. It just doesn't grab me like other bands do. Modern Overkill grabs me unlike many other modern bands with similar production tho... Sometimes it's hard to explain

Author:	TadGhostal [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 11:17 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
BURlAL wrote: thrashinbatman wrote: I will never comprehend why bands decide to slow songs down when they re-record. I love how Triptykon play some older CF songs live and make them slower. Wish they would re-record some of them like that if its possible, but I don't think Tom has any rights to that material these days. Triptykon released some live versions of CF songs on the Shatter EP. Live versions are probably the closest you're going to see Triptykon get to re-recording old CF material. I don't think it's a matter of rights. Tom's probably more interested in using the studio time to record new material rather than re-work old stuff. The same goes for most of the bands mentioned in the thread.

Author:	Thumbman [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Re-recordings are almost always a shit idea. Fear re-recorded their classic album The Record. I refuse to listen to it. It's usually the band being lazy or running out of ideas. If you have a classic album, why the hell would you record it again? Do you actually think anyone's going to like it more? The only exception I can see is if the material in question is roughly recorded early work that wasn't really done justice.

Author:	Rocka_Rollas [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:49 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
dystopia4 wrote: Re-recordings are almost always a shit idea. Fear re-recorded their classic album The Record. I refuse to listen to it. It's usually the band being lazy or running out of ideas. If you have a classic album, why the hell would you record it again? Do you actually think anyone's going to like it more? The only exception I can see is if the material in question is roughly recorded early work that wasn't really done justice. You just like many others in this trhead didn't read or understand my post

Author:	TadGhostal [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
dystopia4 wrote: Re-recordings are almost always a shit idea. Fear re-recorded their classic album The Record. I refuse to listen to it. It's usually the band being lazy or running out of ideas. If you have a classic album, why the hell would you record it again? Do you actually think anyone's going to like it more? The only exception I can see is if the material in question is roughly recorded early work that wasn't really done justice. Most of the time, if I band re-records a whole album or releases an album of new recordings of old songs, the reason usually has to be with the old record label. I can't give you a reason for why Fear re-recorded their record (especially since the original is well produced) but I know that bands like Testament and Twisted Sister re-recorded old stuff because they wanted to remaster their old recordings and their old record labels would not do allow. Another reason to re-record stuff is to avoid royalties to players. Ozzy's first two albums were a famous case for that and for a long time there was a rumor that Axl Rose planned to re-record "Appetite for Destruction" with his new band so he wouldn't have to pay performance royalties to the old guys.

Author:	BloodSacrificeShaman [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:22 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
I respect what Suffocation has been doing with Breeding the Spawn. Re-recording it bit by bit because the band and many fans were unhappy with the original production. It's a classy way of addressing the problem, in my mind. I do like the original Breeding the Spawn, provided it's listened to with headphones and the volume turned right up, but the value of the re-recordings can't be denied.

Author:	Diamhea [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
It's a valiant effort in Suffocation's case, but it just won't be the same without Cerrito. Sorry.

Author:	Diamhea [ Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:03 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
I guess we will find out? Won't we?

Author:	ModusOperandi [ Fri Mar 21, 2014 1:29 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
For what it's worth, Accuser is re-recording Who Dominates Who? to celebrate 25 years since the original's release. So, I guess that's where we are now. Lesser bands commemorating arbitrary anniversaries of average to slightly above-average albums.

Author:	Smoking_Gnu [ Fri Mar 21, 2014 2:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
Lunar Aurora re-released their album Ars Moriendi with a newly-recorded guitar layer, if that counts. While the riffing is pretty solid (that album being the band's most aggressive compared to their usual atmospheric fare,) the muddy and keyboard-heavy production on the first version just gave it a really creepy, ethereal atmosphere that's a bit lost on the new version IMO.

Author:	gabber [ Sat Mar 22, 2014 8:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
I don't agree with rerecording. Its integrity should be kept, as is. Same goes for movies. Leave them alone, the original is what is 'meant to be'.

Author:	thrashinbatman [ Sat Mar 22, 2014 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Re-recording albums and shit
gabber wrote: I don't agree with rerecording. Its integrity should be kept, as is. Same goes for movies. Leave them alone, the original is what is 'meant to be'. I'm assuming by that you mean the result is what it's supposed to be even if not intended. Nothing wrong with that, but many times the result is not the musician's desired.