Re-recordings

Night Prowler

Night Prowler

Customer Deathcycle Manager
Staff member
What are your opinions about re-recording older songs/albums?

My opinion varies from band to band. Manowar re-recorded Battle Hymns last year, and it sounds good but unnecessary. Amorphis re-recorded songs from their first 3 albums on Magic & Mayhem compilation, and I think they did a great job. Iced Earth (badly) re-recorded Something Wicked Trilogy on Overture Of The Wicked and songs from first 3 albums on Days Of Purgatory, both totally unnecessary. Gamma Ray re-recorded songs from their first 5 (or 6 :huh:) albums on Blast From The Past, and all those versions are better than original ones. Helloween released that awful Unarmed crap.

I think that there are 2 reasons why should a band re-record its songs:
-If the current lineup is better than the older one. For example, Gamma Ray's current lineup is much better than the ones before it.
-If the original songs have bad production. Amorphis' early albums sounded good, but the versions on Magic & Mayhem are much better.

Would you like to see Iron Maiden re-record some of their songs/albums? If you don't, why?
Whoops, forgot to post my opinion :) I think that Maiden shouldn't try to re-record anything from Bruce era or Paul era. The only songs I would like to see them re-record are the ones from The X Factor and Virtual XI, and only the ones that are over-repetitive. I think that The Angel & The Gambler would be a great 4 minute song with Bruce on vocals.
 
NightProwler666 said:
What are your opinions about re-recording older songs/albums?
Click to expand...

:down:

Needless re-hashing of the past, it's what bands who have lost their creativity do to cash in. If a band has reached the point where they feel the need to do that, they should quit.
 
Perun said:
:down:

Needless re-hashing of the past, it's what bands who have lost their creativity do to cash in. If a band has reached the point where they feel the need to do that, they should quit.
Click to expand...

I am agree with you :)
 
Actually I like the idea to do this as some kind of bonus disc of the 33rd best of album (or final album) before they call it quits, or something.

But only songs from 1980-1998, so no songs from this line-up. I am curious how they'd handle some oldies.
I'd see these re-recordings as different things, not as replacements, just a bonus.

I did a topic about this some years ago, and Perun and Invader were the only ones who reacted. One song of every album from 1980-1998. That's eleven tracks.

http://forum.maidenfans.com/index.php?topic=15769.0
 
Not really. It never appealed to me much. The tracks tend to sound relatively similar and usually don't differ from the live versions.
 
True, but then why would they bother re recording them? If they were to re-record, they would probably classics.
 
Ok I was trying to be realistic. But if something like Flash Of The Blade was to be rerecorded in the studio, that would be pretty cool.
 
I prefer the songs to stand as they are.  They represent a moment in time and once that time has past it seems pretty pointless to re-record. Re-mastering or cleaning up the mixes are a different story.

Kiss recently re-recorded a bunch of songs and packaged them with their last album (and sold it in Japan), the purpose behind those seemed to be to own a set of the recordings and avoid paying whoever owns them for things like TV commercials, etc .. but though every trick in the book, they tried to make them sound like they did in the 70s, but they ended up being soul-less.

I understand bands doing this for a buisiness standpoint, but from a musical standpoint I generally do not care for it.
 
I enjoyed the 80's re recordings like Lick It Up and Forever but besides that it was ok.
 
If they chose to re-record the odd track for a b-side, fair enough, but not a whole album. Personally, I don't care if they do or don't - I would prefer a decent cover than a re-record of an old Maiden track.

And leave "Angel and the Gambler" be - it's fine as it is.
 
I've always wanted to hear what some of the Piece of Mind album sounded like re-recorded. Compared to NotB and Powerslave, the albums either side of it, the band doesn't sound quite as heavy and the guitars sound weak and thin.

I'm not sure I'd actually genuinely want to see them re-do the whole album though, because that would point to the lack of creativity others have referred to in this topic already.
 
bearfan said:
I prefer the songs to stand as they are.  They represent a moment in time and once that time has past it seems pretty pointless to re-record. Re-mastering or cleaning up the mixes are a different story.

I understand bands doing this for a buisiness standpoint, but from a musical standpoint I generally do not care for it.
Click to expand...
My feelings exactly.

..And as for The Angel And The Gambler, it doesn't need to be re-recorded, just edited down.
 
mtmccox said:
Prowler '88 or Charlotte The Harlot '88 are interesting, but worse than original for me..
Click to expand...
They're interesting. But I enjoy the other B-Sides more. Gives you something new.
 
I would be more okay with re-records if they were B-sides. But the problem is it seems they are not doing B-sides any more, which to me was my biggest disappointment with TFF (no physical singles  and no B-sides).
 
I wouldn't want them to rerecord the first two albums. I think if they were gonna rerecord anything it would be the first album since Steve hates the production of it! IM and Killers has a raw and gritty sound to it. I love that about them!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top