Nitro Music

/‘Digitally Remastered’/,/ ‘+ Bonus Material/’, /‘Special Edition/’. I feel fortunate to say that I don’t own too many records with those texts or similar, and have never been tempted to. If I ever do then it won’t be with straight glee, not if I already own a decent modern digital copy.

Digital remasters for the most part I don’t disagree with, to some extent you can hear some small difference in recordings from the early 80/’s and backwards, but when you hear about bands like Nirvana getting digitally remastered for their recent compilation, it might as well be a tempting lie. Most recordings since the mid 80’s are as clear as your mother’s favourite dinner plates. I really don’t think current and future artists will need this treatment, unless perhaps there is something substantially audible about the difference. I defy anyone to tell too much difference between The Doors original and remasters let alone 1991 Nirvana and 2003 Nirvana.

Bonus material reissues really get my goat. Of course record companies want us to part with our cash again and entice a new audience, but when you/’re a fan of an artist as long as you’re able to remember the thought of some just-turned-spotty-teen having an enhanced version of an LP you regard as your holy grail can irritate. Especially if said albums are pricier and the bonus CD (which often fills most of the disc) could be available separately. Why can’t we just be able to mail labels our albums (with hope they return) as proof of ownership and get the bonus disc for free as a thank you for supporting this album beforehand? I mean, bonus material issues only get the crowning because of the first release buyers anyway. Artists and labels may entertain us but I want a bit of thanks now and then for keeping their careers alive.

Worse still is having bonus material as secret /‘hidden/’ tracks which require some sore thumb work to access them. Jeez, if you want us to hear this stuff don/’t hide it!

The worst offenders are special editions as they don/’t actually need to be remastered or have any bonus. Some do, but it seems the general criterion is modified artwork (that somehow seems to infringe on the original a tad) and maybe some schoolboy/’s essay. Not only that but they make us seem old; an album that defined a time in your life looks like a bastardised trophy.

If I welcome any traditional silliness then I must say I’m relaxed about bands dishing out infinite greatest hits, singles and compilations sets. Yes, they may be remastered, have bonuses and may tie in with events but these were solely designed for those new to an artist without offending the old fans, and even those may welcomely contain refreshed or newly found jewels for the oldie; even just presentation and an arrangement in a specific order.

I guess I don’t mind contamination when it’s quarantined into a totally fresh product but I do mind very much so when it is on a respected one when there isn’t too much value added other than cheapening it to create more cash.

Oh, and another thing! Mandatory enhanced portions on CD singles is a birth right, otherwise long live the second legit coming of Napster!

Whether charted or not it’s clearly wrong to pay £2 or so for audio with an average length of 3 or 4 minutes, even though there are b-sides (most usually lazy early demos or crappy remixes that don’t deserve my attention). To put on - especially in this very computer central day and age - a video, on a disc which is hardly filled, is no great extra effort. Having two formats of singles is not on for this, as *always* one of the formats has worthless extra content - usually the one with the video. It can’t be too pricey if AOL can afford to dish out their discs in DVD cases for free time and time again. And as for DVD singles, keep them as an idea no matter how rare they are anyway, until prices are realistic.