Same, but not quite the same release?

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Do you end up buying same releases multiple times, because they are not... quite the same?
Do you end up consciously not buying something, because it is too much of the same?

Let me elaborate.

Fairly fanatical friend was concluding about SLEEP LP, that while he is definitely fanatical about the vinyl format, this particular LP is just useless. In middle of song you got fade out, and b-side fades in. Like the actual piece of art, is unsuitable for the format. It ain't quite the same as listen from CD, where recording comes as it was recorded.

CCCC Test Tube Fantasy. Original 7". Brilliant. New LP edition. Brilliant as well. Gut feeling is instantly, of course, I need the LP! When you really think of it, someone may come to other conclusion. If original releases was certain length (fairly long for ep) and always worked for what it is, what is the benefit of... more the same, if you can just play the 7" multiple times? Me personally, I'll go for LP anyways...

Merzbow putting out new version of Veneorology. It has slightly different tracks and mastering. It ain't the same album anymore, but... is it... different? Enough different, that you'd be really from now on, listening both versions?

Or lets say the ongoing blast of Merzbow alternative versions and out takes. Do I need alternative mix of album? It ain't the same. It can be really good, but... will I buy it? So far, have not bought many of them. I guess some out-takes of Antimonument! I remember already interview from Masami probably 20+ years ago, saying how often he recorded CD album, and discovered that actually the source material or "rehearsal" session for that album was better than the final finished album. This is what some other people have been saying too. And then of course, if there is even BETTER Merznoise out there, who could resist buying the alternate version?

Genocide Organ puts out Remember reissue with extra LP. It is not quite the same, and there is great extra tracks.. but is 3xLP box justified if you got it as 2xLP already? Needless to say, had to grab it.. hah.

etc..

IF there would be option to choose, would you favor album to be optimized for the format, or should it be as identical as possible?
Such as, you got LP version of album, that was 60 minutes of noise. You listen the LP, and it turns out... songs are cut down to 20 min each, as opposed to 30 min. Now it sounds louder and better, but... Is the LP ruined? Obsolete? Knowledge that there exists full length uncut piece, even if it really is "more of the same"? If knowing there is a difference, do you end up collecting multiple versions even if it kind of doesn't make sense?

[FreakAnimalFinland]

And question for labels or artists. How this affects what you do. How big urge is to revision stuff when doing reissue? Add something, make things look "better", boost the sound louder to match contemporary standards etc? How easy it is to just let it be what it was?

[Cementimental]

We could never decide whether we preferred the final mix of the Horse Vomit album or the early rough mix with weird phasing tape channels so we just put one on each side: https://horsevomit.bandcamp.com/

[Andrew McIntosh]

Do you end up buying same releases multiple times, because they are not... quite the same?

No.

Do you end up consciously not buying something, because it is too much of the same?

Oh yes.

IF there would be option to choose, would you favor album to be optimized for the format, or should it be as identical as possible?
Such as, you got LP version of album, that was 60 minutes of noise. You listen the LP, and it turns out... songs are cut down to 20 min each, as opposed to 30 min. Now it sounds louder and better, but... Is the LP ruined? Obsolete? Knowledge that there exists full length uncut piece, even if it really is "more of the same"? If knowing there is a difference, do you end up collecting multiple versions even if it kind of doesn't make sense?

Probably the only format you could fit a hypothetical sixty minute long piece, uninterrupted and as intended or close enough, would be either cd or download. And if that's not good enough for anyone, if they have to have it on vinyl, that's their problem and they're welcome to it, it's their money, etc.

[Theodore]

boost the sound louder to match contemporary standards

Offtopic but since i found the chance i ll complain. IMO the digital compression of audio to achive maximum volume for CD is the worst thing one could do, especialy if we talking about reissues, then it's a crime. Contemporary standards seem to ignore that our systems have volume knob. Let aside techical issues and how it sounds -not as good, imo- , i like the feeling of music invites you to play it louder. ALAP, yes. But with many CD i find myself turning the volume down instead. And no. Dubbing a loud tape with 'appropriate' volume master it's not the same as a loud CD.

Ontopic : If i have the original i wont buy the reissue no matter remastering or bonus material. If i dont have, then i like the reissue have bonus -if we talk about CD reissue. If a tape or vinyl is reissued in the same medium, then better be as is.-

[Aldous]

Probably the only format you could fit a hypothetical sixty minute long piece, uninterrupted and as intended or close enough, would be either cd or download. And if that's not good enough for anyone, if they have to have it on vinyl, that's their problem and they're welcome to it, it's their money, etc.

This "format fetish" is one of the most irritating issues to deal with. I work in a record store and it's quite commom to hear the "anti-CD statement", which I find absolutely ridiculous. Having to mutilate a long piece just to fill someone's "wet dream of being a vinyl collector" almost reaches a lack of ethics towards one's work. But, as Andrew McIntosh said: "it's their money".

As for me, I have some trouble with buying different versions of the same record just because there are minor differences. In most cases I simply don't buy it.
And I also avoid going into a collector's frenzy precisely to avoid getting too much of the same. The best example would be Muslimgauze, where it reaches the point of redundancy. Why buy copious ammounts of variations of "Mullah Said"?

[moozz]

I have no issues with having more than one version of certain albums/material. If an album has been slightly remastered I wouldn't be interested. If it is something like Venereology where Masami says the original was mastered so loud that all details were just buried in the brutal loudness then yes I am interested in the remastered version with slightly more conservative mastering.
I just recently bought Merzbow's Flare Blues LP that has alternative mixes of material from Flare Gun 12" and White Blues 7". It does not feel like I am just listening to slightly eq'd versions of the tracks so I don't mind having the "same" material a second time.
If an album has a 5min bonus track I won't feel the need for the record but if it has an impossible to get early EP as bonus or a 20min bonus track (I have bought many releases shorter than that) then yes I am definitely interested in a second copy. And if the original one has no sentimental value (I am not selling my From Enslavement To Obliteration LP) I have no problem getting rid of the original one and only keeping the version with more material on it.

[Eloy]

Do you end up buying same releases multiple times, because they are not... quite the same?

If a new version appears with good extras/higher quality than the previous one, I put on sale the old one.

Do you end up consciously not buying something, because it is too much of the same?

With some artists/bands (or even styles), I prefer to buy only the material that I like and that represents the artist in the best way, and not fall into completism.
I don't need the entire Motörhead discography, three or four albums are more than enough.

Also...
Vinyl: Hardcore/Punk, Thrash Metal, 70s Hard Rock and faster/agitated music.
CD: Ambient, field recordings, Funeral Doom Metal and other "contemplative" styles with long compositions that exceed the capacity of a vinyl side. The CD prevents from stopping the flow of long pieces.

[FreakAnimalFinland]

Was here asking people about do they buy or reject items that are... the same but not quite the same. One example being the flood of Merzbow stuff, that is out-takes, alternative mixes, source tapes. Stuff you maybe know and have.. but a still different. Have not been actively hunting this labels stuff, as I am not too fond of packaging nor design, but when friend said he doesn't need this 1987 "material action..." era Merz, I had to say I'll take it. CD called "Material H2" that has 3 songs, Material H2 mix 1, mix2, mix 3.

What this thing is, is stuff Masami sent for collab with H.N.A.S. Now first time released as is. Not bad at all. Less noisy than "Material Action for 2 microphones", closer to "Ecobondage" and "Storage" done roughly same period.

No harsh noise here, just physical, kind of percussive works. Instead of drums, Masami plays objects and it sounds nothing like I would associate as percussion. Just manually making rich noisy sound "collage", that is no collage - but played...
How different this is from stuff on collab... no idea. I always liked all albums mentioned in this text, so these "source sounds" put out as album now, I'm satisfied with the purchase. If I originally would have thought this is "merely" source material that was not considered finished back in 1987, I would have maybe felt different. Now that I first bought it, then listened it, and then did the research on material (there is no liner notes or info in shitty covers this cd has), I like it.

[ConcreteMascara]

I guess like all things it's a case by case basis. For example, I bought the Venereology reissue because my CD is beat to shit and I figured it'd be nice to have the album on vinyl. Then I find out when I receive it it's remixed and with different tracks. That's lovely I suppose but I just wanted a new working copy of an album I already love. I've given this new version several listens but find it not stacking up to the original. But then what could because the original is probably the first noise CD I ever bought. If there was a pure reissue just on vinyl and then this new modern version I'd have gone for the pure reissue. And yes, I do know there's reasons why "I Lead You Towards Glorious Times" isn't on this edition, but that's fucking weak.

I don't mind re-issues that change up the track-listing to fit formats beyond the intended original, so long as it's done with care. Shit, I had to do that for my reissue of Screloma's Dirt to avoid a bunch of dead tape on one side. I do mind when full length tracks are edited down for LPs or tapes. Why reissue albums on formats that don't benefit the original work. I'll take a CD with 30 minute tracks over an LP with edited versions any day of the week.

Techno artist Regis has a habit of re-issuing material with revised track listings and it's a real mixed bag, made worse by some manufacturing/mastering errors that occasional ruin songs. I was originally more willing to buy these reissues to check out the new material but after the issues on the Delivered Into The Hands Of Indifference reissue I'm pretty over it. Similar to Venereology the recent reissue of Regis's first album, Gymnastics features alternate versions of the original songs, but no mention of this in the promo material, far as I can tell. I almost picked it up until I heard the samples and thought "you know what, I don't need a third version of this album when the original editions are already perfect."

I'd say the best way to get me to buy something again is adding to an original issue with "complete" or extended versions, or bonus material from the same era on an additional CD or 7" or something like that. Keep the original intact though. Stop fucking up classics.

[Theodore]

Was here asking people about do they buy or reject items that are... the same but not quite the same.

But how many are these cases ? Quite rare in my knowledge. Could be specifically rephrased to 'do you buy or reject Merzbow or Muslimgauze archival releases ?' . Then we may also include live albums of bands / song-oriented projects. Same / known tracks but not quite the same. Always depends on the interest one has about the project, i guess. Also on the amount of these releases. I am sure there is gold in this Merzbow archive. But how to know, how to find which is ? Result is me / someone would probably reject them all and wont bother. On the other hand i am interested in Macronympha different mixes Stella released. My point is that it needs careful selection, and the massive amount of archival releases is a sign of no curation.

Live albums : Compared to rock/punk/metal bands, the live performances of acts that we interested in, they were / are not so often. Neither their live releases so many. Well, dont know. How many live albums -of the same era / material- are enough ?

At the end i cant help but think that remixing classic albums and reissue them is a marketing trick so people who have the original consider to buy it too. I dont approove. Dont bite it.

[Bloated Slutbag]

I'd say it would depend on the artist, my familiarity with their work, and my current distance from the original material. Merz and NWW are prime examples of artists who's earlier material has indelibly singed lines deep into the central cortex. So I might very well be interested in hearing other editions, perhaps as a measure to recapture diminishing proximities. To a point.

Merz and NWW are also prime examples of artists who (would) constantly rework their material such that it all kind of flows together into one long continuum. If there is a moment on that continuum that particularly resonates it might be hard to resist the opportunity for a deeper appreciation of that moment.

For the very prolific and long-running projects there might be quite the range from which to pick and choose from and so you can get mighty picky and choosy and that too is part of the fun. I appreciate Theodore's point on the benefits of curation but for some artists I feel I don't really need that. Reading, sampling, trying. The exploration, the rabbit holes. Win some lose some. Maybe come back to some. All part of the fun.

Then there are the non-prolific faves, like MO*TE, for whom An Idle Complaint Remixes & Live might equate with instant wood. A whole 'nother thing there.

[burdizzo1]

I'd say it would depend on the artist, my familiarity with their work, and my current distance from the original material. Merz and NWW are prime examples of artists who's earlier material has indelibly singed lines deep into the central cortex. So I might very well be interested in hearing other editions, perhaps as a measure to recapture diminishing proximities. To a point.

It nearly always disappoints, however. Just as you were mentioning NWW - ages ago I bought a copy of the Crumb Duck CD just for the remix of 'A New Dress', even though I had the other material. It was a big let-down, and the original is by far superior.

The first time is always the best, eh?!

[Baglady]

And question for labels or artists. How this affects what you do. How big urge is to revision stuff when doing reissue? Add something, make things look "better", boost the sound louder to match contemporary standards etc? How easy it is to just let it be what it was?

For the reissues on Usagi we haven't done much really. Tried to keep the visual expression close to the originals, and sonically just some very careful adjustmets. Ultimate Vibrator for example was "remastered" by someone who knows noise, and who made sure not too turn up the volume for volumes sake. As for bonus tracks, we had some discussions, and ended up including a few. They were from the UV sessions according to Stella, and we all liked them. Adding them meant that the original side balance (side a for disc 1 and side b for disc 2) wouldn't be possible, which I wasn't 100% happy with, but in the end I'm glad we included them. CCCC's Gnosis... Hasegawa remastered it himself, and when compared to the old tape it just sounded a tiny bit more crisp. The Capers CD was recorded to be a CD to begin with, but it just happened to come out as a (shorter) tape years earlier. So that was an easy job. Just a master tape ripped to the computer, some small eq and volume adjustments and then sent to press.

Not noise, but speaking of bonus tracks. A good example of how NOT to do it is the vinyl version of the first Hellwitch album, Syzigical Miscreancy, that FOAD put out. They put tracks from the Nosferatu demo (which had a completely different sound quality and were also older and slightly different in style) at the end of each of the four sides, completely maiming the original. I emailed the label about it and got an angry reply saying "It was the only way we could include the Nosferatu demo, stupid!". Well, did you really have to? Was it worth it? Why not reissue the demo on its own later?

[tisbor]

I found out i have a fetish for tapes reissued on cds but otherwise I have a way worse problem with books in multiple copies/editions.
If it's my own reissue I try to add some shit (taeter parasite for example)