...the deluxe re-issues of the 80s REM albums started way before they split up. The remaster of "Murmur" actually makes quite a significant difference to the sound of the album. I wouldn't say better, just different
that ignores the fact that a very small proportion of reviews are of reissues etc, I suppose the fact people are keen to write about old records probably tends to come down to a) the fact they probably already own them and have more advanced thoughts on the subject than an album they've never heard of, b) you often get quite a nice physical product out of it, which is pretty handy when you're not being paid for writing, c) I think the ailing nature of the record industry is such that there are a greater number of posher reissues of things than there were a decade ago. I actually do filter stuff a little bit, like when those Beatles albums were reissued a few years back I just could't be bothered, I couldn't imagine anybody would have anything meaningful to say, but in general I offer out most remasters we get sent info on.
music just isn't the same it was in 2003
*sigh*
Sean's having a 'quarter life crisis' (ugh)
and wishes he was 18 again?
Pfft
You're only saying that because you refuse to get Muse.
sean is going to live til 120?
he really did sell his soul to the devil huh. i thought people just meant bskyb.
in the future we're all going to live to 200 and grow extra limbs
gills*
you know that Andrzej Lukowski is our reviews editor right?
I stay out of it.
The Ayatollah Khomeini never held formal office
but everybody knew who was boss there.
Are reissues killing music?
came here to post this
However...
They didn't review the Idelwild "100 Broken Windows" reissue or the Primal Scream Screamadelica one. Which i was disappointed about
don't think we were sent either
and as a big Idlewild fan, I HAD NO IDEA THEY RE-RELEASED THAT!!!
get on it
Bonus cd is great
Re-issues are killing music?
Digging up the past and burying the future?
2/10 reviews on the front page are reissues
I reckon we'll review at least 30 this year
Not sure what percent of 800 reviews that is.
3.75%
Happy to answer all math related questions.
*maths
you're welcome
It doesn't.
But to be fair I'm going through an 'I hate new music' phase, so I wouldn't mind if it did.
they are not re-issues
it just that all new music sounds like old music.
So the reviewers can practise on records with the benefit of hindsight
rather than having to form original opinions.
REM broke up...
...which means all their best shit from the 80's is getting the super-sexy deluxe treatment. Murmer and Fables of The Reconstruction anyone?
To be fair...
...the deluxe re-issues of the 80s REM albums started way before they split up. The remaster of "Murmur" actually makes quite a significant difference to the sound of the album. I wouldn't say better, just different
To give this question a semi serious answer
that ignores the fact that a very small proportion of reviews are of reissues etc, I suppose the fact people are keen to write about old records probably tends to come down to a) the fact they probably already own them and have more advanced thoughts on the subject than an album they've never heard of, b) you often get quite a nice physical product out of it, which is pretty handy when you're not being paid for writing, c) I think the ailing nature of the record industry is such that there are a greater number of posher reissues of things than there were a decade ago. I actually do filter stuff a little bit, like when those Beatles albums were reissued a few years back I just could't be bothered, I couldn't imagine anybody would have anything meaningful to say, but in general I offer out most remasters we get sent info on.