Re-releases

[Aaron]

Anyone else besides me fed up as hell with Christian labels re-releasing cd's from artists that came out as recently as 2 years ago.  My belief is that if the labels had competent promoters, there would not be the need to re-release cds less than 5-7 years old.  Pardon me, but what kind of incompetent fucktards do we have working for "Christian" labels?  Do they not have enough financial resources for promoting? Do they not understand the concept? Have they not seen how easy it is to get bad artists promoted?  Look at the shit on MTV.  Anything can get promoted nowadays.  

 The majority of these labels are secularly owned.  Why can't they ask the higher ups to expand their budget to help with promotions and stop the nonsense of re-releasing fairly new cds?  You want to re-release albums from Daniel Amos, The Rez Band, larry Norman, Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Elvis, Chuck Berry..sure why not.. But don't go fuck with people and re-release stuff like Mat Kearney and Relient K less than 2 years after the initial release.

Egads....

[plumb_fan]

I understand the point behind it, but I disagree with it.  Unfortunately, someone along the way told these people it would be a easy way to make money in the short term.  Thus, we are stuck with it.

The only things worse are remix albums.

[Aaron]

I will refrain from blaring a tirade about re-mix albums on this night..

[eatahouse]

In Mat Kearney's case, it's a mainstream label that is truly pushing the re-release. Inpop, however, still does the CCM distribution, so what can they do?

I understand the tirade on Relient K, but in that case, you can also get the EP by itself.

[PaulDA]

There are people who like rereleased albums with added material.
They are the ones who will buy them.
If you don't like them don't buy them.
 

[Brenden]

There are people who like rereleased albums with added material.
They are the ones who will buy them.
If you don't like them don't buy them.

The thing is, it feels like they're just giving the loyal fans who bought the album when it came out the shaft. When Jars of Clay first mentioned their hymns project, it was stated as an EP that was gonna be tacked on to WWAI. I came right out in the thread and said I would not buy another copy of the album but I would download it or get it off ebay and they would make no money from my copy. Rerealeases are for the most part insulting to loyal fans. Though I applaud Relient K for making the EP available seperately. Haven't they released an EP between every album anyway?

[PaulDA]

There are people who like rereleased albums with added material.
They are the ones who will buy them.
If you don't like them don't buy them.

The thing is, it feels like they're just giving the loyal fans who bought the album when it came out the shaft. When Jars of Clay first mentioned their hymns project, it was stated as an EP that was gonna be tacked on to WWAI. I came right out in the thread and said I would not buy another copy of the album but I would download it or get it off ebay and they would make no money from my copy. Rerealeases are for the most part insulting to loyal fans. Though I applaud Relient K for making the EP available seperately. Haven't they released an EP between every album anyway?

If you are a 'loyal fan' you are going to look forward to rereleases and buy it.
That's what I call a loyal fan.
I bought the Black Eyed Peas 'Monkey Business' just for the James Brown song 'They Don't Want Music'.  
However, to me it doesn't matter.
It is my choice whether to buy a CD as soon as it comes out, knowing that a band may or may not put out another form of the CD a few months later.
No one is forcing these 'loyal fans' to buy the CDs in the first place.
 

[dgp11776]

Anyone else besides me fed up as hell with Christian labels re-releasing cd's from artists that came out as recently as 2 years ago.  My belief is that if the labels had competent promoters, there would not be the need to re-release cds less than 5-7 years old.  Pardon me, but what kind of incompetent fucktards do we have working for "Christian" labels?  Do they not have enough financial resources for promoting? Do they not understand the concept? Have they not seen how easy it is to get bad artists promoted?  Look at the shit on MTV.  Anything can get promoted nowadays.  

 The majority of these labels are secularly owned.  Why can't they ask the higher ups to expand their budget to help with promotions and stop the nonsense of re-releasing fairly new cds?  You want to re-release albums from Daniel Amos, The Rez Band, larry Norman, Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Elvis, Chuck Berry..sure why not.. But don't go fuck with people and re-release stuff like Mat Kearney and Relient K less than 2 years after the initial release.

Egads....

Short answer - I don't care.  There are many more important things in life than going on a curse-filled tirade about re-releasing albums.

[Brenden]

There are people who like rereleased albums with added material.
They are the ones who will buy them.
If you don't like them don't buy them.

The thing is, it feels like they're just giving the loyal fans who bought the album when it came out the shaft. When Jars of Clay first mentioned their hymns project, it was stated as an EP that was gonna be tacked on to WWAI. I came right out in the thread and said I would not buy another copy of the album but I would download it or get it off ebay and they would make no money from my copy. Rerealeases are for the most part insulting to loyal fans. Though I applaud Relient K for making the EP available seperately. Haven't they released an EP between every album anyway?

If you are a 'loyal fan' you are going to look forward to rereleases and buy it.
That's what I call a loyal fan.
I bought the Black Eyed Peas 'Monkey Business' just for the James Brown song 'They Don't Want Music'.  
However, to me it doesn't matter.
It is my choice whether to buy a CD as soon as it comes out, knowing that a band may or may not put out another form of the CD a few months later.
No one is forcing these 'loyal fans' to buy the CDs in the first place.

I'ma loyal fan, not a rich one. I can't afford to buy several copies of the same freakin' cd just because a label is greedy. I have more important things to spend money on. There are some things like Shaun Groves making a limited edition of his second cd to reward his fans who bought the album first, or Jars of Clay having a limited edition of WWAI for loyal fans. The band should reward those who rush to buy the album, not punish them. As long as labels and artists do this, I will download the extra songs and buy the regular album.

If a band wants to rerelease a cd I just bought, I'll download the extra songs and save myself to trouble, and same with exclusive tracks. The band (or more likely the label) wants to make special offers, I'll download them, I already bought the album, no way I'm gonna buy it again for an extra song.

But I agree, there are more important things to get upset about. Just find a friend who bought it and get the mp3s from them.

[murlough23]

If you are a 'loyal fan' you are going to look forward to rereleases and buy it.
That's what I call a loyal fan.

That's what I call an idiot.

I bought the Black Eyed Peas 'Monkey Business' just for the James Brown song 'They Don't Want Music'.

Sorry, but that's just poor stewardship of your money. Gee, I wish I were as rich as you, that I could afford to pay the price of an entire album just to get one song.

Look, if you want to throw your money away by paying another $15 or $20 just to get one more song you haven't heard, then you must have the I.Q. of a doorknob. And that's exactly the kind of stupidity the industry is hoping we'll all show. If you play into it, you're just enabling them to kep shafting us.

Having said that, I do own a few re-released versions of albums, mostly because I bought those albums later on to begin with. I have Sixpence's self-titled record with "There She Goes" tacked on at the end... not a song that I'd have re-purchased the album for if I already had it, but hey, there it is. I also have Creed's Human Clay with the radio version of "With Arms Wide Open" at the end, but I didn't even know it was there when I got it because I don't recall there being any official notice of a re-release - the label just started pressing copies with that extra track.

One cool thing that happened with the Sixpence re-release is that Squint agreed to give anyone who could show proof of purchase of the original album a free single of "There She Goes". That's what I think labels should do if they add something on to an album right after its initial release like that.

With some re-releases like Switchfoot, though, there's just no reason to do it. You can throw on some multimedia stuff and beef up the packaging, but it's not like there's any remastering or brilliant new material or anything that will prove to add extra value in the long run.

No one is forcing these 'loyal fans' to buy the CDs in the first place.

No, but if I paid $15 for a product, and then they go and improve the product right after I buy it (or make it appear to be improved, anyway) and are still charging people the same amount that I just paid, that may be legal, but I think you can see why it's more than a bit irritating. Labels don't do that stuff with the consumer in mind... they do it with $$$ in mind. They know loyal fans will snap stuff up the day it comes out, and want to hear every extra thing they can from the artist. So bait them with a small extra and ask them to buy something they already have in order to get it. It's ingenious.

As for remix albums... depends on who's doing the remixing and whether it's a fresh, creative take on the original material, or just an insanely repetitious version of 1/4 of the song with stock dance beats. I own David Crowder band's Sunsets & Sushi and Linkin Park's Reanimation, and I enjoy both a great deal.

[Aaron]

Anyone else besides me fed up as hell with Christian labels re-releasing cd's from artists that came out as recently as 2 years ago.  My belief is that if the labels had competent promoters, there would not be the need to re-release cds less than 5-7 years old.  Pardon me, but what kind of incompetent fucktards do we have working for "Christian" labels?  Do they not have enough financial resources for promoting? Do they not understand the concept? Have they not seen how easy it is to get bad artists promoted?  Look at the shit on MTV.  Anything can get promoted nowadays. 

 The majority of these labels are secularly owned.  Why can't they ask the higher ups to expand their budget to help with promotions and stop the nonsense of re-releasing fairly new cds?  You want to re-release albums from Daniel Amos, The Rez Band, larry Norman, Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Elvis, Chuck Berry..sure why not.. But don't go fuck with people and re-release stuff like Mat Kearney and Relient K less than 2 years after the initial release.

Egads....

Short answer - I don't care.  There are many more important things in life than going on a curse-filled tirade about re-releasing albums.

I understand your point and I do apologize for my language.  I was tired and just fed up with the lackadaiscal, "we are CCM's bitch" attitude that so many Christians are taking nowadays when it comes to music.  (I'm not talking about anyone here either.)  

[murlough23]

But I agree, there are more important things to get upset about. Just find a friend who bought it and get the mp3s from them.

Another version is, find a friend who you think would like it, buy it as their next birthday/Christmas gift, and keep the bonus CD.

Variant if the bonus material and original material are all on one CD: Buy it as a gift, but give your used copy as the gift. The friend won't know the difference.

That's all if downloading proves to be unfruitful, of course.

[dgp11776]

Another version is, find a friend who you think would like it, buy it as their next birthday/Christmas gift, and keep the bonus CD.

I got Deck the Halls, Bruise Your Hand by Relient K and Southern Tracks & Carry Me Home by Third Day using that tactic.  I suspect I'll use it again to get the Apathetic EP.

[ajyouthguy]

Another version is, find a friend who you think would like it, buy it as their next birthday/Christmas gift, and keep the bonus CD.

 

i did that with The Elephant Sessions Jars of Clay cd and also with a packaging of 40 Acres with Just Don't Want Coffee a few years ago by Caedmon's Call.

Variant if the bonus material and original material are all on one CD: Buy it as a gift, but give your used copy as the gift. The friend won't know the difference.

I've done that with my youth group prize box before...gotten the re-release or whatever and kept it and stuck my old one in the prize box.

[murlough23]

i did that with The Elephant Sessions Jars of Clay cd

That was the one I was thinking of, actually. I did that for a friend's birthday gift a few years back. Ironically, I later gave The White Elephant Sessions away in... are you ready for this? A White Elephant Gift Exchange.

NP: "Brightly Wound", Eisley

[Wildcatblue7]

The only re-release I've ever gotten that was a repeat buy for me was Project 86's remastering of Songs to Burn Your Bridges By.  The production quality is far superior, not to mention they added three super-cool new tunes.  (well, A Shadow on Me is only okay, but Breakdown in 3/4 is one of their best ever.)

Otherwise, I've gotten rereleases of CDs I didn't own beforehand.  Nightwish's Once was different in the US than in Europe, though I'm not sure that counts.

If you are a 'loyal fan' you are going to look forward to rereleases and buy it.
That's what I call a loyal fan.
I bought the Black Eyed Peas 'Monkey Business' just for the James Brown song 'They Don't Want Music'.
However, to me it doesn't matter.
It is my choice whether to buy a CD as soon as it comes out, knowing that a band may or may not put out another form of the CD a few months later.
No one is forcing these 'loyal fans' to buy the CDs in the first place.

No, that's what I call a sucker.  A rich sucker, at that.  How in the world do you afford everything related to James Brown?!

[bloop]

Ah, re-releases of still-recent albums.  It's what separates the early adopters from the bandwagon-jumpers.  I wish I could say I've always been among the former.

[NinjaRob17]

This is why I downloaded "Open Wounds" by Skillet. I didn't want to shell out another $15 for one new song.

[danny316]

One cool thing that happened with the Sixpence re-release is that Squint agreed to give anyone who could show proof of purchase of the original album a free single of "There She Goes". That's what I think labels should do if they add something on to an album right after its initial release like that.

As for remix albums... depends on who's doing the remixing and whether it's a fresh, creative take on the original material, or just an insanely repetitious version of 1/4 of the song with stock dance beats. I own David Crowder band's Sunsets & Sushi and Linkin Park's Reanimation, and I enjoy both a great deal.

The idea of giving away free "There She Goes" singles seems like a good one until you remember that the label ran itself into the ground around the same time. I bet that if they hadn't been recalling earlier printings of the album to release new ones, and if they hadn't been giving away singles - the bands wouldn't have been screwed, at least not as much as they were. I'd hate to know how much it cost to mess around with Sixpence's album - and I'd really hate to know how much it would have cost to release Divine Discontent or Call It What You Want instead.

I agree on remix album comment. I really don't get why some people have a negative knee-jerk reaction to them when some of them are actually pretty good. Heck, I'd go as far as to say that on some occasions, they're actually a band's best work (Superchic[k], cough cough).