|
maniac1075 A message board for my website & all the other crap that goes on. |
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
thunderhayes I dont care about you, just about me
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 447 Location: Smyrna, GA, USA
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:01 am Post subject: Are remasters really neccesary? |
|
|
This is what I've often been wondering, sure, it helps get something out to a new audience, but a lot of times remasters aren't even done, but rather something is just re-issued with a louder sounding media, and labeled as a "remaster".
I'd like to get some of yalls opinions on this. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Maniac1075 Pro Wanka
Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 1558 Location: Hellbourne
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
thunderhayes I dont care about you, just about me
Joined: 25 Jul 2006 Posts: 447 Location: Smyrna, GA, USA
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 10:36 am Post subject: Re: Are remasters really neccesary? |
|
|
Maniac1075 wrote: | well I thought some of the re masters sounded better. But I like it more when re-masters come with fucking bonus tracks, unlike AC/DC's which just had stupid fucking links to a site that has some bonus shit.... especially when dealing with a band who no one seems to have informed them that a CD will hold 80mins of material and not just what an LP's limit used to be.
The news about AC/DC having enough material to do a double album.... probably just means they have enough material to do a full CD this time! Hence the just over 40 minutes from the last album... 6 fucking years ago. |
Well many ariststs still don't use the full length of an album, but rather just use 40 - 70 minutes of length.
And vinyl still holds the same amount it always has, just around 45 - 50 minutes. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|