Agreed. So in theory "re-mastered" is the technicality that makes it a "legit" bastardization? [Show/Hide Quoted Message](Quoting Message by guidogodoy from Thursday, February 19, 2009 7:48:10 PM)
guidogodoy wrote:
Better said, the COULD only re-release if it were in their contract to do so.
My comments were on the original band-endorsed compilations, NOT the remasters. I really have little doubt that, as Phantom said, the originally endorsed albums were also remastered and fully endorsed by the band themselves as such a process would involve re-mixing and digitizing. It would also not be any stretch of the imagination that lesser-labels would hook onto the latest trend in re-issuing and re-mastering compilation albums based on the offical releases.
Don't know who else heard it, but Eddie Trunk went on and on in a recent show about this very common trend nowadays. Needless to say, the majority of his comments were negative as he felt (as do I) that it is all label / $ oriented.
Bev wrote:
I think the major labels would only release something like that if it were in the contract to begin with. my humble opinion
devils_child wrote:
And so Metal Works didn't make it... So i am to understand it was the labels idea, not the bands to re-release the studio albums.
Phantom A6 wrote:
The original "plan" for the remasters series was
to get in the frist 10 studio albums from CBS/Sony
and the both live albums of the band.
It was the idea of CBS/Sony to get
"Living after midnight"
and
"Metal works '73 - '93"
into this series.
