History Reissued and Remastered

A couple of weeks ago, the Rolling Stones' eponymous album Exile On Main Street was re-released amid much fanfare and hype. The album is remastered by Don Was and includes up to 10 additional, never-before-released tracks and a vinyl version, depending on the "specialness" of the edition you buy.

Previously, the big reissue hype was centered on the recent Beatles box set. All of their albums received the remastering treatment, and in addition to the box set, each album is available separately in the new remastered condition. Included with the late period albums is a short documentary that can be viewed using a computer. This is not the first Beatles box set, their catalogue has been remastered and reissued before, under the auspices of being "the definitive remaster." I have the first four albums from this series and must confess they do sound pretty good. I couldn't say whether they sound better than the current reissues, I haven't heard any of the new early album remasters. And let's not forget McCartney's ultimate remix and remaster, Let It Be...Naked,  the reissue scrubbed of Phil Spector's strings and choirs and, in Paul's words, closer to the original vision. It's how the album was intended to begin with, or rather, the way Paul intended it to be heard.

As an aside here, Beatles history geeks will recall Paul's anger over the decision to use Spector on Let It Be. This was during the breakup period of the Beatles and Paul was somewhat estranged from the rest of the group. John, George, and Ringo unilaterally decided to call in Spector without Paul's knowledge or permission. Spector then added strings and choirs to three songs including "The Long and Winding Road,"  a McCartney composition. Paul was not thrilled to put it mildly and after thirty years, rectified the situation by returning to the studio and remixing Let It Be stripping off any semblance of Spector.

Before the Beatles there was the Band. Their box set released in 2005 was heralded as the definitive collection too and like the Stones' Exile, contains previously unreleased tracks, plus a big fancy booklet with pictures.

How historically valuable are these reissues? Considering the albums already exist, it's not like an unknown Rembrandt being discovered. Certainly the B sides and previously unreleased tracks are historically valuable. Many times these uncover the compositional process, as they can be demo versions or first attempts of a song. The Beatles' Anthology, while not being a remaster reissue, contains several alternate takes of their hits. In the case of Exile, Jagger added new melodies and lyrics to some existing bed tracks, sort of finishing the songs forty years after the fact, throwing the compositional timeline into disarray.

The music is not changed when albums are remastered. Generally it's the overall sound of the album that is tweaked.  Exile On Main Street  is an exception, but the "spirit" of the album was retained with the new lyrics and melodies that Jagger added. So what it comes down to is a fix of the technology. It's changing analogue to digital. It's repainting over old colours. The sounds are made current for today's audio reproduction devices. The big audiophile stereo systems of the past have been replaced by digital home theatre audio with Dolby this and THX that and a sub-woofer and, of course, the teensy little earbuds, but I digress.

Imperfections in the analogue recordings show up to a greater degree once the sounds are digitized, so in essence, an album's sound is cleaned up when it is remastered. There is more definition between instruments, although one could argue that we don't hear that way in the real world. Performance sound is not as clinical as a digital recording. In a live setting, the instruments blend to give a complete audio experience and even if the album was originally recorded live in the studio (the band plays like it's on stage rather than recording each instrument individually), if the digital reissue has been remixed, it is not the same recording as the original vinyl mix. 

Remasters, remixes, and reissues are financially attractive for the record companies and the artists. They have already made money once off the recordings and the reissue gives them the opportunity to make money off the same recordings again. If you throw greatest hits albums into the mix, the labels can profit several times off the same set of songs. Over and over.

I'm geeky enough that remasters are interesting to me. I have audiophile vinyl records that, at the time, were touted as being the definitive way the records should be heard. Definitive as far as the current technology goes that is. The reissues today are no different. It's a modernizing of the sound taking advantage of the fact that people don't like to listen to "old sounding" records. If we did, 78s would be the rage too. But, generally the Great Unwashed could not tell the difference between a good vinyl record and a remastered digital one. The digital one would sound louder, that's all. And most people (geeks aside) are content with whatever version of an album they have. Are the reissues valuable? In a manner of speaking, yes. Vinyl will last longer, but the reissues help bring the music to a new audience and they can be useful for archival purposes.

So, for the music geeks out there, reissues, remasters, etc. satisfy the musical Jones. And if it's your favourite band, even better.