Why Original Press? Why Reissue?

This topic may be moved but I was curious.

Collectors, what is your personal preference for a CD? An original issue or a reissue?

I see some people fight for original issues forsaking redily available better sounding reissues. Neither side is "right", I was just curious to see why some people like one over the other.

I prefer a reissue when available unless it's cheap.

I don't really give a hoot one way or the other. If a reissue has a bunch of extra tracks and other sweeteners I'll spring for a reissue, but I'm fine with an original press as well. I guess it depends on the album/artist.

Real collectors always go for originals. It is the same with any collecting. No one wants a reissue of spiderman #1, or a new can of beer, or a 2006 penny.

i prefer photocopies on cardboard and then laminated

"REAL" collectors?! WOW!
I like both. I'd prefer the original, but as FF said, remastered and bonus stuff, is hard to pass up. I actually, as I've said before, mostly buy digital from iTunes, so I don't get much of a choice. But then again I'm not a REAL collector!

Also, I tend not to bother with reissues of titles I already have in my collection (unless, as I stated earlier, the CD in question is sweetened with enough extra goodies to make it a must-have). I can't tell you how many times I've seen a "new" version of a CD I already have in a store and said to myself, "Dammit, (name of band) has ENOUGH of my damn money already!"

The exceptions have been Snapper Music's reissues of the W.A.S.P. catalog from a few years back -- even though I already had a lot of those albums on CD, I cleaned'em out to make room for the new ones -- and the Ramones catalog remasters that Rhino Archives released in 2000-2001. Those are two of my all time favorite bands and each disc had a lot of rare bonus stuff added, so I obviously had to have 'em

Don't care one way or another, i want the music and the display on my shelf

I buy reissues if they have extras. I've re-bought many band catalogues to have the upgraded versions. But I will never buy the stuff that has been tampered with, such as the Ozzy albums.

So I guess I'm not a real collector. I just happen to own close to 3000 metal CD's!

SAXON1500 wrote:

Real collectors always go for originals. It is the same with any collecting. No one wants a reissue of spiderman #1, or a new can of beer, or a 2006 penny.

well said

Sounds like I have offended a few of you. Oh well. I can go out an buy 3000 hotwheels that are brand new or re-issues, does that make me a collector?

Even before this thread began I referred to myself not as a collector, but rather a hoarder.

I would much rather have original.If that is impossible to find I will settle for a reissue.Guess I'm a Real Collector eh Unc?

spectrefate wrote:

Even before this thread began I referred to myself not as a collector, but rather a hoarder.

I refer to myself as a "Geek" personally. As if my constant B-Movie and Simpsons references all over this board haven't already made that perfectly obvious.

SAXON1500 wrote:

Sounds like I have offended a few of you. Oh well. I can go out an buy 3000 hotwheels that are brand new or re-issues, does that make me a collector?

Nah, I'm not offende. I just don't agree. I've owned the original release of most of my reissues. I just prefer to have a version of the album with the best sound and/or the most material. I still collect every album by all of these bands. I search, hunt and spend so much of my time collecting these items, it is no other way to describe my hobby. I'm a CD collector.

And if we're gonna get anal about it, then you should start buying 8-tracks, LP's and/or cassettes to really be a collector then....

I am a collector. I have many original pressings, but sometimes I prefer the remasters.

There really aren't any "original" CD pressings of most of the 70's bands I am into. Many of the early 80's pressings on CD suck, such as the originals of Aerosmith, Cheap Trick and KISS releases. In their case, I'd much rather have the reissue with the better sound quality and all the liner notes, etc. The originals had poor sound and no liner notes. (Of course, I also still have Kiss and Aerosmith on vinyl as well.)

However, a lot of the old thrash bands, I've held onto my originals except for those cases in which I couldn't find an original. I have several of the Century Media reissues of the Combat catalog and they are quite nice.

In some cases I have both the original and the remaster. I have all the original Tourniquet CDs, as well as the remasters. Same with Haven and Sacrament and several other bands.

In the case of Megadeth, I'm sticking with the originals. I don't want re-recorded and remixed music. Mastering is one thing, but re-recording and remixing the sound completely sucks! I hate when bands do that. Ozzy is another example. ZZ Top did the same thing. There isn't a ZZ Top CD that hasn't been tampered with. If you want the original mix and the original recordings, you have to get them on vinyl.

On the other hand, I do like when bands re-record their old songs and give them a fresh sound. Molly Hatchet, Saint, Anthrax, Whitecross, Twisted Sister, etc. have all done this successfully. However, they didn't try to pass off those re-recordings as "originals" with the same cover art.

Sooooo, I said all that to say, it just depends on the artist and the release.

I remember when Solid State re-released the first Living Sacrifice on CD. I was given a copy of it and I debated trading off the original or the remaster. The remaster had far superior liner notes and such, but in the end I kept the original. Guess that makes me a "collector".

ult

Another thing concerning CD reissues/originals.

I have the original CD pressings of all the ANGEL CDs, including "Helluva Band". If I can get hold of the remaster, I'd much rather have it because it wasn't "cut" like the original CD is. They actually deleted the intro to one of the songs on that CD. I know because I have the original vinyl. The remaster returns it to the original recording.

Kiss had a similar thing with "Creatures of the Night". The original CD issue was actually remixed and changed the order of the songs. As well, they gave it a different cover. The remastered version returns the songs to the proper order, mix and cover art.

The Scorpions are another example. I had the original CD release of "World Wide Live", but some songs were omitted that were on the original vinyl version. The remaster restores those tracks. I traded off the original and have the remaster. Same thing with "Tokyo Tapes", but in that case, I have kept both copies. I actually prefer the sound on the original. The same is true of Rush's first two live albums. Both are missing tracks on the original CD releases.

Aerosmith's "Done with Mirrors" is a good example of a CD that I prefer the original on. The original had everything printed in reverse on the cover so that it can be read properly in a mirror. This is true of the vinyl, cassette and CD. Even the tape, vinyl and CD itself was originally printed in reverse. None of the subsequent reissues have this.

Iron Maiden's Live After Death also was missing tracks from the original double vinyl. The remastered version have them all.

thrasher73 wrote:

I would much rather have original.If that is impossible to find I will settle for a reissue.Guess I'm a Real Collector eh Unc?

WHY YOU.....!!! It's all good sax, just messin' wit ya!

Interesting topic. I don't collect anymore, but I've always favored the originals. I have some reissues, but I'll only get those if it's a last option. Nowadays, I just don't see myself paying 3x or 4x the amount just to get the original, so I'll settle for a reissue.

Also, it seems sort of ridiculous, IMO, that a CD that came out, say, in 2004 would need to be reissued in 2008. I know that the bands/record companies will entice folks with a rare track, or unreleased something or another, but I don't think it warrants paying for a reissue. It just seems to be a "money scheme" to me.

Speaking of "money schemes," remember in the early 90's when you'd see those "cash in" comps like "The Best Of Dark Angel," etc? I'm not sure, but it may have been that those bands owed the record companies 1 last release or something. Still, a "best of" is a sorry way for the companies to benefit from their bands. Heck, I'd rather have a 45-minute interview CD where the band just talks about their history in a retrospective manner. I mean, if the bands are bound by contract to release one more CD, I'd rather have something like that instead of the record companies just offering some superficial "best of" compilation. Also, in the modern day, how many "best of" CDs does a band need? I've seen some groups that have like 3 or 4 "best of" discs on the market. What's with that??

Someone mentioned reissues that have been "tampered" with. I can't even stand the idea of those. Weren't the MEGADETH reissues manipulated with newer vocals added over top of the older songs that had been remastered? To me, that's absolutely silly. If you're going to do that then you may as well just re-record the whole album. I think WHITECROSS re-recorded their whole '87 debut a couple of years back. At least WHITECROSS were honest and upfront about it...they said it was a re-recording.

Also, I care very little for "live" bonus tracks because they're usually "studio enhanced" anyway. So reissues that only add "live" tracks are completely worthless, IMO. I do, however, like reissues that add studio tracks that were originally released on obscure compilation albums and such. For example, if SLAYER were to reissue "RIB" ('86) or "SOH" ('88), it'd be cool for them to add their cover of "In A Gadda-Da-Vida" from the '87 movie soundtrack of Less Than Zero.

I like if a band adds demo tracks that feature unreleased songs. I kind of like how ZOETROPE included the demo song "Death Of A High School Narc" on their reissue of Amnesty. Great song that had never seen the light of day outside of the original demo from the early 80's.

Better yet, I think that bands who do lots of B-sides, compilation songs, covers, etc., should just do what MEGADETH did in '95 when they released a whole CD full of that stuff in Hidden Treasures. That is the perfect idea, IMO. Yeah, I know MEGADETH has reissued some of their back catalog (to my unliking, see paragraph #4). But I like the idea of Hidden Treasures. There were covers ("No More Mr. Nice Guy," "Paranoid," "Problems"), killer B-sides ("Breakpoint," "Diadems") and great originals from movie/TV show soundtracks ("Go To Hell," "Angry Again," "99 Ways To Die"). That was brilliant and well worth the price of a full-length CD. Just combine all odd tracks on 1 complete CD.

But to answer the question...I like originals best, but I'll take reissues (even if some have useless extras) if it comes down to price.

i have everything on how you say? mighty vinyl! i crush your head hehehehehe

There's nobody home, Spec!

I guess the easiest way to quell the debate from my perspective, would just be to say - there are different degrees of collecting. I have some reissues, simply because I am too cheap to spend like crazy on some originals. I just got the Assasin re-issue from Sovy, because my copy is a boot. So, I see that as a step up. That sorta thing. But, personally, aside from Pink Floyd or Rush, I will take the original press 10 out of 10 times.

spectrefate wrote:

i have everything on how you say? mighty vinyl! i crush your head hehehehehe

I prefer originals of stuff because they are more rare and it feels cool to have something original. But a lot of times the originals of albums get pretty expensive so then usually I'll just wait till I find a cheaper one or if I want it bad enough I'll buy the reissue. Most of the things I'm buying now are vinyls and a lot of the time it's originals I get. The only reissued vinyls I have,have been made into picture disk which are pretty cool.

Price being equal (and it rarely is) I'd want original. QUALITY being equal (and it rarely is) I want the original.

If the reissue is cheaper and has same or better content - I'll get that.

I'm NOT a collector. I'm in it for the music. If I own it and it sucks (to me) I'm getting the most $$ I can get on the open market.

If I came across some ultra rare original press 'error' version of a band I love, say, Bride - Silence Is Madness - (don't know if such a thing exists...just "what if") and it was cheap and the owner/pawn shop didn't know what they had I'd buy it and sell it. I'd keep my M8 reissue and sell the big $$ item. I could then parlay that $$ into many many cds of music I want to listen to.

I no longer have many rare items as I've sold them. I had the Castle Iron Maiden double cds S/T through Somewhere In Time and when I saw I could get really nice money for them I sold them. I can replace the tunes cheap and for instance I sold Number Of the Beast for $40-50 dollars and just finally replaced it for $7.99 at Hastings. Same music (the bonus' did little for me).

I want a CD and all inserts in good or better condition for as little money I can get for legally.

Bonus tracks are usually either #1 - Covers #2 - Live #3 - Remixes #4 - cannibalized tracks from the bands prior catalogue. I've little interest in the vast majority of the reissued bonus material.

THIS IS NOT hard and true! A perfect example is this:

I'm in the long, painful process of upgrading my Christian Metal collection from cassette to CD. Deliverance - River Disturbance is on that list. I plan on getting the Retroactice reissue instead of what I've seen would be the cheaper original. IN THIS case the art, packaging and bonus material entise me. Rare, but in this case true.

I'm not a collector nor a completist. I keep only what I listen to.