The artist in me thinks its bullshit, but the business man in me realizes its a necessity. No matter what people say, the music industry is still an industry. No matter how many times you hear "its about the music", its still a business. Doing things purely for the sake of art is fine and dandy, but it costs money. Money that most bands don't have.

sometimes there's some true extra goodies and i'm willing to shell out the cash for a reissue. i honestly dont really mind.

whoopity doo. if you dont want something that you think is "tampered" then just buy or stick with the original.

Id do it to get some of that $

I think it's wrong and only pushes back the release of the bands next album. But as wrong as it is, thats what comes with signing to a major label or not knowing the ins and outs of your contract. Most of the time, the re-releases are mediocre at best.

fuck that noize.

it is a chance for bands (and labels) to make a little more quid but int he case of Underoath's re-release of TOCS, I do agree with it. The album had previously unreleased tracks and remixed renditions with a dvd showcasing their personalities. This I like as a fan.

As far as other labels dong it to try and give their promotions department another chance to prove themselves, it's rather annoying. And it sucks because its all about the quid and seeing how much more can be squeezed out of the product. Oh well. What do others think?

well for me to spend extra money on a re-issue it has to come with something good. for example the underoath re-issue, new artwork, dvd and a few demos which i always like. for that re-issue it was worth it.

Originally Posted by shermanology

The artist in me thinks its bullshit, but the business man in me realizes its a necessity. No matter what people say, the music industry is still an industry. No matter how many times you hear "its about the music", its still a business. Doing things purely for the sake of art is fine and dandy, but it costs money. Money that most bands don't have.

that basically sums up my point of view on this.

Labels should respect the bands wishes. Full stop. However, sometimes its nicer because you get extra recordings, or demos, or DVD footage, which is a nice addition to the album. However if this is against the wishes of the band, I think the label should respect that.

they re-release them for other reasons also...
i.e: to get them in more stores

when mae released the last album they where not as big as they are right now so lots of stores did not pick up copies of the cd...now they can re-release it and give everyone who missed out or is just getting into the band a chance to pick a copy up.

with other bands its a joke...such as fob whose cd you can pick up at your local gas station...let alone every music store in the country.

It's straight up bullshit.

Originally Posted by shermanology

The artist in me thinks its bullshit, but the business man in me realizes its a necessity. No matter what people say, the music industry is still an industry. No matter how many times you hear "its about the music", its still a business. Doing things purely for the sake of art is fine and dandy, but it costs money. Money that most bands don't have.

couldn't have said it better myself.

but i really hate re-releases/issues...i think that the band or label should just put out a new release (i.e. an EP, or a DVD or something)

I think it has its positve points and negative.. like with the new mae.. there will be new songs,artwork and video... but with TBS and early november that was just stupid no incentive what so ever

Originally Posted by jamaisentendu

I think it's wrong and only pushes back the release of the bands next album. But as wrong as it is, thats what comes with signing to a major label or not knowing the ins and outs of your contract. Most of the time, the re-releases are mediocre at best.

I totally agree... I am however for it if it is like a "classic album" a long time ago. Like five or ten years from now would be great... but not a year later