Incognito
Member
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2024
- Messages
- 44
Why does an album that won a Grammy in 2016 need to be remixed and remastered? The original mixing and mastering can't have been that bad2016 Grammy for Best Contemporary Instrumental Album - Remixed, Remastered and re-released 2024
![]()
View attachment 16143
And why do that information need to be part of the title?Why does an album that won a Grammy in 2016 need to be remixed and remastered? The original mixing and mastering can't have been that bad.
Good question! I don't think the original was "bad." I mean it did win a Grammy. "This re-release comes upon the reclamation by our label, GroundUP Music, of the original masters and is a celebration of independent music!" - www.snarkypuppy.com So it appears that the re-release had both commercial and artistic motivations. The original recording was released on Impulse. The record company would have owned the rights and controlled the way it was mixed and mastered. As record contracts go the label was responsible for promoting the record and got a cut of the revenue. Can't fault them for the promotion...the album did win a Grammy. When the band's label, GroundUp Music, obtained the rights from Impulse it gave the band the opportunity to tweak the original recording and reissue it. I must say it is an *****in' phenomenal recording and performance and the remastering/remixing certainly does it justice. Now the band has an opportunity to promote the album through their own label and not have to share revenue with Impulse.Why does an album that won a Grammy in 2016 need to be remixed and remastered? The original mixing and mastering can't have been that bad.
I would say to differentiate it from the original. The recording and performance is the same as the original on Impulse, but the re-release is a different album on a different label that has been remixed and remastered.And why do that information need to be part of the title?
A lot of album titles are "polluted" with this. If remastered info is needed, it should be in another meta data parameter.
If you see on Spotify then they often only have the remastered (or archive) versions and it is in the titles all over.Good question! I don't think the original was "bad." I mean it did win a Grammy. "This re-release comes upon the reclamation by our label, GroundUP Music, of the original masters and is a celebration of independent music!" - www.snarkypuppy.com So it appears that the re-release had both commercial and artistic motivations. The original recording was released on Impulse. The record company would have owned the rights and controlled the way it was mixed and mastered. As record contracts go the label was responsible for promoting the record and got a cut of the revenue. Can't fault them for the promotion...the album did win a Grammy. When the band's label, GroundUp Music, obtained the rights from Impulse it gave the band the opportunity to tweak the original recording and reissue it. I must say it is an *****in' phenomenal recording and performance and the remastering/remixing certainly does it justice. Now the band has an opportunity to promote the album through their own label and not have to share revenue with Impulse.
These guys seem to be excited about it: https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/fo...he-metropole-orkest-is-coming-in-atmos.35889/
I would say to differentiate it from the original. The recording and performance is the same as the original on Impulse, but the re-release is a different album on a different label that has been remixed and remastered.
Total nonsensical rubbish - sadly not an isolated example from contemporary so-called music