>listening to discography of old band>Album>Album (1975 deluxe edition)>Album (1989 Live in San Antonio)>Album (1999 Re-recording Live in Sao Paulo)>Album (2010 Digital Remaster)>every member of the band is dead at this point>Album 2 (Unreleased edition)>Album (2024 Anniversary Edition)
>>129890171fuck the music industry
>re-recorded version because we don't want to give money to our old record label
Name one hundred (100) band discographies to which this applies.
>>129892937michael jackson, grateful dead, black sabbath, Oasis, idk a lot of rock bands from the 70s/80s do this and i was being hyperbolic for comedic effect
fucking hate remasters. kill me pete
I do not put these versions into my curated collection of pirated music unless there are multiple people in agreement that the sound quality has improved. A deluxe edition that is released around the date of original release can count as the definitive version as long as the bonus tracks are not something dumb like a shitty dance remix. So basically what is preferred is the version closest to the original release with the most tracks unless there's an audiophile grade remaster that's well regarded.
>>129893445Sometimes they're good so make sure to see what people are saying before you dismiss them. For example Van Halen remasters smoke the 80s CDs. Also ZZ Top did some George Lucas shit on their albums in the 80s. Modern remasters for their albums both sound great and restore the original mixes.
>Listening to Led Zeppelin studio recordings.>Comparing to the concert ones.>The live recordings are better.
