When I say an album is worthless I say it's worthless according to my particular taste, I make no inference on how people with different personality
Let's just say that I own the CD version for a while and it was simply impossible to purchase the video of the Red Rocks gig (really only second hand purchase of obsolete VHS and Laserdisc format) for a long time until the DVD release in 2008. I only listen to the CD a few times before 2008. When the DVD was release in 2008, the amount of time I listen to the CD dropped to zero.
If I stop listening to the CD version once the DVD version was release, I think that makes it pretty much worthless to me if I never in the mood to listen to that CD because the DVD has made any effectively replace any impulse for me to listen to that CD.
"Shorter means that it's easier to get through the whole thing in one sitting. "
Do you really think I'm the type of person who really find the length of time to sit through in one sitting an issue?
Cutting out songs from the DVD may improve the album if you are cutting out filler and weak tracks that mar the concert. Unfortunately in this particular release they manage to include probably the worst song in the Red Rocks DVD which was "Party Girl" so I can't say they exactly selected the appropriate "highlights" of the album. If anyone goes on about the "legendary" Red Rocks gigs, they would most likely mention Sunday Bloody Sunday as well as 11 O'Clock Tick Tock as the two highlights of the concert, it's bit strange when giving a sample of a legendary concert they wouldn't choose those two songs instead using different performances for those two songs so the choice on what song from the Red Rocks gig made the CD was questionable as well.
"But to say that poor mixing results in an album that is completely worthless is really really stretching it."
It only takes one listen to the CD and DVD version of 11 O'clock tick tock back to back (or any bootlegs from that era) to hear that they completely butchered the song and destroyed the power and intensity behind the song with the mix.
Sure if the CD version was the only thing you ever heard from the group, I'm quite sure if I never heard other live performances of that song before I could like it. However I do think with live performances you simply can't assess the song in isolation but rather in context comparing to other live performances in that era as well as the studio version
"However the CD *isn't* redundant since it consists of mostly completely different performances."
Recently I bought Blondie's new album that came with a CD where the band re-record their greatest hits.
You could say that because they are completely different performance it isn't redundant OR you could say that all those performances were inferior to the original version due to mediocre vocal performances due to an aging vocalist.
I know I'm in the latter camp.
WHen you have different version of the same song, you are going to compare the quality of one version over the other and make a value judgement which version is superior. If I believe one version is so much stronger than the other I may end up saying it is worthless.
To me the only value the CD version has is if you are a hardcore fan and are a completionist (which I admit I'm in that camp) or you are a person who doesn't own a DVD player or doesn't know how to rip audio from the DVD.
Ok I guess if we are being pedantic those reason strictly doesn't make it worthless as it has value for OCD completionist or people with limited knowledge of how to used the computer but it's probably worthless in my assessment for majority of people.
" shouldn't grab the DVD audio of Blood Red Sky and review that as the audio track for his review of that album, that would be misrepresenting what is actually up for review. "
I agree he shouldn't review the Under The Blood Red Sky DVD in the Under the Blood Red Sky CD review
"But unless he actually did a separate DVD review"
That's what I have been arguing for him to do for the entire opening post. That he should review the DVD separately as it's a core part of U2's legacy.
: >>In fact even if they were identical
: performance with identical mixes. Why should
: I listen to the version with less songs?
: Plenty of reasons. Shorter means that it's
: easier to get through the whole thing in one
: sitting. It also could have better song
: sequencing. A full show's worth of songs is
: exactly that: a full show. A live album on
: the other hand does not imply a full show,
: nor require one. It's an album like any
: other and should be treated as such since
: albums are fundamentally different
: experiences than full concerts. Changes
: should be made to the number and order of
: songs that are included to optimize the
: experience for the medium. There are many
: classic live albums that flow better as
: their album versions than the full shows
: that may have surfaced later on. Made In
: Japan, Live/Dead, Genesis Live, At Fillmore
: East, Live at Leeds, The Last Waltz, all
: have had extremely extensive repackagings
: that expanded significantly on what material
: was included. and while the end result is an
: anthology release that might be great for
: the fans and important for rock history,
: rarely if ever do these supersede the impact
: and significance of the normal versions of
: the records. And even more rarely do they
: function as superior "albums" when
: compared to their counterparts.
: >>Some mixing choice are better than
: Sure. Mixing is important obviously and poor
: mixing should be taken into consideration
: when reviewing an album. But to say that
: poor mixing results in an album that is
: completely worthless is really really
: stretching it.
: Besides I highly doubt that a change in
: guitar tone fundamentally alters the songs
: so drastically that it renders them
: unlistenable. The way you describe it seems
: like this case is probably just minor matter
: of taste. The band chose a lighter guitar
: sound to make it more commercial and since
: the album was relatively successful I would
: assume that plenty of people liked the more
: commercial mixing. It hardly seems like a
: major mixing argument like the extremely
: different mixes of Raw Power, or whether the
: mono or stereo mixes of The Beatles records
: are better.
: >>Similar to Under The blood red sky,
: I have the CD and the DVD mix of both
: version ripped in my computer. Now can you
: give me a single good reason why I should
: listen to the CD version if I think it's
: inferior to the DVD version?
: If the DVD version was just the CD version
: with different mixing and an expanded
: tracklist then I could easily see the
: argument for considering the CD redundant.
: However the CD *isn't* redundant since it
: consists of mostly completely different
: performances. Going by what wikipedia says,
: the CD gives you six performances of songs
: that the DVD does not. That's not a ton of
: material by any means, but it's still
: something that you don't get on the DVD. So
: it's worth it for that at the very least.
: As soon and you start ripping DVD audio,
: making your own custom track-orders and
: stuff like that, you really can't rate and
: review that modified version as if it were
: the original since it's not the original and
: you would be misleading your readers. John,
: for example, shouldn't grab the DVD audio of
: Blood Red Sky and review that as the audio
: track for his review of that album, that
: would be misrepresenting what is actually up
: for review. By all means he could still talk
: about the DVD material if he wanted to as a
: supplement. But unless he actually did a
: separate DVD review it shouldn't affect the
: I should also point out that my arguments
: here are primarily just for the principle of
: the thing, rather than a specific defence of
: this particular record. I have never heard
: this live album or seen this DVD and I don't
: really intend to go out of my way to do so
: anytime soon as I think U2 are an
: exceedingly mediocre band whether they're in
: the studio or live.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index