Blog Post // 2023-07-23

Bigger, Better, Stronger

I am one of those people that doesn't need to always change. If there is a board game or video game that I like and an expansion or new edition comes out, I am not interested. Maybe I believe that whole thing about if something isn't broke, why fix it? Maybe I am cheap? Maybe I get comfortable and don't like to move away from a cozy place. And sometimes I feel the same when bands decide to redo albums. I always think, but why? I am used to every sound and piece of it as is, why change it?

Is the original way that music was recorded a piece of history to look back on, or should it be updated because you have better equipment, recording process, different attitude in life, etc.?

Is the material a band would consider a mistake something cool to look back on, or an embarrassment, such as times bands have tried to all but erase past work they have done from their catalog (such as Judas Priest's Rocka Rolla - I like this album by the way)?

The conclusion, for me as a fan, is no. I don't want a redo of previous work. But as an artist, yes I do, because all I can see is my own mistakes and failures, and I want nothing more than to do a better job. I want bigger, better, stronger.

Where does it end, though? Should you keep redoing stuff as you get better, just re-release them every 10-15 years? Or only the things you felt you did terribly?

What about releasing music after a band member has passed, and they didn't get a say on if it should be? As a fan, I want to hear the good and the bad; whatever can be found, release it. But as an artist, I would cringe, at least inwardly, if my performances were heard in the early stages of determining if my voice would work for a song, or if the song was incomplete in some way but being heard as if it was finished. A good example of my mixed feelings here is how I think it is kind of ridiculous that Soundgarden will be releasing unreleased material from before the death of Chris Cornell. He doesn't have a say in what the final release will sound like, or if parts he hates will be removed, etc. so that makes me feel uncomfortable. But then, the fan in me wants to hear it, no matter what. My curiosity has me wanting to hear it all. Listening to Motorhead's release of Bad Magic also had me wondering if this was something Lemmy would have wanted everyone to hear.

What about timing? Putting out an album at one time, then re-releasing at another could add some interest, bring in some more first-time fans, and add some more perfectionist musicians.

I don't like too many covers, either (are you surprised?). There are a handful I like, which would be great for another blog, but generally, I much prefer the original. The thing is, if I liked the original, why do I want to hear it done differently? But then again, I do enjoy doing covers, so I get it from that end.

What about deciding to continue on as a band, performing past music with new people because the original people are not alive anymore? Guess what? I don't like it. For instance, I think it is lame that Pantera is touring without all of its original members. And I know people are rolling their eyes, but sometimes it feels like a franchise that is just trying to make more money or get new fans. Don't get me wrong: I liked Pantera in their prime and I will listen to their music, but let it go.

If my favourite band had an album of them screwing around, flaws and all, I would love to hear it. I don't want to have them try to do better and better. Just by pure time and practice, they likely will get better. Life isn't perfect, and neither is music, so let it rest. Let it be.