I suspect that remastering is a way for record companies to sell people recordings that they already own.

Still, I wonder if anyone thinks that any of the Baebes albums could be improved by remastering. Personally I can think of only one album that might be improved.

The album I am thinking of is Undrentide and, not being that familiar with the recording process, I don't really know if what I have been musing about is even possible. To my ear, some of the instruments and sound effects on this album don't seem to fit in with the songs and I personally think the album would benefit from these effects being removed. I would certainly buy such a remastered album but I wonder if anyone else would agree with me, probably not.

You have to be careful with remastering. I remember when the Best of Siouxsie was released, and the fans I knew were complaining that it had been drained of colour, so to speak. It just didn't sound right, it was as if they had ruined it somehow. I have resisted buying the remastered editions of Kate Bush for this reason.

All depends how it's done I suppose. Remasters and reissues are always good to attract new fans.

If it ain't busted don't try to mend it.
There is nothing wrong with Undrentide. Tinkering with re-mixes seems to me, at least, to be a waste of time. I would much rather that the Baebes, or any other group for that matter, concentrate upon recording new material.

Yes, of course, but I thought it would just involve someone in a recording studio with the original tapes and a zillion sliders on a mixer. Perhaps I'm wrong.

No, you are probably right but, as has been pointed out, it is just a way of the recording company's selling you something twice.

Well, what you're talking about there is remixing rather than remastering, as such - you're removing some of what is present, rather than simply making a sonically superior version of what has already been released. Some remastered editions of albums have been remixed as well, which probably blurs the lines between the two approaches a little - for any metalheads out there, the recent-ish Megadeth remasters are a case in point: they've been remastered, but have been remixed as well to emphasise or remove instrumentation and/or effects that Dave Mustaine wasn't happy with. The results are spectacular in this particular case, but I would definitely agree that a great many remasters are simply an excuse to flog the same material to the die-hards yet again.

There have been some stunning remastered editions, though, which sound vastly superior to the original copies: witness the massive overhaul that the Genesis back catalogue has recently undergone, or the markedly superior new editions of the Led Zeppelin back catalogue. So sometimes it does pay off...

It's weird, actually - I thought the same about the Siouxsie Best Of - it sounded very compressed and over-loud. I picked up remastered editions of The Scream and Juju a bit later on, though, and thought they sounded a lot better. Either someone listened to the complaints or my ears are playing tricks on me!



Well, only one Kate Bush has actually been remastered so far - Hounds Of Love. EMi were supposed to be working on remastered editions of the entire Bush back catalogue a few years ago, and I know it got as far as sleeve notes being prepared and suchlike, but I have no idea why that project seems to have stalled. Perhaps they're waiting for another album so they can unleash everything at once. Considering how long Aerial took to arrive, if that's the case we'd be better off not holding our breath...

Hounds Of Love made it to the shelves as part of EMI's 100th anniversary release schedule - to be honest, sonically it's really not significantly improved over the existing version (which is still far easier to find than the remaster). It's a little louder and brighter, but it's hardly a revelation. For those without the singles and box set, though, it does contain some of the B-side tracks from the period, though, which I suppose is the only real attraction.