Vapor Trails Remixed up on Rolling Stone Website

[Tony R]

It's the business. Look at the Who - how many freakin' reissues and compilations have the Who released?

 

Rush felt the material they put their heart and soul into didn't get justice. It's not like the re-recorded Hempisheres so Geddy can sing the songs in the correct key and pitch.

 

Meowwww!

 

Do I look like a cat to you? Am I jumpin' around all nimbly bimbly from tree to tree?

 

No, you look like a Beatle trying to fit a cola bottle up his nostril.

 

 

[toscanobarga]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

 

But those self-same people released the album in the first place.

 

Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released.

 

You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef.

 

The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing.

 

What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

[ReRushed]

It's the business. Look at the Who - how many freakin' reissues and compilations have the Who released?

 

Rush felt the material they put their heart and soul into didn't get justice. It's not like the re-recorded Hempisheres so Geddy can sing the songs in the correct key and pitch.

 

Meowwww!

 

Do I look like a cat to you? Am I jumpin' around all nimbly bimbly from tree to tree?

 

No, you look like a Beatle trying to fit a cola bottle up his nostril.

 

Let's not get out of hand, meow.

[Tony R]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

 

But those self-same people released the album in the first place.

 

Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released.

 

You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef.

 

The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing.

 

What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

 

The original was broken and there is definitely a good argument that says the band should consider a swap deal.

I'm at a loss to understand how, given the evidence, you can't see that the original release was not as it should be or what the band envisaged. Lee admits that there were digital artefacts on the original that spoiled the sound and made the mixing and mastering almost impossible without the technology of today. This is not really open to debate or opinion as it is fact.

 

 

[tangy]

can anyone recall a disc that has been remixed so soon after the original date?

 

i can think of a few songs that have been tinkered with within a few years of their release but never a whole disc before?

 

off topic but what other discs are infamous for their shitty sound other than St. Anger and VT?

[Stormtron]

can anyone recall a disc that has been remixed so soon after the original date?

 

i can think of a few songs that have been tinkered with within a few years of their release but never a whole disc before?

 

off topic but what other discs are infamous for their shitty sound other than St. Anger and VT?

 

Death Magnetic. The CD is brickwalled to death, but the rip from Guitar Hero sounds a lot better.

[treeduck]

can anyone recall a disc that has been remixed so soon after the original date?

 

i can think of a few songs that have been tinkered with within a few years of their release but never a whole disc before?

 

off topic but what other discs are infamous for their shitty sound other than St. Anger and VT?

 

Death Magnetic. The CD is brickwalled to death, but the rip from Guitar Hero sounds a lot better.

What do you think of it Blake?

[tangy]

can anyone recall a disc that has been remixed so soon after the original date?

 

i can think of a few songs that have been tinkered with within a few years of their release but never a whole disc before?

 

off topic but what other discs are infamous for their shitty sound other than St. Anger and VT?

 

Death Magnetic. The CD is brickwalled to death, but the rip from Guitar Hero sounds a lot better.

 

good call. another disc that is known for its shitty sound although it sounds ok to me is steely dans Katy Lied.

[tangy]

so if st anger and VT were both released in the early 2000's is that where the industry was in terms of rock music? does other music from say 2002 -2003 sound shitty by todays standards?

[treeduck]

I got used to the sound quality on the original VT long ago, these days it just sounds normal to me...

[Sin City]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

"It's a terrible feeling that, due to the lack of objectivity, you let an imperfect piece of work get out there" Geddy in the Rolling Stone interview. Is that explicit enough for you??

[toscanobarga]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

 

But those self-same people released the album in the first place.

 

Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released.

 

You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef.

 

The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing.

 

What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

 

The original was broken and there is definitely a good argument that says the band should consider a swap deal.

I'm at a loss to understand how, given the evidence, you can't see that the original release was not as it should be or what the band envisaged. Lee admits that there were digital artefacts on the original that spoiled the sound and made the mixing and mastering almost impossible without the technology of today. This is not really open to debate or opinion as it is fact.

 

And yet some people here like SOME aspects of each release and want both. Me included.

 

There are many precedents for manufacturers "fixing" products in later releases that they didn't give away.

 

The original may be flawed but it wasn't broken, it was playable and plenty of people liked it.

 

Broken = Unplayable, was it "defective" ? Subjective. But like I said it's no different than buying a remastered version of Moving pictures. Whether or not you agree with that, well, who cares. Sounds like you didn't like the original or the remix so really you're getting your knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect you one iota.

[toscanobarga]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

"It's a terrible feeling that, due to the lack of objectivity, you let an imperfect piece of work get out there" Geddy in the Rolling Stone interview. Is that explicit enough for you??

 

tilting at windmills. I completely agree the comments were explicit regarding VT, but by the sheer fact that they have re-released other product that they "improved" multiple times now it is implicit that they felt the originals weren't good enough. Otherwise why bother ?

 

Get it ?

[snowdogged]

Look, Rush made a big mistake and learned a very valuable lesson from that mistake. They will never make the mistake of releasing a crappy sounding album again. From now on they will release crappy sounding albums purposely so they can almost double their profits on them when they release remastered versions

[Gedneil Alpeart]

A wee bit over analyzing here?

[Tony R]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

 

But those self-same people released the album in the first place.

 

Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released.

 

You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef.

 

The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing.

 

What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

 

The original was broken and there is definitely a good argument that says the band should consider a swap deal.

I'm at a loss to understand how, given the evidence, you can't see that the original release was not as it should be or what the band envisaged. Lee admits that there were digital artefacts on the original that spoiled the sound and made the mixing and mastering almost impossible without the technology of today. This is not really open to debate or opinion as it is fact.

 

And yet some people here like SOME aspects of each release and want both. Me included.

 

There are many precedents for manufacturers "fixing" products in later releases that they didn't give away.

 

The original may be flawed but it wasn't broken, it was playable and plenty of people liked it.

 

Broken = Unplayable, was it "defective" ? Subjective. But like I said it's no different than buying a remastered version of Moving pictures. Whether or not you agree with that, well, who cares. Sounds like you didn't like the original or the remix so really you're getting your knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect you one iota.

 

Many here literally could not listen to the album because it hurt their ears.

 

You are just being Mr Fanboy. The band don't know you, neither are they reading this forum, ok?

 

 

[treeduck]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

 

But those self-same people released the album in the first place.

 

Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released.

 

You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef.

 

The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing.

 

What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

 

The original was broken and there is definitely a good argument that says the band should consider a swap deal.

I'm at a loss to understand how, given the evidence, you can't see that the original release was not as it should be or what the band envisaged. Lee admits that there were digital artefacts on the original that spoiled the sound and made the mixing and mastering almost impossible without the technology of today. This is not really open to debate or opinion as it is fact.

 

And yet some people here like SOME aspects of each release and want both. Me included.

 

There are many precedents for manufacturers "fixing" products in later releases that they didn't give away.

 

The original may be flawed but it wasn't broken, it was playable and plenty of people liked it.

 

Broken = Unplayable, was it "defective" ? Subjective. But like I said it's no different than buying a remastered version of Moving pictures. Whether or not you agree with that, well, who cares. Sounds like you didn't like the original or the remix so really you're getting your knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect you one iota.

 

Many here literally could not listen to the album because it hurt their ears.

 

You are just being Mr Fanboy. The band don't know you, neither are they reading this forum, ok?

Shut up Neil!

[Tony R]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

 

But those self-same people released the album in the first place.

 

Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released.

 

You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef.

 

The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing.

 

What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

 

The original was broken and there is definitely a good argument that says the band should consider a swap deal.

I'm at a loss to understand how, given the evidence, you can't see that the original release was not as it should be or what the band envisaged. Lee admits that there were digital artefacts on the original that spoiled the sound and made the mixing and mastering almost impossible without the technology of today. This is not really open to debate or opinion as it is fact.

 

And yet some people here like SOME aspects of each release and want both. Me included.

 

There are many precedents for manufacturers "fixing" products in later releases that they didn't give away.

 

The original may be flawed but it wasn't broken, it was playable and plenty of people liked it.

 

Broken = Unplayable, was it "defective" ? Subjective. But like I said it's no different than buying a remastered version of Moving pictures. Whether or not you agree with that, well, who cares. Sounds like you didn't like the original or the remix so really you're getting your knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect you one iota.

 

Many here literally could not listen to the album because it hurt their ears.

 

You are just being Mr Fanboy. The band don't know you, neither are they reading this forum, ok?

Shut up Neil!

Oh yeah, that's a good idea isn't it? Yeah - let's all bring Neil down. That'll relieve the boredom, thanks Vyvian.

 

[treeduck]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

 

But those self-same people released the album in the first place.

 

Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released.

 

You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef.

 

The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing.

 

What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

 

The original was broken and there is definitely a good argument that says the band should consider a swap deal.

I'm at a loss to understand how, given the evidence, you can't see that the original release was not as it should be or what the band envisaged. Lee admits that there were digital artefacts on the original that spoiled the sound and made the mixing and mastering almost impossible without the technology of today. This is not really open to debate or opinion as it is fact.

 

And yet some people here like SOME aspects of each release and want both. Me included.

 

There are many precedents for manufacturers "fixing" products in later releases that they didn't give away.

 

The original may be flawed but it wasn't broken, it was playable and plenty of people liked it.

 

Broken = Unplayable, was it "defective" ? Subjective. But like I said it's no different than buying a remastered version of Moving pictures. Whether or not you agree with that, well, who cares. Sounds like you didn't like the original or the remix so really you're getting your knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect you one iota.

 

Many here literally could not listen to the album because it hurt their ears.

 

You are just being Mr Fanboy. The band don't know you, neither are they reading this forum, ok?

Shut up Neil!

Oh yeah, that's a good idea isn't it? Yeah - let's all bring Neil down. That'll relieve the boredom, thanks Vyvian.

Where's Rick??

[Your_Lion]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

 

But those self-same people released the album in the first place.

 

Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released.

 

You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef.

 

The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing.

 

What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

 

The original was broken and there is definitely a good argument that says the band should consider a swap deal.

I'm at a loss to understand how, given the evidence, you can't see that the original release was not as it should be or what the band envisaged. Lee admits that there were digital artefacts on the original that spoiled the sound and made the mixing and mastering almost impossible without the technology of today. This is not really open to debate or opinion as it is fact.

 

And yet some people here like SOME aspects of each release and want both. Me included.

 

There are many precedents for manufacturers "fixing" products in later releases that they didn't give away.

 

The original may be flawed but it wasn't broken, it was playable and plenty of people liked it.

 

Broken = Unplayable, was it "defective" ? Subjective. But like I said it's no different than buying a remastered version of Moving pictures. Whether or not you agree with that, well, who cares. Sounds like you didn't like the original or the remix so really you're getting your knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect you one iota.

 

Many here literally could not listen to the album because it hurt their ears.

 

You are just being Mr Fanboy. The band don't know you, neither are they reading this forum, ok?

Shut up Neil!

Oh yeah, that's a good idea isn't it? Yeah - let's all bring Neil down. That'll relieve the boredom, thanks Vyvian.

Where's Rick??

One things for sure, when Cliff Richard wrote 'wired for sound' no way was he sitting on a clean lavatory.

[tangy]

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

The only difference is the explicit vs. implicit rationale that they feel they are putting out a better product.

 

But those self-same people released the album in the first place.

 

Yup. Just like they released EVERY album that they re-released. And re-re-released.

 

You weren't under any obligation to buy them then or now.

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty. Thy product is only better in the sense that it isn't broken. It's cheap minced beef to the original's horse meat. Lots of people convinced themselves they liked the taste of the meat in their lasagne until they realised it was horse and not beef.

 

The band thinks it's better. Not everyone agrees. Those that do, can buy it, or not. Those that don't won't. Some people don't like either version and just want to complain about it regardless. Each to their own. The original wasn't broken, it just wan't as good quality as the band, with 20/20 hindsight, wanted it to be. If the band thought all the originals were perfect they wouldn't keep remastering and issuing new versions for sale. As most bands/record companies have been doing.

 

What would you have them do, give it away ? So theoretically people who didn't have the first "broken" one could now get one for free ?

 

The original was broken and there is definitely a good argument that says the band should consider a swap deal.

I'm at a loss to understand how, given the evidence, you can't see that the original release was not as it should be or what the band envisaged. Lee admits that there were digital artefacts on the original that spoiled the sound and made the mixing and mastering almost impossible without the technology of today. This is not really open to debate or opinion as it is fact.

 

And yet some people here like SOME aspects of each release and want both. Me included.

 

There are many precedents for manufacturers "fixing" products in later releases that they didn't give away.

 

The original may be flawed but it wasn't broken, it was playable and plenty of people liked it.

 

Broken = Unplayable, was it "defective" ? Subjective. But like I said it's no different than buying a remastered version of Moving pictures. Whether or not you agree with that, well, who cares. Sounds like you didn't like the original or the remix so really you're getting your knickers in a twist over something that doesn't affect you one iota.

 

Many here literally could not listen to the album because it hurt their ears.

 

You are just being Mr Fanboy. The band don't know you, neither are they reading this forum, ok?

Shut up Neil!

Oh yeah, that's a good idea isn't it? Yeah - let's all bring Neil down. That'll relieve the boredom, thanks Vyvian.

Where's Rick??

One things for sure, when Cliff Richard wrote 'wired for sound' no way was he sitting on a clean lavatory.

 

:haz: :haz: :smoke: :smoke:

 

[treeduck]

What if your truck is delivering pizzas, do you still need torque???

[Slack jaw gaze]

 

There is a difference here, though. The band admitted they f*cked up and admitted that songs don't sound as they were intended. You're comparing apples and oranges by that rationale. I am going to buy the remix, but it still feels a little wrong that l have to pay again for something that wasn't right to begin with.

There simply is no right or wrong when it comes to art. You either want it or you don't. You either like it or you don't.

 

What you really don't get to do is pronounce it "right" or "wrong". The inevitable ones who try are only stroking themselves (time and time again).

[Tony R]

 

There is a difference here, though. The band admitted they f*cked up and admitted that songs don't sound as they were intended. You're comparing apples and oranges by that rationale. I am going to buy the remix, but it still feels a little wrong that l have to pay again for something that wasn't right to begin with.

There simply is no right or wrong when it comes to art. You either want it or you don't. You either like it or you don't.

 

What you really don't get to do is pronounce it "right" or "wrong". The inevitable ones who try are only stroking themselves (time and time again).

 

Keep stroking Slacky.

[Slack jaw gaze]

 

Again. The band have admitted that the original release of VT was faulty.

They have admitted HYF was flawed as well in more than one way. One by saying they went too far with keyboards. Another by saying Tai Shan was a mistake. All works of art (or even engineering) have flaws to the artist (or engineer). Your argument is ludicrous. But that's your wheelhouse.