A treasury and a place to meet people of all ages with various interests from all over the World
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: The remasters: rip-off or not?  (Read 6393 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10839
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #20 on: October 12, 2009, 03:46:34 PM »

Right.  But only if your mono vinyl albums are in good shape.
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10839
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2009, 01:58:01 AM »

I'm not tryin to dissuade anybody, nope. In a previous message (in this thread) I gladly admitted my own gullibility at having bought '2 Fast 2 Furious' three times for the extra features !!!  lol And I bought Shakira's early Spanish stuff for no other reason other than to own her entire album catalog. So yeah, I'm not the perfect example of economic restraint. lol  ;D

Yes, you did mention this obsession of yours.



Just like...  I'm a huge Devon Aoki fan, I've bought all of her movies (DVD) even though most of her movies are B-grade rubbish.

If I liked the Beatles as much as I like Shakira/Devon, then yeah, I'd probably own the remasters by now.  :)


Sound argument, Justin.
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

peterbell1

  • Getting Better
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 690
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #22 on: October 14, 2009, 08:37:02 AM »

Whether the remasters are a rip-off or not is up to the individual buyer.

I personally wouldn't pay £170 to get the new stereo set to replace my 1987 CDs - having listened to a couple of the remasters I don't think the benefits are worth £170. They sound better than the 1987 discs, yes, but for me it isn't £170 better.
And £200 for the mono set? No thanks!
If it had been remixes, then yes I'd definitely have found some way of getting the cash together to get a set - I think that would have been value for money. Or perhaps if mono and stereo albums had been presented on one disc, then that also would have offered better value for money.

However, there are many people on these boards who are very happy with their remastered albums and they obviously don't feel ripped off at all. Sales of the CDs seem to have been OK, with many Beatles albums getting back into the charts, so the record-buying public must think they are getting value for money also.
Logged

Kevin

  • That Means a Lot
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 5432
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #23 on: October 14, 2009, 09:54:45 AM »

Way I see it - Apple is a company. Companies exist to make money. Beatle releases aren't a social service. They'll charge you what they think you'll pay. If you want it you'll pay for it. Don't see that as a rip off.
For me it's ten years too late.  I've got my Rubber Soul, Revover, Pepper and White vinyls and that'll do me I think.
Logged
don't follow leaders

Hello Goodbye

  • Global Moderator
  • Sun King
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10839
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #24 on: October 16, 2009, 02:34:28 AM »

If you think the stereo remasters are good, Justin, wait till you hear the mono remasters!   ;)
Logged
I can stay till it's time to go

sregis

  • A Beginning
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
Re: The remasters: rip-off or not?
« Reply #25 on: October 16, 2009, 03:47:15 PM »

I'm not tryin to dissuade anybody, nope. In a previous message (in this thread) I gladly admitted my own gullibility at having bought '2 Fast 2 Furious' three times for the extra features !!!  lol And I bought Shakira's early Spanish stuff for no other reason other than to own her entire album catalog. So yeah, I'm not the perfect example of economic restraint. lol  ;D

The thread title (not started by me) is called: The Remasters: Rip-off or Not?

So yeah, I essentially reckon they're a rip-off... sure, they're tweaked a little, but they're essentially aimed at die-hard fans... for no other reason than, to get them to buy the entire Beatles catalog  over again.

Just like...  I'm a huge Devon Aoki fan, I've bought all of her movies (DVD) even though most of her movies are B-grade rubbish.

If I liked the Beatles as much as I like Shakira/Devon, then yeah, I'd probably own the remasters by now.  :)





easy...  ;)

is apple a company in business to make money?  yes

are the '87 cd's compromised by today's standards?  yes

are there beatles fans who want or demand those higher standards?  yes

the decision to remaster, as w/ every other important band who's already done so, was a no-brainer.  no one has a gun to anyone's head to purchase.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
 

Page created in 0.653 seconds with 27 queries.