Do fans really have a say in whether an artist should re-record any of their work?

[Zoots]

About the possible re-recording of POP, I'm wondering if fans really even have a say in the matter! Sure, we can boycott said re-recorded work. But isn't it really the artist's right to do what he/she wants with his/her work? LOL.

Here is what made me think about this. I was listening to Pink Floyd's Ummagumma after ages and was really enjoying it. Then I went over to pinkfloyd-co.com and read some trivia on the album and came across this Gilmour quote "For me, it was just an experiment. I think it was badly recorded, the studio side could have been done better. We're thinking of doing it again." Now I don't know when he said this cos obviously we haven't seen any re-release for years now. Anyway I disagree with him. I think it is fine as it is and perfectly captures the free form avant garde state they were in at the time. Just like I think POP perfectly captures the chaos of the time. It would be stupid to go and re-record it.

But maybe as fans, we don't have the right to dictate what an artist does with his/her own work?

 

[BVS]

Re: Do fans really have a say in whether an artist should re-record any of their work?

But maybe as fans, we don't have the right to dictate what an artist does with his/her own work?

Maybe?

There is no maybe about it, of course you have no right. You have the right to buy it or not, but that's about it.

As much as any artist owes their career to their fans, they don't don't really owe them anything. And honestly that's how it should be. The second the artist starts to think about the fans during the creative process it's done, it's not real.

Fan club singles, tickets oppurtunities, etc that's the way an artist can give back to the fans. But the creative aspect is their own.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

I've stated this before that I was unhappy when they talk about how unfinished POP was and how disappointed they were because I have strong personal association with that album.

POP is literally a soundtrack to part of my life (POP haters - insert smart assed remark here) and if U2 want to re-do those songs I take personal issue with that.

That being said, it is their creation and technically belongs to them and if they want to go all "George Lucas" on it, whatever, I still have the original anyhow...

Worst-case scenario, it will suck and I won't buy it... Actually, who am I kidding? I'll buy it but listen to it once.

I have a problem, I know...

 

[Zoots]

Worst-case scenario, it will suck and I won't buy it... Actually, who am I kidding? I'll buy it but listen to it once.

I have a problem, I know...

 

[corianderstem]

Re: Re: Do fans really have a say in whether an artist should re-record any of their work?

Maybe?

There is no maybe about it, of course you have no right. You have the right to buy it or not, but that's about it.

As much as any artist owes their career to their fans, they don't don't really owe them anything. And honestly that's how it should be. The second the artist starts to think about the fans during the creative process it's done, it's not real.

I completely agree with this. I want my favorite artists to do what THEY want to do. I'd much rather listen to a band that's doing what they want to do than a band who is going through the motions to please someone.

I guess it could be argued that U2 is trying to gain more fans by catering to a certain audience, but they made the decision to do that, so they're still doing what they want to do.

 

[MrPryck2U]

Fans have no say. Although, the Beatles did re-release Let It Be a few years ago because Paul didn't like the original.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Fans have no say. Although, the Beatles did re-release Let It Be a few years ago because Paul didn't like the original.

Let It Be: Naked, I believe... I couldn't find any reall difference between this one and the original, anyone care to let me know what the big difference was?

 

[Tarvark]

It depends on what they do with it.

I doubt anybody will put time, money and effort towards re-recording if its about fixing a blurry song.

I think if we saw Pop, or any other album, actually get re-recorded it would be substantially different to say the least.

We dont know what that would sound like, could be better or worse but for any fan would be undeniably interesting.

I dont think they should spend time re-recording Pop, but if they did it would have to be pretty different and interesting regardless of it's stature next to the original.

Anyway, its one thing to complain about a record and say you want to re-do it, its a huge thing (money, convincing record companies, time, energy) to actually do it.

 

[gman]

I had forgotten about this whole pop thing. I think we have got as close as we gonna get wi the reworked gone and staring at the sun for the best of cd. Its been ongoing for years now with no end result in sight. Maybe its gonna be like that brian wilson Smile album......ie 35+ years later

 

[GibsonGirl]

But maybe as fans, we don't have the right to dictate what an artist does with his/her own work?

To use another Floyd quote from 1972...

Waters: I mean, they [the fans] can say anything they want, can't they?

Interviewer: Yes, but do you think they're right?

Waters: No, of course I don't think they're right. I mean, how - who are they to say whether anything is enough or not enough? About anything? Particularly about our records?

Interviewer: Well, they're the people that buy the records. I mean...

Waters: Well, the people who buy the records can listen to the record and decide whether it's evolved enough for them to want to buy it. If it hasn't, they don't have to buy it, do they?

It's a different context (i.e. not about a re-recording), but I think it's relevant. We can rant and rave about various albums as much as we want, but in the end, we really have no say about anything. We buy it or we don't buy it. We have no say in the creative process, even though we wish we could. Musicians shouldn't have to feel they need to write (or re-write) a particular way in order to please the fans. There's nothing wrong with wishing your favourite bands had done something a little differently, but there's a huge difference between wishful thinking and and active expectance. Some fans expect their favourite musicians to cater to their own subjective tastes...and that's not really fair. So if, for whatever reason, U2 ever do decide to re-record Pop, I'll hop on a torrent, decide whether I like it, and buy it if I do. If I think it sounds inferior to the existing Pop, I won't buy it and thus won't ever have to hear it again. I'll probably whine about it at Interference, though, because some things never change.

 

[U2girl]

I don't think the fans ever have a say in that, which doesn't seem to be the case looking at some internet forums.

 

[cdisantis83]

Re: Re: Do fans really have a say in whether an artist should re-record any of their

Some fans expect their favourite musicians to cater to their own subjective tastes...and that's not really fair.

I would completely agree with that assessment. It seems as though a lot of people on this forum expect U2 to record the equivalent of Achtung Baby every time that they enter the studio, which is both unrealistic and unfair to the band; there is a point, I believe, when reinvention can itself become platitudinous, and U2 seems to understand that. Having said that, I do not believe that the fans should have any say in whether or not U2 re-records anything, or, for that matter, in the musical direction that they may take in the future.

 

[Screwtape2]

Do fans have a say? No.
Should artists have say? NO!

The artist will only re-record based on their personal evaluation of an album. Pop for example is looked at as a failure by the band more than the fans. Most artists judge their albums based on their experience in the recording studio. That's why so many artists want to re-record albums and why the artist will always have the say on whether to re-record.

However, artists should not be able to re-record albums for that same reason. An album should be a moment in time. Pop for its faults captures the sense of spiritual and moral drought during the mid-90's. To re-record the album would lose the album's moment in time. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Allanah]

I see you're getting at, Screwtape. I'm always going to find it problematic and unnecessary when an artist of any sort goes back and re-works old material, whether it's a musician redoing an album or George Lucas going back and changing the old 'Star Wars' movies.

Thing is, U2 does have the opportunity to re-work songs - when they perform them live, and the results are usually outstanding. I'd prefer that they leave the recordings alone, but I think the whole point of this thread is that I don't have any say in the matter, and probably shouldn't. When is a song "done," anyway? The artist should decide that, not me.

 

[LemonMelon]

Of course we have no say.

The fact is, however, that this will never happen in a million years. The remaking of Pop is something worthy of making fun of in cartoon form, not something that will actually happen in reality.

PS: I would buy it too.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

They definitely should NOT re-record it. Can you imagine what they'd do?

However, ALL U2 albums should be remastered.

 

[u2fan628]

maybe there is a fan who can take the lyrics and create new music for them,then play it for us in this forum.If this is already being done let me know.

 

[Muminki]

Re: Re: Do fans really have a say in whether an artist should re-record any of their work?

There is no maybe about it, of course you have no right. You have the right to buy it or not, but that's about it.

 

[dietcokeofevil]

No need for re-recording.

I would be satisfied if they put more songs from Pop into the setlist instead of the crap from the early 80's mophead puberty garage band era.

 

[MrBrau1]

About the possible re-recording of POP, I'm wondering if fans really even have a say in the matter! Sure, we can boycott said re-recorded work. But isn't it really the artist's right to do what he/she wants with his/her work? LOL.

Here is what made me think about this. I was listening to Pink Floyd's Ummagumma after ages and was really enjoying it. Then I went over to pinkfloyd-co.com and read some trivia on the album and came across this Gilmour quote "For me, it was just an experiment. I think it was badly recorded, the studio side could have been done better. We're thinking of doing it again." Now I don't know when he said this cos obviously we haven't seen any re-release for years now. Anyway I disagree with him. I think it is fine as it is and perfectly captures the free form avant garde state they were in at the time. Just like I think POP perfectly captures the chaos of the time. It would be stupid to go and re-record it.

But maybe as fans, we don't have the right to dictate what an artist does with his/her own work?

Have you ever recorded something, then gone back and redo part of it? or redo the whole thing? Be it months or years later.

 

[doctorwho]

Jimi Hendrix once commented upon why his live performances differ from the album version. Hendrix stated that songs change as he grows as an artist (heavily paraphrased).

Bottom line, what was considered good (or great) in '96 when U2 had to release their album, may no longer be up to U2's standards. This is not saying the songs aren't good, but rather, U2 would like to revisit them and bring them new life.

Oftentimes an artist does this in concert. And U2 have added (or subtracted) from many of their songs in concert. Part of that is the nature of a live setting, but part of it is also how U2 views the song at a given time. Some songs see minimal changes, others considerable. For example, I always like the more "funked up" version of "Bullet" during the PopMart tour - in fact, it's my favorite performance of this song. I adored the extensions to numerous songs in concert, that routinely change with each tour. I liked the new beginning on "Elevation" on the Vertigo Tour, but loved the "jubilation" ending on the Elevation Tour. I liked the little intro on "The Fly" that was used during the Vertigo tour. These are but a few examples, but they demonstrate that while the core of the song remains, U2, like Hendrix, will alter songs to flow with their current artisitic style. Reproducing something verbatim in concert is boring.

So if an artist can alter work in concert, why not do so in the studio? U2 revamped some 90's work on their 90's "Best Of" album. I know I'm in the minority, but I really liked the changes! I love the new versions of "Gone" and "Numb". "Discotheque" sounds more rocking, which is what I liked best about the song anyway (not the techno dance beat).

Besides, since the early 80's, U2 have had their songs remixed. I think the earliest remix was "Two Hearts Beat As One"! The remixes stopped during the JT era (perhaps U2 didn't feel the music leant itself well to any dance remix), but started up again with R&H and have been strong ever since. And, of course, there are plenty of fan-made remixes of songs from all eras - some of which are incredibly good!

In other words, if U2 can alter their work in concert or through remixes, and if fans can also create remixes, I feel that U2 has every right to revisit their prior work for some "tweaking" if they feel it's necessary. It's their music (as Hendrix said about his work) and they have the right to change it as they see fit. Some masterpieces stand untouched, but those are few and far between.

 

[zoochick]

Of course we don't have that right, If Bono and the boys decide they want to re-record then thats their choice. Bono can't do any wrong in my eyes. I didn't particularly like the Pop album at first but I bought it And give it a chance and there are a few songs now that i really like, especially when they do them live, like 'Gone' 'Staring at the sun' and 'Wake up dead man' is the most atmospheric song I have heard (slane castle version) all these sound so much better live than they do on the album so if they did re-record them I think it can only be an improvement