Red Mosquito

Stip wrote:for the songs you haven't heard I think the LD versions are superior, for what it's worth

Do you like the LD Hold On better than the original?

I'm not sure. I might. But I like all 3 and don't love any

I'm firmly of the opinion that I'd rather have a slightly unfinished (or otherwise unsatisfactory) version of a song that hasn't been messed with years after the fact. I think projects like this are best when they're concerned with historical accuracy, not necessarily being a great record on their own terms - if that happens, it'll happen on its own by the strength of the material.

The "alternate versions" argument doesn't fly for me. We didn't get good quality copies of many of the original versions of those songs (Hold On, Alone, Brother) until later - and, even then, it was only via an accidental leak.

Birds in Hell wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that I'd rather have a slightly unfinished (or otherwise unsatisfactory) version of a song that hasn't been messed with years after the fact. I think projects like this are best when they're concerned with historical accuracy, not necessarily being a great record on their own terms - if that happens, it'll happen on its own by the strength of the material.

The "alternate versions" argument doesn't fly for me. We didn't get good quality copies of many of the original versions of those songs (Hold On, Alone, Brother) until later - and, even then, it was only via an accidental leak.

To me alone suffers the most, i cant listen to the LD version i always use the go single verson on compilations

And there's nothing wrong with the version they mangled to create the Lost Dogs version!

I'm very glad it surfaced on that promo/internal Sony CD, I think it's the best recording of the song (better than the Go single version even.)

Birds in Hell wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that I'd rather have a slightly unfinished (or otherwise unsatisfactory) version of a song that hasn't been messed with years after the fact. I think projects like this are best when they're concerned with historical accuracy, not necessarily being a great record on their own terms - if that happens, it'll happen on its own by the strength of the material.

The "alternate versions" argument doesn't fly for me. We didn't get good quality copies of many of the original versions of those songs (Hold On, Alone, Brother) until later - and, even then, it was only via an accidental leak.

brother was floating around before that. Same thing with alone.

I would much rather prefer the best version of the song rather than concern myself with the authenticity of original unreleased songs. And I'd rather have slightly altered versions of songs I already have than have the same song again

Stip wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that I'd rather have a slightly unfinished (or otherwise unsatisfactory) version of a song that hasn't been messed with years after the fact. I think projects like this are best when they're concerned with historical accuracy, not necessarily being a great record on their own terms - if that happens, it'll happen on its own by the strength of the material.

The "alternate versions" argument doesn't fly for me. We didn't get good quality copies of many of the original versions of those songs (Hold On, Alone, Brother) until later - and, even then, it was only via an accidental leak.

brother was floating around before that. Same thing with alone.

In fairly poor quality, though.

Stip wrote:I would much rather prefer the best version of the song rather than concern myself with the authenticity of original unreleased songs. And I'd rather have slightly altered versions of songs I already have than have the same song again

I feel exactly the opposite on both counts. Generally speaking, I think it's often better for an artist not to be involved in archival projects - they're too protective. Billy Corgan's Smashing Pumpkins reissues are one of the few instances of someone getting it (more or less) right.

Birds in Hell wrote:I'm firmly of the opinion that I'd rather have a slightly unfinished (or otherwise unsatisfactory) version of a song that hasn't been messed with years after the fact. I think projects like this are best when they're concerned with historical accuracy, not necessarily being a great record on their own terms - if that happens, it'll happen on its own by the strength of the material.

Yep. Especially the part in bold.

why don't artists just freeze the creative process after the demo? The goal of any album should be to produce the best collection of songs possible (that cohere together in an organic way if possible). Lost Dogs wasn't claiming to be a historical look through the creative process. The boxed sets are closer to that and so we got the original SOLAT and breath, etc. That makes sense there. If a band is releasing a bunch of songs I never heard before I want them to be the strongest possible songs. Even if they haven't touched them for a while I am fine with them applying their current sensibilities to the project. The problem is whether or not they do it well.

I guess we have differing ideas of what we want and expect from a release like this, since I disagree with almost everything in that post.

Those boxsets were just as bad (worse, in some cases) in terms of historical revisionism.

I'm okay with loads of different versions floating around. I'm particularly interested in hearing raw versions of songs for the autobiographical exhibits that they are, but sometimes it can be interesting to hear a band revisit or update a song. Pearl Jam just isn't nearly as good at doing the latter as, say, Bob Dylan.

I would be 100% fine with a fresh re-recording of a song.

Stip wrote:why don't artists just freeze the creative process after the demo?

I think this is a different point all together.

Lost Dogs is - or I expected it to be - a collection of "lost songs." Songs that didn't make an album for whatever reason. Or songs that had been released previously, gathered together for the first time.

I didn't think LD was meant to be an album in that sense. So instead of just gathering the songs and releasing the best quality versions of those lost songs, they re imagined/retooled/rewrote/rerecorded them. It's fine. I like LD. I just would have preferred that they left well enough alone.

Birds in Hell wrote:I would be 100% fine with a fresh re-recording of a song.

Me too. And I'd be fine with releasing a whole album of those, too.

I just thought Lost Dogs was supposed to be something different, I guess. Again, I like it just fine. Just would have preferred something different. Whatever. It's not my band.

Birds in Hell wrote:I guess we have differing ideas of what we want and expect from a release like this, since I disagree with almost everything in that post.

Those boxsets were just as bad (worse, in some cases) in terms of historical revisionism.

My point was just that it is a more appropriate venue (methinks) for what you are describing.

Stip wrote:That makes sense there. If a band is releasing a bunch of songs I never heard before I want them to be the strongest possible songs.

That's not really what "Lost Dogs" was, though. A lot of the songs they tampered with on "Lost Dogs" were songs had been available on singles, various compilations, etc. for years--in fact, that's precisely why it was so painfully obvious to everyone that they were being "upgraded."

I don't necessarily oppose what Pearl Jam did to those songs on principle, but I would say it's the kind of thing I would imagine failing more than succeeding. That said, I think "Lost Dogs" is a wonderful collection of songs and probably play it more than I play any other Pearl Jam studio release. There are a few songs on there ("In the Moonlight," "Fatal," "Strangest Tribe") that I just never tire of.

do you like the 'redone' binaural outtakes more than the originals?

Also, I think we were largely discussing whether or not this was a good idea on the songs we had never heard before, not the established b-sides.

Overall, I guess it depends on what the intentions are. I know Lost Dogs is a collection of b-sides and odds n' ends, but I think it skews closer to trying to an album experience than something like The Beatles Anthology. In that respect, I view it like Tom Waits' "Orphans", and I'm pretty sure he worked relatively extensively on that to get it work as an album.