The '92 Virgin or the '96 Remaster.....any thoughts...
The '92 Virgin or the '96 Remaster.....any thoughts...
I have the virgin vinyl release. I don't know about the remastered version. But if I didn't have either I think I would opt for the remastered no? I don't understand all this remastered remixed reconstituted re everything to tell you the truth. I just
Like that era of TD, and I recall really liking the album, I haven't spun it in quite a while.
Hope you dive in and dig the album whichever one you end up getting!
Should be experienced on vinyl. Just my thought.
"Improvisation is not an excuse for musical laziness" - Fred Frith
"[...] things that we never dreamed of doing in Crimson or in any band that I've been in," - Tony Levin speaking of SGM
The '96 versions don't sound bad at all and are probably more easily available/cheaper than the '92 versions. Just stay away from the re-recorded version from 5-10 years ago.
The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off
The original Virgin sounds great to me. Last I knew it was back in print.
A look on Amazon seems to indicate that is still the case.
The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off
There's no substantive difference between the two digital versions. The later remaster was so similar to the earlier release I found it difficult to believe it had been remastered.
Holy crap.
In post 5, I recommended getting the Virgin Years set. This contains Phaedra thru Cyclone; all the albums from TD (from the period when they were arguably in their prime) that I paid $13.46 for when it first came out. Now it's $85.32 for a physical copy.
Bookmarks