Metamatic Forums John Foxx John Foxx remastered or not ? :-o

well ... there's a guy called scott a.k.a. rubellan over in another forum claiming that the new double-album of "metamatic" is NOT a remastered edition ! :-o

please read for yourself , what he has to say @ http://www.nwoutpost.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=20502

what do y' all think about that ? :-o

i'm actually quite annoyed about his claims & have already answered over there & also in the ev forum to it ! *grumble*

anyway ... a clarification from rob about this matter would be a good thing now !

If the new edition of Metamatic isn't remastered then I am an elephant.

Yeah, ive added my two cents of the euro too at EV. Hence my reason for listing 'Metamatic' second version cd, earlier on my playlist today.

Yes its a storm in a tea cup, so lets drink up quick.

Some flaws - like the bit in Young Love where everything goes to the left speaker for a split second - may not be "remasterable".

Even by playing one of the CDs in my computer I can clearly hear the difference compared to the previous edition. I don't think it's anything radical but there has certainly been work done, probably as much as it can be, given its age - of that there is no doubt.

That person is talking rubbish.

I begin to be tired of reading the comments of these "sound specialists"!
It is certainly not a big difference in the sound quality to the last Edsel remastered version. But a much better than the 1993 Virgin version.

For me , the important reason to buy this new Version were all the bonus tracks. For this I'm very thankfully John had heard the wishes of his fans! Now we can listen to some long missed tracks - and for that it was worth the money alone!

To discuss if one bleep is better remastered as another one is very boring for my opinion!


THANK'S A LOT JOHN!!!! GO ON!!!

Looking forward to THE GARDEN!!!....

And that REALLY matters???

my thoughts exactly , alex & i bet that he doesn't have the guts to come over here to renew his claims in "the place to be" concerning all things foxx-y ! ;-o

some people are never really satisfied - for what utterly strange reason soever ! *sigh*

john simply DOESN'T deserve such "fans" like this scott a.k.a. rubellan person imho , but luckily enough there aren't much of his ilk around these days anymore ! *phew*

'nuff said for now !

Absolutely.

Some people are just impossible to please. For me the sound is slightly better than the previous reissue, and I was perfectly happy with that.

Like Andreas, I was mostly interested in the second disc for the bonus material - which I think sounds as good as it probably can.

I'm not a sonic geek who wants to sit and weigh up the pros and cons of every little click and bleep, then complain that one bit of percussion is too loud in one track compared to the origial etc, and all that, but to read comments like that is just unfair.

The fact is that it is officially out there and sounding good.

People who want to pull apart the work that has been done obviosuly have a problem of some kind, which esculates to POINTLESS arguments and disagreements etc.

There are much more interesting and worthwhile aspects of John's music to talk about.

They should just shut up and simply enjoy the music!!!!!!

Exact my opinion too, Alex!!!

WTF!?

It's an album that was (as Foxx put it), 'Recorded in an 8-track cupboard in Islington'...

WTF was this guy Scott expecting it to come out sounding like - 'Dark Side of the *&^*^*% Moon'!?

Q: Can I play it? A: Yes

Q: Can I hear a bit of tape hiss from 1979 A: Yes

Q: Do I give A s**t that I hear a bit of tape hiss from 1979?

A: No. I have a life.

Q: Does it 'Rock'? A: Hell yeah!