[HN Gopher] Rescuing songs that record labels forgot existed
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Rescuing songs that record labels forgot existed
        
       Author : walthamstow
       Score  : 147 points
       Date   : 2024-08-25 17:22 UTC (4 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.bbc.co.uk)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.co.uk)
        
       | realusername wrote:
       | They forgot, up until they could get money out of it of course.
        
         | AtlasBarfed wrote:
         | It's almost like piracy has a useful purpose.
        
           | realusername wrote:
           | I couldn't say it better, what's the social purpose of those
           | music conglomerates in this story? They don't even know
           | exactly which rights they hold.
        
             | exe34 wrote:
             | they make profits for shareholders.
        
           | em-bee wrote:
           | except that at least on torrent sites only the popular
           | torrents stay alive. that's not helpful. what we really need
           | is a digital library of congress, funded by taxes, where at
           | least every publicly performed work should be uploaded. the
           | internet archive is a good start, but they can only take
           | stuff that they are allowed to. they should really be able to
           | take everything and make it accessible for a fee and free
           | once the copyright expires. the problem is that greed of the
           | publishers prevents that, hence i think a mandatory system
           | would be better.
        
             | treyd wrote:
             | Private trackers have incentives to seed poorly-seeded
             | torrents, like discounted/free leeching or double seeding
             | credits. Although I agree with the general sentiment.
        
       | musicale wrote:
       | Some of the more popular songs like Sting's Desert Rose etc. seem
       | to be collisions or shadowing where one version of a song is
       | replaced by another (different) version/mix/edit of the same song
       | (e.g. single vs. album version). This certainly seems to be a
       | recurring issue with Apple Music. I wonder though if some
       | editions such as promo versions or radio edits simply weren't
       | released to the general public to begin with.
       | 
       | Some massive dance classics on this list; nice to see versions
       | that bafflingly weren't on streaming. (Come to think of it I have
       | lots of songs that sadly don't match properly on Apple Music -
       | even some I purchased from the iTunes store.)
        
         | tetris11 wrote:
         | > radio edits weren't released to the general public
         | 
         | There's one good version and one bad version of Morrissey's
         | _Irish Blood, English Heart_ and for some reason only the bad
         | version with added sound effects and tame ending is the one I
         | keep finding on YouTube.
        
           | RobotToaster wrote:
           | Several Michael Jackson songs are only on youtube in censored
           | form, "They Don't Care About Us" is the one I remember.
        
         | Tanoc wrote:
         | There's a version of Space Cowboy by Jamiroquai that didn't pop
         | up in any store for years. It's called Stoned Again, which in
         | itself is an alteration and combination of the David Morales
         | Classic Club Mix and the original music video version. For
         | years until it was released on Apple Music the only versions
         | you could get were the original, the Good Vibes Zone Extended
         | Remix or the David Morales Classic Club Mix. I don't know if
         | the shortened 3:23 long music video version's even available as
         | audio only either.
         | 
         | There's an ongoing problem that's somewhat related where the
         | newest release version of a song is the only one you can
         | download. It's related to music rights and royalties, thus
         | storefronts get talked into carrying a version that a different
         | group of people can get money from. It's becoming a real
         | problem because so many of these remasters do things like tape
         | noise removal or leveling compression that severely unbalance
         | the original mixes. Listening to ZZ Top's 2006 Fandango!
         | remaster for example is unsettling because if you're used to
         | the original 1975 release you notice right away the highhats
         | getting reduced or the increased volume of the bass on what
         | were originally live stage recorded songs. But many services do
         | not have the original 1975 recordings or their 1988 digital
         | transfers. If it weren't for preservationists doing manual
         | transfers of well kept but now quickly degrading physical media
         | and spreading them via piracy then all we would have would be
         | these new remasters for a lot of songs.
        
           | gosub100 wrote:
           | a parallel problem I'm seeing is artists re-recording their
           | hits in an attempt to have a second shot at making money
           | after getting screwed by the record companies in the initial
           | release. I can't blame the artists, of course, but my ear is
           | trained to expect a _very_ particular sequence of sounds and
           | their re-recordings just don 't cut it for me, despite their
           | attempts to faithfully re-create every part of the original
           | (other people appreciate music differently, thats fine).
        
           | jorvi wrote:
           | > or leveling compression that severely unbalance the
           | original mixes. Listening to ZZ Top's 2006 Fandango! remaster
           | 
           | Remasters from ~2003-2013 are terrible because they were
           | mastered in part for listening on shitty iPod earbuds, since
           | that was going to be a large slice of the listening
           | experience for a lot of people.
           | 
           | Later on, as higher-end monitors became more popular,
           | remastering flipped back to being (mostly) good.
           | 
           | This is also why a lot of audiophiles are still confused and
           | keep repeating the "vinyl masters are better" ad nauseam. For
           | that period they were. But before or after that time, a
           | proper digital mastering was already better than vinyl due to
           | the bigger available dynamic range.
        
       | tetris11 wrote:
       | I love music archivists, and there's an active bunch of them on
       | reddit.
       | 
       | I remember this gem about a guy who had been searching for 15
       | years for a song that he had recorded off of Ian Camfield's XFM
       | rock show.
       | 
       | https://old.reddit.com/r/NameThatSong/comments/58gt5d/ill_be...
       | 
       | After crowd-pooling the discernible lyrics, and a brief exchange
       | with Ian Camfield himself (who had since relocated to the US),
       | the search petered out.
       | 
       | Then one day, the artist themself just randomly uploaded the
       | song.
       | 
       | Apparently they made a single debut, and then the lead singer
       | went off to become a dentist.
        
       | omnibrain wrote:
       | I hate it especially when Bonus Tracks for limited editions of
       | Albums disappear because the streaming services only list the
       | regular releases.
        
         | throwup238 wrote:
         | I figured everyone used those to upsell the CDs/vinyls. I
         | suspect TV show and movie commentary is almost exclusively left
         | to DVDs and BluRays for that reason.
        
           | omnibrain wrote:
           | Yes, all this bonus content is sooner or later going to be
           | lost in some sort of digital limbo.
        
         | whycome wrote:
         | Similarly, I hate when the "secret song" from a CD is still a
         | part of that track when on streaming -- which results in a song
         | that is followed by minutes of silence before the 'hidden
         | track' comes in. It makes it impossible to add it to playlists.
         | (I'd assume this is an artist choice?)
        
         | lmm wrote:
         | In theory I agree, in practice I've had far more annoyance from
         | wanting to listen to an album on a streaming services and it's
         | the "Deluxe Edition" which has a bunch of extra filler tracks I
         | didn't want.
        
       | jakub_g wrote:
       | I wonder what kind of weird contractual stuff makes Spotify have
       | a totally different version of Limp Bizkit's "Getcha Groove On"
       | than the one I remember from album. The one I remember can be
       | found on YouTube though.
        
         | jakub_g wrote:
         | Hah, this made me check it at YT and read comments:
         | 
         | https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pvy3M5gQ_cQ
         | 
         | A reply to top comment explains:
         | 
         | > @AdrienArnouxComedy, 4 years ago Sample clearance issue. The
         | beat is entirely lifted from here at 8:48 :
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPhr1Eg7iiM However there's no
         | mention of a sample in the credits. I also can't find the name
         | of this track anywhere. I did hear it in a cab once. So they
         | probably stole it, got caught and settled out of court for
         | physical copies. Now that it's all digital they would need to
         | pay whoever they jacked it from again, so they'd rather put a
         | remix instead. Here's a quote from Wes Borland in an old
         | Kerrang I have from 2008 : "We actually got sued over this
         | piece of s**. There was some sort of sample used in it that
         | someone didnt get full clearance for, so we ended up getting
         | into some serious trouble for a little while."
        
         | excalibur wrote:
         | Sometimes I'll start listening to a favorite album in Spotify
         | only to discover that the only version they have is censored.
         | Given the option, virtually nobody would choose to listen to
         | music that way.
        
           | lmm wrote:
           | Most disturbing was when I listened to what was explicitly
           | (heh) marked as an explicit version of Eminem's _My Name Is_
           | , but half the lines were from the "clean" version. Felt like
           | being gaslighted.
        
       | HenryBemis wrote:
       | I remember switching from Deezer to Spotify (paid subscriptions)
       | because Deezer didn't have "Skunk Anansie - Hedonism (Just
       | Because You Feel Good) (Allegedly Acoustic Mix)" which is an
       | amazing song - imho one of the best "Repeat1" songs that I can
       | listen for hours and hours.
       | 
       | There are other songs I cannot seem to find anywhere though, some
       | cool remixes I remember from back-in-the-day or some live
       | bootleg-y versions that never made it to the streaming services
       | such as "Pearl Jam - Black/We Belong Together/It's OK (Pittsburgh
       | '06)" (https://)www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1pG6cWzWOQ).
       | 
       | Another song that 'suffered' from stolen samples (seeing other
       | peoples' comments), and a personal favorite is "The Orb - Fluffy
       | Clouds" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Fluffy_Clouds). I
       | remember hearing on an interview (many many years ago) that when
       | they were discussing about clearing the stolen bits, someone said
       | "say nothing and release it and we will figure it out later".
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-08-29 23:01 UTC)