Debate: Is it Wrong to Remix Albums?

Join this weeks big debate, inspired by Geoff Tate whose 'New and Improved' album mixes are available within a week of the original album going on sale.

Ultimate Guitar

A free copy of Geoff Tate's new Queensryche album remixes are available to fans who aren't happy with the sound on his new album "Frequency Unknown" that was released this week - but fans have to email a copy of their receipt if they want it, Blabbermouth reports.

Fans are being asked to email a scan of the original purchase receipt and send it to who will send a replacement disc free of charge.

This got us thinking, and seems like a perfect topic for this week's big debate:

Is it right or wrong to release an album remix?

Some artists remix albums after a few decades, and in Tate's case, in the same week of the album release. We want to hear if you think it's right, or how much time should pass before it's fair game.

If you're not familiar with the back story, Queensryche fans were disappointed by the sound of early previews of Tate's album, and even the singer himself admitted last week that the first mix was rushed. At the last minute, a remix of the album was commissioned, but seemingly missed the original album release deadline.

"Frequency Unknown" is Geoff Tate's first album since forming his own version of Queensryche after being fired by the original Queensryche band last year. In November a court will decide which version of the band will keep the band name.

Do you think the original "Frequency Unknown" mix sounds bad? What do you think of the practise of releasing remixes after an album has already gone on sale? Let us know what you think in the comments.

80 comments sorted by best / new / date

    Nothing wrong with trying to fix something if you realise it isn't working. As long as you don't get charged again for it. It's similar to patching computer games - once it's out there, they realise something needs changing. I can think of a few Metallica records I'd love to hear remixed.
    A certain Anger comes to mind...
    I don't think it's always because it needs fixing. Maybe it just has the potential for more.
    Agreed, theres some real good remix albums out there where the album is brilliant by its self (i.e Goyte-Like Drawing Blood)
    Remixing an album really depends on the situation. For Tate, I would argue remixing the band's album was a logical and appropriately taken measure. As a band, you definitely do not want to release your music with poor production, especially in a day and age when music sounds so much more polished than in previous years. It will surely stand out to fans and critics and you simply cannot afford that. Then there is remixing what some might consider a "classic album". Many people complained when Blizzard of Oz was supposedly remixed and remastered because they re-recorded some of the instruments which took away from the original feel and sound of the songs. Quite a number felt they should have just left the album the way it was. I guess I'd sum it up by saying: If it sounds terrible and that wasn't your intention, seriously consider remixing it. If you put out a classic record that many embrace to this day, you might not want to mess with that.
    Some albums need remixing. As an example, compare the death magnetic remixes compared to the album. It sounds way better; - and that's without access to all the stems! When a large portion of the listeners believe that the production ruins the album, it's a fair sign that there is a problem, and I think remixing will do the band more good than harm. In the case of Tate: When even the artist isn't happy with the original mix, I really don't think it's a problem.
    Sorry, I may failed something in my life, but where can I listen to the remixed DM ? I know some fan-remixes, but what is the better version (or the one you are talking about) ?
    You would have to download it. You can go for either the Guitar Hero version or the remastered version. All three versions have very noticeable differences.
    So after my searchs, you are speaking about GHIII rip, MARCKIII and MODIII version right ?
    When done correctly, remixes can improve the audio quality of old records IMMENSELY. Just listen to the Beatles' remasters from 2009 - the sound quality is incredible compared to the original CD releases from the 80s.
    Re-mastering a track is much different from remixing a track. I can see why that may be a little confusing, but nonetheless its very different.
    There is nothing wrong with remixing. It could help add that extra punch to an album if more production is needed. Same thing as an above comment said also. Sometimes overproduced albums need to be raw to sound good. Point #1 by Chevelle is an album I think could've benefited from cleaner production. Also Reanimation by Linkin Park is proof that a remixed album can be better than the original product.
    Nothing by Meshuggah and Enemies Of Reality by Nevermore are two albums that definitely benefited from a remix, although the former did have it's guitars rerecorded so dunno if that counts.
    I say been there, done that. Keep moving forward with new music, instead of going to the past mourning about an album that couldve been mixed better. But hey, if you want to spend time doing that, go ahead.
    There is nothing wrong in doing it, but it should be clearly written that it's a remix, so people don't take it for the original. For example Megadeth remixed editions (vs. original editions) can be regarded as two different albums for that matter, they even have different album covers...
    It's great anytime something can be improved if there is a known problem with it. Nothing wrong with that at all. It's only wrong when you commission a half dozen random guys with no connection to the album to do an equally rushed mix and then quietly replace the original mix with it like what they did here on the Queensryche album. When music is remixed, both versions should always remain available because rarely, if ever, will the changes be unanimously viewed as an improvement.
    It depends on the album, sometimes you need that rawness. On the other hand I would love to hear The Hunter by Mastodon remixed, just because it was so overproduced that I vomit every time I hear it.
    really does depend on the artist, theres so many remixes of the beatles ( 1 album (both copies) love etc) and i can't stand the mixes compared to the original mono's personal preference. but depends on what it is
    Like what the user above me said. It's a delicate subject that can be hit or miss. Re-recordings (not remixes) of albums are a complete atrocity. For example, Burzum, Gorgoroth, Dimmu Borgir and countless other bands have ruined classic and genre defining albums by re-recording them. Albums that had a great sound recorded in analog that were re-recorded in digital just doesn't work. It takes away the original recording's soul and takes a plastic sounding dump on it. You can't compare a classic album recorded in analog to a modern day digital re-recording that sounds uninspired and dull. If it wasn't for the sound of a lot of albums they wouldn't be as good. It's the artist's choice whether they want to re-record their albums or not, but so far I have yet to hear a re-recorded album sound better than the original. As for remixing, I think it's fine. When I master or mixdown tracks, I always have a couple of versions and can never choose only one as the best. They're all good in one way or another and it's always nice to hear multiple versions. I've actually heard remixes/remasters that sounded a lot better than the original and make a huge difference or have fixed things / a certain thing.
    how is that a problem? you don't HAVE to listen to re-recordings... it's completely optional. the original isn't "ruined", its still there...
    It's disrespectful in a way, but I'm sorry you're not able to feel this way about albums.
    Emperor's Child
    I feel remixes have an unfair stereotype. Of course some remixes and remasters seem to butcher already fine releases but there are also good ones... Cynic's Focus, Opeth's Still Life, Steven Wilson's work with King Crimson etc...
    Remixing is great! Remastering is often bad, as it usually means much more compression which is NOT good.
    Linkin Park - Reanimation is a very good example of where an album has been improved by a remix for 3 reasons: They remixed themselves/via friends. They got guests in to mix it up. Songs were very obviously different to their originals, yet similar enough to enjoy hearing the same thing again.
    I agree, they remixed it the way they saw fit. They had almost full control over what got released and each song was different enough from the original to merit re-releasing for sale.
    Way Cool JR.
    Bands can do whatever the hell they want with their music, they made it. If people don't like the newer remix they can easily just keep listening to the original. Really nothing to debate over IMO.
    Maybe the original version is the way it should be listened to, because it is the version the artists made and choose to do. If we remixed one record because of the technological improvements, we will have to do it again in 20 years, because their will be other cool technological stuff...
    I absolutely hated "Re-animation" from Linkin Park. The original recording were much better, as were with the Jay-Z linkin Park album and most other remix albums period. I'm a big fan of Fear Factory, but I didn't care for any of their remix's either.
    Steve Wilsons work for King Crimson and Jethro Tull or the DVD-A of Refused - The shape of punk to come are awesome remixes, both made the effort of making 5.1 mixes too. Beatles - Let it be naked is pretty good too, although it goes a bit further and removes and adds parts. Remixes can be a very good thing, there are plenty of albums that sound underwhelming, that can be vastly improved with a remixing.
    It's nice. I like to hear the sounds of it and all, but i wont buy a remixed album. For some reason i would rather listen to the original.
    There's nothing wrong with remixing itself. It's something very common with old albums, and the result is often pretty good. What's wrong is releasing an album knowing of its poor quality mixing anyway, and then releasing the remix just a few days later, even if it's for free. If it could've been solved that easily, then why not solve it and release the better product first, instead of releasing the poor one and then having to apologize?
    I would love to hear Lamb of God's album "As The Palaces Burn" cleaned up a little. I love those songs, but with the crappy production you lose the epic musicianship on that album. Remixed or Remastered, i dont care
    nope. Some great artists from the 60s and 70s, especially in less funded genres like reggae, the audio quality and music wasn't quite what they wanted. so 20+ years later when they really think they can improve the quality of the album to what they wanted it at back then, it can be magical. even remixes not done by the original artist can be really great, if not better than the original. You've just gotta know what you're doing, and not **** it up.
    I F U C K I N G LOVE any and every kind of remix done by either Ulver or just Garm himself.
    idk i like if they do songs here and there but not an entire album
    I would say no. But then there's a Y34R Z3R0 R3MIX3D (awful title) and Further Down The Spirall by Nine Inch Nails, so...
    depends normally its okay, but when your in a middle of a remix then it just goes into a drop and theirs no real rhythm its shit.
    Is it wrong? No. Is it often a bad idea? Yes. Remixing has its place on older albums that originally sounded like shit, but you have to be careful to not fix something that isn't broken.
    Radiohead released entire sidealbums to Hail to the theif and The king of limbs that were nothing but remixes by other artists, and on top of that, released remixes of songs on collecters-version albums. And how does it sound? IMO pretty good. So from my point of view, it's no problem... Unless you make the song(s) worse, in which case, **** you.
    I think remixing can be both a good and bad thing. Some albums could benefit from it (St. Anger anyone?), other albums are just trying to generate album sales.
    Depends on if you are talking about hip-hop remixes (lyrics, beats, the whole nine), or rock/metal where they change track and stuff, (Ozzy replacing Daisley and Kerslake's bass and drum tracks, on the reissues), I also hate rock remixes on greatest hit albums, but hip-hop remixes are generally good.
    I think that mixing something you make should take as much effort as what you're mixing. If the Queensryche guy isn't happy with his product, it's kinda cool he'd even have this as an option. However, it shouldn't take away any integrity, it should drive his idea "home" A little harder.
    it depends on the context in which the remix is being done, if its a remix in the pure form where another producer mixes the original raw recordings into their vision then i agree with that, i like to hear how different people approach the same piece of music. but with a remix in the newer sense which is taking a track changing the core of the music to fit a different style of music, its a grey area, some of them work really well (i'd suggest Skrillex's remix of Alejandro by Lady Gaga, or Madeon's remix of The Island by Pendulum) but there are some that don't work at all and actually detract from the original. is this a bad thing, i'd say no. someone will like it, and if it shows a person a different genre of music by association then thats always a good thing.
    Are we talking about remix or remaster? Because I think what Tate does was remaster. Remix is something different in my books
    Remixing is great. It lets other artists put a creative and personal spin on their favourite tracks.
    I think its fine if the general consensus is that the quality of the release just isn't up to par. There is a big difference to me with a situation like this, where the attempt is to better the quality compared to artists remixing stuff just to change it up and make more money by selling a "remixed album." It is cool though when artists remix their originals and give it away for free.
    I love the remix Randy Burns made of Megadeth's Peace Sells. The overall feel is better and Chris Poland's guitar solos have a clearer punch to them.
    Remixes can be hit or miss. Some albums need to be just left the way they are, while others have more potential. One of the best I've heard was Destroyer Resurrected released by KISS last year. Granted, it's an old album, but the new mixing really brings the music to life more than it was before.
    Nope. For example, Rush fans across the world would be ecstatic if Rush released a remixed/mastered version of Vapor Trails that wasn't so loud and with less clipping/compression. And I mean flipping ecstatic.