A very good Justice re-master avec bass

Nah, I've been listening to a bunch today, came across this one by pure accident, it only had 8 views. The bass feels like it's in there as ooposed to layer on top. That's what makes it stand out. There are a couple of others that are very good, but they only have 5 tracks for some reason.

Oh, well I downloaded that video in HD, ripped the audio in 3000kbs WAV and it sounds great on my HD music player. Its defo not a remaster of that shitty and justice for Jason.

They are all called that but not "thee" one. I div nae care who is playing, but it sounds better and that'll do me.

Don't care what anyone says, Justice would be a much more satisfying listen with a meaty bass sound in there. Yes, the album sounds 'different' because of the lack of one, but different does not always mean good. It still would have sounded 'different' with it's inclusion because the structures, riffs, themes and general attitude would still have been there, just with more balls to boot, and how could anyone say that'd be a bad thing? I notice that the bass is certainly noticeable in the subsequent live renditions of Justice songs and never have I heard it said that this detracted from those performances.

Metallica might have gotten shit for cutting their hair and going after Napster, but they seem to have gotten a relatively free pass on cutting one fourth of their band out of an entire album.

Download that link

If they add bass on the upcoming remaster it would be a licence to print money. They would be stupid not to.

The only option I can see them doing is to include a download code for a remixed & remastered version as a "bonus" whilst the 'official' album remains as it was just remastered slightly.

But even then I'd be surprised. They've made it clear over the years that the records are what they are and that's how they will stay.

We shall see, I guess.

Wait, they remastered it? Or are you talking about GH III Moderus?

Sounds like the Vinyl mastering.

I agree.

(On this occasion I was trying to be less resolute than I normally am on this topic)

That's too black and white. AFAIK they have the masters so could.

But it's more to do with whether they WANT to do it. And I don't think they do. I think they are off the kindest of 'this is the artistic place we were in and the choices that stemmed from that and to change that would be wrong'.

Could be talking bollocks of course!

Metallica owns all their stuff outright. Whatever else you think of them, props for that, it very, very, very rarely happens. Hopefully they are caring properly for the tapes, those, along with film stock, are very fragile. They also bought "Johnny Got His Gun" a while back, and bought out Warners share of "Some Kind Of Monster" for 4 million.

This would be my Shortest Straw. If Metallica, assuming they do for "...And Justice For All" what they did for Kill & Ride, does not produce a correction to the {IMO} inJustice done to the greatest album they ever recorded record, On it;s 30th Anniversary, I'm done. Not one more dime, not that they will care. I have purchased every album on release day, and except for S.t Anger hated everything after {and a lot of} "Metallica", "Hardwired" will be the last if they fail on this. I am cautiously/blindly hopeful that because they remastered Kill And Ride {they brought the bass up on those, they sound a bit fuller on the anniversary editions}, that they will do so on "...And Justice For All". We'll see what happens.



P.S.
Why do I continue buying albums I know I am probably going to hate? "...And Justice For All" and the Seattle concert I attended on 29 August 1989 earned that, as twisted as that is.

No injustice?

And no it isn't arrogance, its hearing what the album should have sounded like had they not fucked with it, but again, would have buried Puppets, can't have that.
And intentionally turning down bass on an entire album, while correct for the band, is most certainly wrong towards one of it's one members.

Actually, I liked St. Anger very much, still do. It;s underrated. Loved Garage Inc., and found it funny that the most alive and passionate they had sounded on vinyl in a few years came on a covers album.


Flemming:

"I'd love to remix that album. I'm pretty sure the guys who did it [Thompson and Barbiero], I know they would love to mix it again. 'Cause they set it up and made it sound good and then Lars and James came in and f--ked it all up, hahaha." From here

It IS! Look at your sentence. I've bolded the pertinent part. I have no problems with people wanted to hear a remixed version with the bass raised. What I have a problem with is the phrasing and ideas that it should have sounded like something else. Which you did.

This is you saying that you know better than the artist. This is you saying that the choice the artist made (no matter HOW they arrived at that choice) is wrong. It's you saying that artist's work isn't exactly how it should be (which is how they wanted it to be).

It's presumption that you know better. And I hate to break this to you, but you don't. The album sounds EXACTLY the way it SHOULD sound because that is the way the ARTIST wanted it to sound.

That's the arrogance - to presume you know better on how someone should represent their art.