John Moore should be lined up against a wall. The sub editors should be next in line followed by the editor, the record label, the PR, and the artist themselves. Anbody else involved in this shambolic affair should also make themselves known so we can all laugh at their pittyfull manhoods and my knowledge of the "making music to getting review of a re-release" game would be expanded significantly.

Frazer, can you get the F7 button fixed on teh website. Ta.

is this for real? do you really expect word reviewers to go to abbey road and compare remasters with original cd's, which in most cases would be what is required to notice any difference. Think you need to find a different magazine.

discussing the remastering of Nick Cave CDs isn't very interesting.

that's not what I meant. I meant play the originally issued vinyl or CDs and then play the new ones. Is that an unreasonable request when the new issues are remasters?

I have had some remasters where I could discern little difference and others where the difference was dramatic -Dylan's street legal is a prime example.

And yes call me picky but I reckon a review of albums should refer in some detail to the tracks on the albums.

wrong magazine, i think. One of the refreshing things of word's reviews is that they don't focus on details like every bonus track, quality of remastering unless it is obviously striking. A review is one person's subjective opinion of a record not a list of facts. If you want a roll call of the spec of the 're-mastered' re-issue, go and look on the amazon shop.

the "from hair to paternity" pun writer needs a good talking to.

It's not on my vinyl copy of the album. It would be more accurate to describe it as an "non-album A-side single that appeared as a bonus track on the original CD but wasn't on the 12" LP", but that's probably a little bit wordy.

yes, in the ghetto is only on cds not the vinyl.My mistake.

Re earlier reference to hi fi geeks - you don't have to be a geek to be interested in whether something promoted as remastered by the musical band leader actually sounds better. The Word may not be hi fi geek monthly but it is not MP3 monthly either.Would a review of the stones or dylan SACD remasters not mention the enhanced sound?

Lastly, no I am not asking for a track by track dissertation but some discussion of each album ostensibly being reviewed would be nice.

I recall David Hepworth saying in a recent podcast that most reviewers tend to write about the artist rather than the music on the album because the latter is much harder .

Colliboshers lack of interest is understandable given the lack of interest in the previous versions. They are "collectors" editions like it says right in the heading. All the more reason to talk about things collectors are interested in in those precious 150 words.

But it seems I am the only one in step.

The Massive seem to:
a. not give a rat's arse about nick cave which is not really my point
b. listen to music from a download to an ipod or some such for which a remastered version is academic or should i say geekic.

So be it.

Still reckon it was a crap review.

Grabs coat and bolts for door.

... I know, but is the reviewer the same John Moore who was in the Jesus and Mary Chain? Just wondered

I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying that the review says "Tender Prey" when it actually means "The Firstborn is Dead". That would fit in with this being a reissue of Cave's first four albums.

Tut tut.

whether remasters are aimed at new or existing fans. I have all Cave's albums including the boxed set of b sides and rarities, so I doubt there's any new tracks - and it would be new tracks only that reeled me in.
I got the remastered London Calling but that was more for the demos and new dvd. The recent-ish Costello ones have tons of extra tracks, so I was tempted by some of those too.
I'd prefer the reviewer to say whether there are new tracks, but really think it's up to the label to advertise their inclusion - then me to seek the full track listing from Amazon or wherever.

I thought tbone made some good points.This blog after all is about opinions,and we should be able to criticise a poor review without being turned on by the massive.Reading some of the replies to his OP I thought they sounded more like a religious sect.
Hang the non-believer for he did not like a bit of the Word.

It's morning over here, at the desk, and I opened the blog with trepidation after the snide responses I got to my disappointment with the Moore review. So I was heartened by these comments by Doug and Mark

My conclusions about this thread are as follows:

some people dont like nick cave
some people dont like reissues
some people dont care about remastered albums
some people dont care about hi fidelity
some nick cave fans dont care about resissues

I'm cool with all of this.

My response is as follows:

I expect word reviews to be of a high standard.
I expect an album review to provide reasonable coverage of the albums being reviewed.
If a review is to be limited to 150 words then it should focus on the things that matter.Given the conclusions above - this review should have been directed to fans of nick cave and his ilk that might be interested in a reissue that has been remastered and with extras.

I should not have to buy a copy of Uncut or the like tho have this expectation satisfied.

Tony Hunter

These weren't albums I'm familiar with so the review didn't stick out for me. However, having read this I do tend to agree that if you're reviewing a "new version" of something, a bit of attention to the differences would be worthwhile.

who wrote in when their favourite band wasn't gushed over by a grateful to be allowed to listen journalist.

It still feels funny now.

I would've thought a Nick Cave cd (remastered collectors deluxe xth anniversary limited edition original sleeve etc) would have been better with tracks taken off rather than added.

Just a thought!

I think your proposition is very charitable Barry.

at the risk of being obsessive......

I accept reviewers get a stack of CDs and little time to review them.I assume they have an interest in/knowledge of in the type of music they are reviewing ,as evidenced by andrew's comments in a recent podcast,or are going to do some research and that they will write a review relevant to the readers who are likely to be interested. in this case nick cave fans interested in remastered albums of stuff he already has released plus extra bits.

Im surprised my view caused such rancour.Silly old me i thought the massive might have been on my side but each to their own.

Re the item being reviewed differing significantly from what we the reader are likely to end up purchasing -well not much point doing the review then is there?

If this is what you expect from a word review then i'm very surprised its taken you so long to complain. Word has not gone into huge detail about track lists, bonus tracks, remastered sound in its review section since the magazine began. I suggest Uncut/Mojo if it's facts and details with limited opinion you want from your reviews. This is probably also the reason why those two magazines are so utterly boring to read.

each has their place

i read em occasionally but only subscribe to TheWord.

Don't find them boring (if I'm interested in the band) nor lacking in opinion
just narrow.

Re reviews in the Word being ever thus I think it reasonable to suggest this be qualified by "most reviews" If it is a review of the Beatles Love I seem to recall forensic analysis and would expect the same for the beloved Elbow, Radiohead et al

I'm clearly in an abject minority so I will head for the couch and a red while you northern hemisphere dwellers face your day

I don't remember seeing the review in Word. Mojo had nothing much extra to say apart from mentioning that they sounded noticeably brighter than the previous editions.

The review of The Who Sell Out was good for two reasons. It was a whole page long and it offered a nonconformist opinion that was slightly off message from the general census. It should be pointed out though that The Hall Of The Mountain King was on the 1995 reissue (I think the review suggested that it was a track exclusively new to the Deluxe Edition).

Also the Radiohead reviews were about three pages long and not once mentioned sound quality and made only a few comments about the extras. I assume the album CDs have not been remastered. The albums have all been recently mastered (1993 can still be considered modern, right?) and I can't see the band themselves helping EMI by doing the remastering themselves.

Anyone got the CD/DVD-A reissues of the REM Warner Bros albums? Are the CDs remastered or are they the same masters as the previous CD releases?

It came to pass that tbone was sent to the Australian version of Coventry for daring to suggest that a review was not up to the standard that it could have been.Be gone to the kingdom of Mojo and Uncut they cried, for to worship at this altar is to be unquestioning.

But he wasn't after "tech specs"he wanted to know if the re-mastered discs sounded better,the same or worse.If he needs to look elsewhere for this basic info and whether there is extra dvd material included then the review is certainly not doing it's job.
As I said in an earlier post this blog is about opinions and tbone seems to have been villified for daring to express his.

no one has been vilified. As far as I can see a discussion has taken place. If anything the bar was set as Archie said by using terms like 'absolutely appalling' and shoddy'. Dougb, seems you have failed to add anything either way other than to try and prolong the debate.

insinuated that tbone was some sort of hi-fi geek for wanting to know about the sound quality of these discs.However, thank you mdavies for correcting my opinion.I will change it to yours at once.

you have one?

I wrote a response before this but it seemed to disappear into the ether so Fraser if you get 2 versions delete the one with all the uncorrected typos!

I agree that by initial posting was somewhat emotive and did indeed leasd off with abosolutely appalling and include the word shoddy.But I dont think such terms necessarily warrant dismissal of my views as the rantings of an anoraked geek.

My view was simply that the review didn't cover the albums listed and failed to properly address 2 key selling propositions of the reissues - namely that the albums have been remastered by mick harvey so they should sound different and there are extras including extra tracks and DVDs - the latter ignorred completely.These albums are for the collector - hence they are called collectors editions. The matters mentioned above are of interest to the collector. They are not of interest for those who dont like nick cave or have only a passing interest. But they aren't the target reader.

My view is that a thoughtful and deft reviewer would consider this and not waste the precious 150 words to a superficial overview of the history /context of nick cave and the seeds. There have been much better reviews of this type which is why I was so disappointed in this particular effort.

The responses seemed to go along the following lines

Who cares about nick cave. I think this was archie's contribution
Who cares about hi fidelity and if you do bugger off to hi fi geek monthly
If the company didnt provide the unremastered cds as well then an a/b comparison cant be expected
The word doesn't do that sort of review -go to amazon, uncut, mojo etc

I dont think it detracts in anyway from the culture of TheWord magazine to orient a review to the type of reader interested and on that I sign off.

the die hard fan either. The extra tracks added are either on the B side box set or on the original singles. I would jettison the videos which are already out on DVD, make the short films available on the website and use the space for unreleased material. Seems a bit of a wasted opportunity to me - catering for neither the fan who has everything or the newbie.

And even if the reviewer did say what he thought about how the remasters sounded its only his opinion. If these releases are anything like others in the past the Cave messageboards will be full of 'they sound great\shit' for weeks.

People ain't no good, i think that's well understood

needs to be structured more carefully then a 1000-worder, not less, and the Nick Cave review, on rereading, seems a little bit like a pub conversation, or taped interview.

I think that John Moore had never heard the original albums (or, at least, if he has he didn't allow it to affect his writing at all) so anybody who HAD heard the records originally was immediately one step ahead of the person writing the review, therefore easily able to find the comments irrelevant or unnessecary.

What is the practicality of Word insisting that anyone who reviews a Re-issue has a listen to the original recordings alongside the new versions? Just a thought - I think it would improve the Re-issues section, but might but difficult to implement.

remember the Nick Kent (I think) review of Bowie's 'Low' back in 70's NME - love to read it again but seem to remember it was a class piece of review journalism - and with a great cartoon (Ray Lowry I think .... what a loss - remember the Lone Groover?)