I'd buy the Paul's Boutique demos remastered

[Kid Presentable]

Gettin surious (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcQYgrm6Vv0&feature=related)

[SOP]

I read that these demo tracks, to which the title of this thread refers, have been remastered and are going to be placed strategically throughout Grand Theft Auto IV. (y)(y)

[Brother McDuff]

I'm not completely sure what this video has to do with a PB remastering (maybe it's over my head), but on that note, I think that album is in dire, dire need of a remastering. The sound quality, while "good enough" since the music bangs, is definitely inferior and poor. A remastering would deem absolutely breath-taking, IMO.

[SOP]

I'm not completely sure what this video has to do with a PB remastering (maybe it's over my head), but on that note, I think that album is in dire, dire need of a remastering. The sound quality, while "good enough" since the music bangs, is definitely inferior and poor. A remastering would deem absolutely breath-taking, IMO.

In all seriousness... yes, the full-length Paul's Boutique album would sound amazing remastered. Def something for the band and label to consider. Idk. Maybe they could add a couple bonus goodies on the re-release to entice the peeps wearing out their cassettes and CDs. I'm sure there's something in the vault. ;)

[PmF]

You're talking about Paul's Boutique production? Yeah, I think it is a little bit dated. That's somehow funny anyway. The album is not dated in any place - the beats are not so "oldschool" and the record is not so "80's" making it sound totally fresh even today. The real problem is that it is recorded very quietly (and DO NOT post this Rolling Stone "Death Of Hi-Fi" article, because PB is something else - the mastering is fucked up and it is very quiet), and there is some distortion throughout the CD. And finally, the LP sounds much more fucking better ! PB should be remastered, that's true.

[Lex Diamonds]

Gettin surious (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcQYgrm6Vv0&feature=related)
ROLLIN DEEP (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZGvnI37mxk)

Yeah, a remaster of the PB demos would be sweet as a nut, sweet like Tropicana. In my opinion the Car Thief demos are better lyrically than the album cut.

[paul jones]

Gettin surious (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcQYgrm6Vv0&feature=related)

dig those pants man(y)

[ScarySquirrel]

If Paul's Boutique were ever re-mastered then the whole evolution of the music industry would have had to make a DRASTIC change from the course it's on now.

In order to release something like that as a "new" release, all the samples would have to be cleared, have royalties paid, and all that jazz. When you take into consideration the massive amount of samples the Dust Brothers used just to make one song on the album, let alone the entire thing, you're looking at a big chunk of change that will have to be paid out - either by Capitol Records or the Beastie Boys.

I know you shouldn't count your eggs before they hatch, but I'm guessing you have about "a quadzillion times infinity plus one more than you can ever say" to one of seeing a remastered version of Paul's Boutique.

[Brother McDuff]

In order to release something like that as a "new" release, all the samples would have to be cleared, have royalties paid, and all that jazz. When you take into consideration the massive amount of samples the Dust Brothers used just to make one song on the album, let alone the entire thing, you're looking at a big chunk of change that will have to be paid out - either by Capitol Records or the Beastie Boys.


That would be a violation of the ex post facto law, though, wouldn't it? If the album was released before the sampling laws were in place then capitol or whoever owns the rights will never have to pay the royalties, ever.

The real question is whether or not the law considers such a release "new". I'd be surprised if albums such as this were not elligible for a redux. But who knows.

[b i o n i c]

id definately buy that, 5.1 mix on the backside of the cd


the samples thing : i think the album is important enough to where it should be done even if the profits are slim. so what, pay the people for their samples. is this all about money or art, maaan.

[Brother McDuff]

the samples thing : i think the album is important enough to where it should be done even if the profits are slim. so what, pay the people for their samples. is this all about money or art, maaan.



I like your speak. (y)

[dave790]

yeah 20th anniversary edition next year i reckon, that would be awesome. particulary as it is now almost universilly accepted as one of the best rap/hip hop albums of all time, if not albums full stop. well, to latter is true to me anyway.

but the critics would love it - it'd get good reviews etc - i recokn like an 8-way fold out digipak like the deluxe vinyl, with one disc of the album, the other disc of the b-sides and the demos, all completely remastered, 5.1 etc.

yauch, if you're reading, you could even throw in a bonus dvd with some documentary shit, interviews with everyone involved etc and stories about the time... and the gig which the Shadrach video was recorded at - what was it, 5 songs you played? as it seems one of the fews shows you guys played around that time, it would be fascinating to see the whole thing. he even said he thought the footage was around somewhere if i remember correctly!

geeez it makes me sad that this will almost certianly never happen - it's a golden oppourtunity, particulary for the fans, but as has been pointed out, the samples would obviously be a huge issue. the albums and the boys deserve some lush treatment on this one though.

dave

[tjpop]

I know I'm not holding my breath either, but two things that are giving me hope are:

1. This: http://beastiemania.com/discog/show.php?r=pbmcukinstpromo

2. And the fact that the vinyl was put out in a reissue form back in the late 90s. They also printed up posters and shit to go along with those.


Let's cross some fingers!!!

[Kid Presentable]

yeah 20th anniversary edition next year i reckon, that would be awesome. particulary as it is now almost universilly accepted as one of the best rap/hip hop albums of all time, if not albums full stop. well, to latter is true to me anyway.

but the critics would love it - it'd get good reviews etc - i recokn like an 8-way fold out digipak like the deluxe vinyl, with one disc of the album, the other disc of the b-sides and the demos, all completely remastered, 5.1 etc.

yauch, if you're reading, you could even throw in a bonus dvd with some documentary shit, interviews with everyone involved etc and stories about the time... and the gig which the Shadrach video was recorded at - what was it, 5 songs you played? as it seems one of the fews shows you guys played around that time, it would be fascinating to see the whole thing. he even said he thought the footage was around somewhere if i remember correctly!

geeez it makes me sad that this will almost certianly never happen - it's a golden oppourtunity, particulary for the fans, but as has been pointed out, the samples would obviously be a huge issue. the albums and the boys deserve some lush treatment on this one though.

dave

Isn't it already licensed as a Beastie Boys/Dust Brothers work and not as a collection of the respective samples? Surely the remaster wouldn't involve clearing the samples again, otherwise it would be off the shelves for good. I'm assuming the remaster would use the tracks (recording tracks) as they relate to the Beastie Boys songs, and not involve resampling and re-composing.

Aside from that, excellent post. Great ideas. At last, the numpty quotient in BG is dropping.

[djdjdj]

Oh yeah I got the deluxe reissue of the beck album odelay which of course was also produced by the dust brothers. That came out in january its pretty cool the bsides are pretty good. Paul's Boutique remastered would be crazy.

[JohnnyChavello]

That would be a violation of the ex post facto law, though, wouldn't it?

No, an ex post facto law is one that changes the consequences of a law after the conduct, and applies the changes to the conduct. In this case, there is no statute of limitations on civil copyright infringement other than the de facto limitation of the term of the original copyright. There is an equitable doctrine in the law called laches, which sometimes bars plaintiffs from prevailing in a lawsuit where they have "slept on their rights", but it's unclear whether a court would support that theory in a case like this.

If the album was released before the sampling laws were in place then capitol or whoever owns the rights will never have to pay the royalties, ever.

The applicable law is US copyright law. "Sampling laws" just loosely refers to precedent in cases involving the use of samples. But the use of any sample implicates two separate copyrights: the sound recording copyright and the compositional copyright. Sound recording copyrights, which protect the actual performance embodied on copies of a record, received protection beginning in 1971, whereas copyright in musical compositions has been protected for centuries. Even sound recordings that existed before 1971 would likely be protected under state common law copyright because it wouldn't be preempted by federal law.

Copyright infringement exists in cases where the new use is substantially similar to the old use, according to the ordinary observer. A lot of the samples on the album (Curtis Mayfield's "Superfly" in Egg Man, for example) would definitely be infringing in the asbence of a license, while others (the audience noise in the intro to "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)", for example) most probably would not. If the record company actually wanted to license all of these samples, they couldn't possibly do it not only because it would be too expensive, but because a lot of copyright owners want to negotiate for a share of the resulting copyright and in cases where there are several samples on an individual song, there isn't enough copyright to go around.

I'm actually really surprised that the album has remained out of the courts for so long. Notorious B.I.G.'s Ready to Die was pulled from the shelves a couple of years ago by a judge in a federal district court, until an unlicensed sample was removed from all future copies. That could happen to an album like Paul's Boutique pretty easily, assuming Capitol hasn't gone back and made some kind of agreement with the owners of each of the samples that appear on the album. In any case, with digital file sharing technology, no album can ever disappear from the internet, anyway.

[Brother McDuff]

^^^^

Interesting. Thank you for the insight. (y)

[Sir SkratchaLot]

No, an ex post facto law is one that changes the consequences of a law after the conduct, and applies the changes to the conduct. In this case, there is no statute of limitations on civil copyright infringement other than the de facto limitation of the term of the original copyright. There is an equitable doctrine in the law called laches, which sometimes bars plaintiffs from prevailing in a lawsuit where they have "slept on their rights", but it's unclear whether a court would support that theory in a case like this.



The applicable law is US copyright law. "Sampling laws" just loosely refers to precedent in cases involving the use of samples. But the use of any sample implicates two separate copyrights: the sound recording copyright and the compositional copyright. Sound recording copyrights, which protect the actual performance embodied on copies of a record, received protection beginning in 1971, whereas copyright in musical compositions has been protected for centuries. Even sound recordings that existed before 1971 would likely be protected under state common law copyright because it wouldn't be preempted by federal law.

Copyright infringement exists in cases where the new use is substantially similar to the old use, according to the ordinary observer. A lot of the samples on the album (Curtis Mayfield's "Superfly" in Egg Man, for example) would definitely be infringing in the asbence of a license, while others (the audience noise in the intro to "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (Reprise)", for example) most probably would not. If the record company actually wanted to license all of these samples, they couldn't possibly do it not only because it would be too expensive, but because a lot of copyright owners want to negotiate for a share of the resulting copyright and in cases where there are several samples on an individual song, there isn't enough copyright to go around.

I'm actually really surprised that the album has remained out of the courts for so long. Notorious B.I.G.'s Ready to Die was pulled from the shelves a couple of years ago by a judge in a federal district court, until an unlicensed sample was removed from all future copies. That could happen to an album like Paul's Boutique pretty easily, assuming Capitol hasn't gone back and made some kind of agreement with the owners of each of the samples that appear on the album. In any case, with digital file sharing technology, no album can ever disappear from the internet, anyway.

LOL you said "latches" on the Beastie Boys message board.

Its actually a two part test. (1) "is there infringment?" and if so (2) "is there a fair use exception that allows you to sample anyway?" The substantial similarity test is under part (1), so even if your sample is substantially similar then you can always argue that you shouldn't have to pay because you have a fair use exception (i.e. your sample is used in such a way that you have transformed the sample into something new and creative).

Several years ago the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals actually killed the substantial similarity test for copyrights on the recording. It basically said, "if you sample then its an infringment and the only way you can get out of being liable is to fit into a fair use exception." The 6th Circuit also shrugged off any argument that there's no infringment because a sample is deminimus. In other words, in cases of sampling the Court is going to jump strait to step 2 (fair use).

If that 6th Circuit rule becomes national law its basically going be a fair use battle in most sampling cases. That means most cases are going to have to go to trial and the parties are going to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get a ruling on one sample. Some of these substantial similarity cases were getting decided in summary judgment rulings before the cases ever got to trial. Its crazy. The costs involved with the process outweigh the benefits, even if you win. I think this is what was so frustrating to the Beasties.

Also, when you have an album that's been out for almost 20 years now, I think there's a strong argument that suits should be barred based on the argument that the copyright owners slept on their rights. Now, when you start remastering and re-releasing that might open you up again. I'm not sure I've ever seen a case where latches has been argued though.

This whole area of the law is crazy to me anyway. People think they can own anything these days. In the area of sampling, copyright laws do more to stifle creativity than they were meant to. The laws were actually created to drive creativity and now they've turned into this monster where record companies use them to get paid at the expense of creativity.

In conclusion, fuck a copyright law.

[JohnnyChavello]

Its actually a two part test. (1) "is there infringment?" and if so (2) "is there a fair use exception that allows you to sample anyway?"

I don't wanna nerd out, but fair use is not a subpart of the test for infringement; fair use is a defense to a finding of infringement. And as funny as it might be, it's laches, not latches.

...even if your sample is substantially similar then you can always argue that you shouldn't have to pay because you have a fair use exception (i.e. your sample is used in such a way that you have transformed the sample into something new and creative).

That's true, but unfortunately, fair use determinations are notoriously vague and courts give plaintiffs a lot of deference where there is an established market for derivative uses of the original work, which would be the case for samples. There are definitely examples of sampling that courts would find to be entitled to a defense of fair use, but you have to pay your lawyers to find out.

Several years ago the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals actually killed the substantial similarity test for copyrights on the recording. It basically said, "if you sample then its an infringment and the only way you can get out of being liable is to fit into a fair use exception." The 6th Circuit also shrugged off any argument that there's no infringment because a sample is deminimus. In other words, in cases of sampling the Court is going to jump strait to step 2 (fair use).

If that 6th Circuit rule becomes national law its basically going be a fair use battle in most sampling cases. That means most cases are going to have to go to trial and the parties are going to be spending hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get a ruling on one sample. Some of these substantial similarity cases were getting decided in summary judgment rulings before the cases ever got to trial. Its crazy. The costs involved with the process outweigh the benefits, even if you win. I think this is what was so frustrating to the Beasties.

Also, when you have an album that's been out for almost 20 years now, I think there's a strong argument that suits should be barred based on the argument that the copyright owners slept on their rights. Now, when you start remastering and re-releasing that might open you up again. I'm not sure I've ever seen a case where latches has been argued though.

This whole area of the law is crazy to me anyway. People think they can own anything these days. In the area of sampling, copyright laws do more to stifle creativity than they were meant to. The laws were actually created to drive creativity and now they've turned into this monster where record companies use them to get paid at the expense of creativity.

In conclusion, fuck a copyright law.

Fortunately, nobody I've ever talked to outside of the Sixth Circuit panel that decided Bridgeport actually thinks the decision makes any sense. Apart from the blaring problems with the court's interpretation of the statute, the defendants in the case didn't raise a First Amendment defense under the Supreme Court ruling in Eldred v. Ashcroft, which holds that laws altering the tradiional contours of copyright law, i.e., substantial similarity, have to be analysed under First Amendment doctrine.

Jay-Z's song "Justify My Thug" is now at the center of a case in the district court for the southern district of New York, in a case brought - again - by Bridgeport Music. Trust me, no court is going to adopt the Sixth Circuit's holding, considering the beating that court has taken in academic and professional circles.

[Documad]

Gettin surious (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcQYgrm6Vv0&feature=related)

He's the most awkward dancer in rock history. You see a bit of it at the start but it's more evident in the Rock Me Tonight video. I believe that video ended his career because his fans saw him dance. The man should have always held a guitar so that he wasn't tempted to dance. (I still remember whole lines from a hilarious article some rock writer wrote about him after the Rock Me Tonight debacle.)

[Kid Presentable]

Big beat is gold, Doc. You know it, right?

[dave790]

Isn't it already licensed as a Beastie Boys/Dust Brothers work and not as a collection of the respective samples? Surely the remaster wouldn't involve clearing the samples again, otherwise it would be off the shelves for good. I'm assuming the remaster would use the tracks (recording tracks) as they relate to the Beastie Boys songs, and not involve resampling and re-composing.

Aside from that, excellent post. Great ideas. At last, the numpty quotient in BG is dropping.

I don't know, but if you're right (about the sampling issue), and to be honest what you've put has convinced me so, then I think they'd be mad to not do this. This is one of those threads I wish yauch would cast his eye over and go 'hmmm', cos it's really something I think the fans would kinda cherish. Especially if they went with the ideas I mentioned, of course. And plus, the album is more than worthy of some 'deluxe' treatment, as I said.

[abcdefz]

If Paul's Boutique were ever re-mastered then the whole evolution of the music industry would have had to make a DRASTIC change from the course it's on now.

In order to release something like that as a "new" release, all the samples would have to be cleared, have royalties paid, and all that jazz. When you take into consideration the massive amount of samples the Dust Brothers used just to make one song on the album, let alone the entire thing, you're looking at a big chunk of change that will have to be paid out - either by Capitol Records or the Beastie Boys.

I know you shouldn't count your eggs before they hatch, but I'm guessing you have about "a quadzillion times infinity plus one more than you can ever say" to one of seeing a remastered version of Paul's Boutique.




From what it said in that 33 1/3 book, they kinda lost track of all the samples. That is, they credited all they could remember but there
are still some samples on there that they couldn't identify.

[Kid Presentable]

The one chance to get Bob in this fucking forum.....:rolleyes:

Can a law-talking-guy explain to me (and it's a genuine question); what allowed the Beastie Boys and Criterion to use the PB music (for the videos obviously) and the PB instrumentals in the menu screens on what is effectively a new(er) release that wouldn't allow them to re-release the work as a re-master?

[Sir SkratchaLot]

I don't wanna nerd out, but fair use is not a subpart of the test for infringement; fair use is a defense to a finding of infringement.

I said "(1) "is there infringment?" and if so (2) "is there a fair use exception" . . ." I'm not sure how that equals fair use is a subpart of infringment. I'm not trying to get into a "look what I know" contest with you though. Wee coo?

But maaang, you don't have to preach to me on the sixth circuit's ruling. I have yet to even run accross a court that even understands what is going on with sampling. The closest I've seen is the district court's decision on Bridgeport. Honestly, most people have no fucking clue how deep it goes with sampling because they don't make sample music. They see one example of a 16 bar turtles loop and flip out like that's the be-all-end-all.

I have absolutely no faith that the Courts or Legislature are going to get it. "Property" rights are just going to keep expanding and expanding. I bet we'll be paying for air by the time I die. So my attitude is "catch us if you can". Most of the good sample stuff is not mainstream, goes relatively unnoticed, and the samples are so flipped and obscure that nobody will ever find out even if it was. And if they don't like it they got to deal wit it . . .

[Sir SkratchaLot]

I'm not even sure what the point is anyway. It sounds good to me (especially the vinyl copies), and if they "remaster it" its just going to end up being compressed all to hell by the mastering people.

Remastering it isn't going to increase the sound quality much unless they go back and re-record all of the samples on modern equipment with higher sample rates, and then you're going to loose some of the nuances that came about from the particular records they used and the loop points, etc.

I don't know, why fuck with perfection?

[Sir SkratchaLot]

And oh yeah, we were talking about the DEMOs! Those actually could use some work but good luck with that one. I haven't heard MCA say "my dick is tree trunk" for quite a while now.

[dave790]

The one chance to get Bob in this fucking forum.....:rolleyes:

Can a law-talking-guy explain to me (and it's a genuine question); what allowed the Beastie Boys and Criterion to use the PB music (for the videos obviously) and the PB instrumentals in the menu screens on what is effectively a new(er) release that wouldn't allow them to re-release the work as a re-master?

Sounds of Science and Solid Gold Hits too, the latter definitely had a bit of touch up in regards to the mixes. I should check the linner notes really, but I'm not there's not complete credits!

[easy 3]

I'm not even sure what the point is anyway. It sounds good to me (especially the vinyl copies), and if they "remaster it" its just going to end up being compressed all to hell by the mastering people.

Remastering it isn't going to increase the sound quality much unless they go back and re-record all of the samples on modern equipment with higher sample rates, and then you're going to loose some of the nuances that came about from the particular records they used and the loop points, etc.

I don't know, why fuck with perfection?


Well said - I find some modern mastering and mixing over-rated, mega-compressed, and a bit flat.

Buy old vinyl in good condition and play it loud on decent equipment. Keep an open ear and see what you find.

That said - I'd love to hear the demo versions - I've never got hold of them but I'm pretty obsessed with PB (like many other BBMBers and other BB fans I'm sure) and that period in their development.

[Documad]

Big beat is gold, Doc. You know it, right?

If you mean as a sample, yes, if you mean something else no. I'm not missing any chance to discuss Billy Squier though. The one chance to get Bob in this fucking forum.....:rolleyes:

Can a law-talking-guy explain to me (and it's a genuine question); what allowed the Beastie Boys and Criterion to use the PB music (for the videos obviously) and the PB instrumentals in the menu screens on what is effectively a new(er) release that wouldn't allow them to re-release the work as a re-master?
It looks like you have a couple of law talking types in this thread already. I have no idea if they know what they're talking about except that I can't understand how laches would apply.

[JohnnyChavello]

The one chance to get Bob in this fucking forum.....:rolleyes:

Can a law-talking-guy explain to me (and it's a genuine question); what allowed the Beastie Boys and Criterion to use the PB music (for the videos obviously) and the PB instrumentals in the menu screens on what is effectively a new(er) release that wouldn't allow them to re-release the work as a re-master?

Well, whether it's a new release or not isn't really important in this case. Every copy of every song on Paul's Boutique that has unlicensed samples - assuming they render the two works substantially similar to the ordinary listener and aren't de minimis (trivial) and/ or aren't entitled to a defense of fair use - violates the copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their work. There isn't any distinction in copyright law that would allow you to release a DVD featuring infringing songs, while at the same time, prevent you from re-releasing the infringing songs on a CD, mp3, whatever.

Record companies are really uptight about samples and even more uptight about spending money to defend the use of samples in court. I can't imagine that Capitol hasn't somehow covered their asses on this stuff and gone back to negotiate licenses for samples on the album that they know are on the record. If they did do this, they probably drafted a contract that gives them the right to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, perform publicly, and perform by digital transmission for all purposes in perpetuity, which would basically give them the right to do whatever they want to with the music as it exists on the album. If that's the case, they can remaster the album without having to pay anything other than whatever royalties might be due to the owners of the copyrights in the sampled song under the licensing agreements.

[Documad]

Is there really no statute of limitations? You could sue someone in 2008 who photocopied a book without permission in 1955? (Pardon my ignorance, I have no idea when copyright laws were first enacted but hopefully it was before 1955. :o)

Oh, and I figured out how laches might apply. I was being too narrow minded.

[JohnnyChavello]

Is there really no statute of limitations? You could sue someone in 2008 who photocopied a book without permission in 1955? (Pardon my ignorance, I have no idea when copyright laws were first enacted but hopefully it was before 1955. :o)

Oh, and I figured out how laches might apply. I was being too narrow minded.

There is a technical statute of limitations, but it only applies to the remedy available and not the right to prevent future reproduction, distribution, etc., and it's very, very liberal for copyright. In most cases, a statute of limitations starts to run at the time the offending act occurs; in copyright law, the statute doesn't starts to run until the plaintiff discovered the infringement or reasonably should have discovered it. Moreover, the statutory period, which I think is 3 years, won't even begin in most cases until the infringement ceases and in most cases it's an ongoing thing (especially if it's out there online). So, in the example you mentioned, yes, there is a statute of limitations and it's done, you wouldn't be liable (not to mention that the scope of rihts to engage in personal copying isn't clearly defined at all). But in the case of an album, the statute would effectively never begin to run because it's an ongoing infringement.

[writerpoetgenus]

Let's all thank God that this album was made before these type of discussions exsisted. To know PB was one of the last of it's kind,that alone makes it even more valuable/important to the history of recorded sound. It has it's imperfections but remastering it will do little to it's overall brillance.

[bigfatlove06]

The whole copyright law argument is interesting, but far too esoteric for me. I understand what is being said, but have neither the skill or inclination to check facts.

That being said...

I love the idea of doing something special for the 20 year anniversary. They put out Hey Ladies on Red, White, Blue and Black vinyl for the 10 year anniversary. I like dave 790's ideas. If I were the guy in charge of an anniversary release, I would put out a limited edition 15 x 7" box set on colored vinyl. Each 7" would be a different color & include the album version and instrumental on the A side, and the a capella plus a remix on the B side.

I think the demos are over and done with, but it would make a nice bootleg LP along with the instrumentals.

[Kid Presentable]

Well, whether it's a new release or not isn't really important in this case. Every copy of every song on Paul's Boutique that has unlicensed samples - assuming they render the two works substantially similar to the ordinary listener and aren't de minimis (trivial) and/ or aren't entitled to a defense of fair use - violates the copyright owner's exclusive right to reproduce and distribute their work. There isn't any distinction in copyright law that would allow you to release a DVD featuring infringing songs, while at the same time, prevent you from re-releasing the infringing songs on a CD, mp3, whatever.

Record companies are really uptight about samples and even more uptight about spending money to defend the use of samples in court. I can't imagine that Capitol hasn't somehow covered their asses on this stuff and gone back to negotiate licenses for samples on the album that they know are on the record. If they did do this, they probably drafted a contract that gives them the right to reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, perform publicly, and perform by digital transmission for all purposes in perpetuity, which would basically give them the right to do whatever they want to with the music as it exists on the album. If that's the case, they can remaster the album without having to pay anything other than whatever royalties might be due to the owners of the copyrights in the sampled song under the licensing agreements.
Churr bro, that's the answer I was looking for. (y) Getting the album together with all of those rarities and treats in my mind is the bigger priority than an actual remastering. Although being able to include High Plains Drifter in 'regular sounding' playlists would be cool. If making it louder constitutes a remastering, and we get all type of bonus shit, then that's what would work. It'll be a 20 year old icon in hip-hop music. Celebrate it. It's the 'Thriller' of oblique pop-culture-referencing-kaleidoscope rap music. Fuck this is a golden opportunity they'll probably miss.

[writerpoetgenus]

I like the idea of releasing not only PB rareities, backsides, unreleased material but include LTI (There has to be some studio cuts with DMC) and CYH in one album but to include a remastered version of the Boutique in some kind of gimmic laden fasion is almost demeaning to what we know is the greatest revolution of sounds and verse since The White Album. Even Thriller pales (no pun intended Mike) to compare because there were simular sounds and copulations, lyrics e.g. most of Quincy Jones productions. Nothing is like PB. but I know what you mean. Also it wouldn't sell (of course we would by it) but for a younger generation this album is hard to grasp fully unless you have a developed knowledge of early recorded music, forementioned pop culture and some relative history (trust me I've tried to push this on some younger artists and many don't get it because of the lack of personal refrences). I also don't think Capitol wants to rehash this, law suits would follow and for what amount of return. If there is one album to leave alone this is it. Just my opinion. Love to be a fan.

[djdjdj]

Thats funny. I've never seen anybody refer to Paul's Boutique as "The Boutique." Your just way too hip for me.

[Kid Presentable]

Certainly likes to have written.

[dave790]

It'll be a 20 year old icon in hip-hop music. Celebrate it. It's the 'Thriller' of oblique pop-culture-referencing-kaleidoscope rap music. Fuck this is a golden opportunity they'll probably miss.

Yes and yes, which is a shame. And not that it really matters, but I'd rather enjoy reading all the 5 star reviews that would come with it.

Oh, and btw, my earlier post with all the ideas etc is full of typing mistakes, due only to the excitement at the thought of this shit actually being done. I'd prefer this next year to a new album. They can take their time on perfection and release the new one in 2010 (y)

[Kid Presentable]

In summation of the 'for' case; if it's not remastered/re-released, then we're still have 'perfection'(as many have put it). The original PB goes nowhere, and future generations will always be able to enjoy it.

If it is remastered/re-released, we have it louder (which is all that it really needs), we possibly have all of these extra treats, and we have a new reason to care about the album again. And all those who were against it still have the original (remember perfection?). Nobody has lost anything.

It would be very Beastie-like to celebrate the 21st anniversary of this record. It would sell too (if that's your concern); a person who can't market this kind of record should quit the biz. Here's three media segments just to get you started; Hip-Hop mags, skate mags and hipster mags. Easy.

[SOP]

^
Not a bad start.

[dave790]

Just placing this back in light of the new deluxe thread, as this is basically the same topic. Plus, the more it's up and about, the more chance someone important will see it and take action.

If only...

[sethomas]

Plus, the more it's up and about, the more chance someone important will see it and take action.

If only...

I'm real fucking important, and I saw it.

[abbott]

I'd buy that shit

[Waus]

From what it said in that 33 1/3 book, they kinda lost track of all the samples. That is, they credited all they could remember but there
are still some samples on there that they couldn't identify.

That book is essential reading for fans. (y)

[Nicodemus]

Did the song "Engine No. 9" ever leak out, and if so, what's it like?

[LongDuckDong]

Did the song "Engine No. 9" ever leak out, and if so, what's it like?


I have it on DAT.

[Brother McDuff]

I have it on DAT.


ive never heard of this one before. PB outtake? What'll it take for you to share that with us? I can transfer it to CD/wav in my studio if you're willing to make a DAT copy. Whatta say, partner? :o

[beastieboysbaby]

yeah...i want to hear...please..

[korn_phr33k]

1. Id buy a remastered version, but

2. Every remastered version of any album ive ever bought ive thought sounded horrible. the highs are a little too bright, the mids are scooped out some and the low low bass is bumped up a notch.

from run dmc to the chili peppers i strongly dislike remastered versions. but i suppose theres a chance they could improve on it.

[bigfatlove06]

I have it on DAT.

Please do not take offense, because I know nothing about you or the subject at hand, but...

I Call Bullshit

If you do have it I would hang onto it like it was my last breath, because you are the only one that has it. To hand it over to someone on a message board would be foolish. If I REALLY had it I would run a limited press on colored vinyl and sell it for $100 a pop, and then donate the proceeds to my favorite charity (Big Brothers Big Sisters).

[Savage Jimmy]

I'd definitely buy it. hahah i just bought another copy of Agio D Olio that came into work... not notiving til i got home that it didnt have Soba Violence on it (i guess the one i bought for 20 bucks was an import... COOL!). i kinda feel stupid not having the Solid Gold Teeth yet..... i think i will tomorow.... Who knows?

[ellwood_court]

Cool site for PB fans...

[LongDuckDong]

Please do not take offense, because I know nothing about you or the subject at hand, but...

I Call Bullshit

If you do have it I would hang onto it like it was my last breath, because you are the only one that has it. To hand it over to someone on a message board would be foolish. If I REALLY had it I would run a limited press on colored vinyl and sell it for $100 a pop, and then donate the proceeds to my favorite charity (Big Brothers Big Sisters).

I am finishing up a website where I plan on showcasing it along with other sought after gems.

[taquitos]

I am finishing up a website where I plan on showcasing it along with other sought after gems.

if thats the case, keep us posted on that shit

[bigfatlove06]

I am finishing up a website where I plan on showcasing it along with other sought after gems.

In that case I apologize for calling premature bullshit:)

[Kid Presentable]

The tricky thing about marketing it is making the package worth paying for.

If the next album has old sounding fuzz rock with a room full of people singing along together, then I don't care either way.