An artisit or group release an album, the first 1 or 2 songs hiw how they are on the album but then they release a song from the album as their 3rd or fourth and its not the same as the album version, forcing you to go out and by it. It really annoys me, you pay for the album because you know it will contain all the songs they will release for say a year and then they change them a bit.

Nelly Furtado - all good things come to an end, in the video the song sounds slightly diffrent, it sounds like there is more going on it in the chrous compared tot he album.

Girls Aloud - they release a greatest hits with i a cover of i think were alone now whih in all fairness isnt brillaint the music that is. there voices are pretty good, then today i was flicking throught he music channels and the video came on for it and theuy have changed it so much its barely recognisable, why put it on your new album if your only going to change it anyway.

How do you fell about this???????? i personally dont think its right, i think they do it so they get more sales on the singles and so their 3rd say song from an album does well as fans have to go an re-buy it.

Hmm, I can understand where you are coming from but at the same time I think that these artists have a point. There has been criticism of a lot of artists in the past who milk their albums dry with regards to releasing singles from them. Many people who have spent their hard earned money on the albums then feel obliged to go out and buy the singles too. Therefore, to change the versions a bit means that if you are a hardcore fan, you get the choice of a different version of something that might already be on the album rather than exactly the same version that you already have. Whatever the argument, for or against this kind of thing, when it all boils down to it the record companies just want us to spend our cash on their artists and they will try everything and anything to make that happen. When I was growing up in the 70s and 80s (yes, even before CDs were invented!) they used to bring out the same single by a band (say for example, Sting and the Police) on different coloured vinyl as limited editions, or gatefold sleeves or whatever. It is all just hype, marketing and pressure and its never going to change.

exactly, it ias annoying, but for die hard fans yes it's good they get to listen to diffrent versions, but like you said some people cant afford to. I feel sorry for children who by ana album onlt for sings released from it to sound difrrent, i no when i was younger i was like yay, have tii wait till next year when the re-done song will fature on the next album lol.

I know what you mean, I'm not sure if theres anyone else that has noticed but the beyonce song ireplaceable is totally different on the video from the album version I downloaded. The video version is so much better the music just seems louder with different instruments. Please please tell me that someone else has noticed this and im not going crazy and imagining this!!!

It doesn't bother me so much when a single is 'better' than the album version. You just download the single — problem solved!

I am, however, against the notion of having different 'mixes' of songs: I think there should only be one definitive version of a song (like there should only be one definitive version of a movie). I am a songwriter and I would never release a song until I was sure it was perfect, and then I would never allow anyone to remix it.

The only exception is when a remix of a song is clearly intended to be a completely different song (ie totally different tempo or mood). I would say the two famous versions of Gorillaz' Clint Eastwood are both acceptable, as they're very different. But if a remix is just a longer, or slightly different, or an 'improved' version, I think it's an insult to the original.
Last edited by Grand Dizzy : 18-11-2006 at 20:56

I noticed that it sounds like the backing track has more "umph" i thought maybe they kept some of Chris Martins vocals in there for the single version,

This happend with Evanescence's "My Immortal" they released a rock version as the single rather than the piano version that was on the album, I ended up just buying the single and having the piano version twice as it was added as a b side track.

exacly, i really dont think its fair such as when a cd says includes the SINGLES on the album but one of them will soud difrrent to the proper single its misleading. There just needs to be one main song which the artist is happy with and doesnt need to remix or edit for a single and if they want to do that release it as a b side

Its worst when you buy an album by one of your favourite artists, and then 2-3 months its re-issued again with new album artwork and 2-3 new tracks ...but yeah it can be annoying knowing you have to buy the album again. Suppose it could be worst...you buy the CD album and the CD/ DVD version at the same time costing you about £25, and then they re-issue the CD album with 2 new tracks (some people do buy both sometimes). Could you imagine? Serious milking of the fans that would be.

Hmm, both versions appear on Fallen, track 4 and 12, although the 12th isn't listed on the back.

Hmm...is this the long writing thread.......