Interesting concept for albums that have different Territory releases.

[Metaldrumz]

Ok so I just bought the Japanese, and European versions of "Knock You Down" by the band Dynazty because it had different bonus tracks. Euro had 2 tracks not on the Japanese version, and the Japan version had 3 tracks not on the European version. The album covers were also different.

However this is not the only differences there are. I was completely shocked that the songs were actually DIFFERENT. I'm talking intros to songs, the vocal recordings, and the mix/production! It is like 2 completely different albums yet many of the same songs. At first I thought it was just a different mix until some of my favorite songs on the European version I noticed were sung different in the Japanese one! Same melodies but like he held the note longer, or sang it higher etc etc.

Usually Japan will have an alternate cover, and a few bonus tracks but this really took me for a loop. I have mixed feelings about it, but thought it was a wild marketing idea. I mean seriously its like 2 different albums yet its not.

I have uploaded a 1 minute clip with 30 seconds of 2 of the same songs for comparison.

http://www.themetalmadman.com/Dynazty.mp3

Curious to others opinions on this concept.

EDIT : I wrote this below part on another forum.

"I have listened to both versions all day yesterday and both are awesome in their own way. I think the production mix on the European version sounds superior as it is really heavy with tons of bottom end (bass) but prefer the song versions of the Japanese version more. I think the Japan version sounds great too but has a more live/raw production instead of the big studio production.

The biggest song difference is the song "Throne Of China". Many of the vocal lines are even sang a bit different so its not even like its a different mix but a different studio performance altogether!

The possibility they recorded the album twice for each territory is not out of the question upon further listens."

 

[adaher]

That's awesome. I don't know the band that well, but if it was a band I really liked I'd have to buy both versions. I won't do that just for a bonus track or two, but for completely different recordings and album art? Hell yeah.

 

[skyrefuge]

I know my version of Angra's 'Angels Cry' is different than other versions. The easy way to tell is in the song "Angels Cry", with the line "free this chain from my heart (chain, chain, chain)". My version doesn't have the "chain, chain, chain". I don't remember though if mine is the "weird" version or if the "chain, chain, chain" is the weird version.

The Dynazty thing initially sounded like a case of a band self-releasing a "demo" version of their album, and then getting picked up by a label in another territory and given a budget to re-record it. But it doesn't seem like that's the case, and if the differences are really a "concept", that seems really strange. I can't imagine there would be much payoff for the extra time and effort.

Neil

 

[AeonicSlumber]

The band used the Japanese label's advance to record that other version most likely. I think it's only a good idea if the band can sell enough copies of each to recoup the costs, otherwise it's too much money being invested into the recordings to justify making anything back.

 

[Claus / Intromental]

The Dynazty thing initially sounded like a case of a band self-releasing a "demo" version of their album, and then getting picked up by a label in another territory and given a budget to re-record it.

Exactly, that's the only reason I can see why it would make sense to do this.

But it doesn't seem like that's the case, and if the differences are really a "concept", that seems really strange.

It's very strange if they did this on purpose.

I can't imagine there would be much payoff for the extra time and effort.

Right, it would be one heck of an expensive "gimmick"

 

[Comic Book Dude]

The Japanese version of Dokken in 1994 had different song arrangements and sounded so much heavier than the US version (Dysfunctional). The Japan version was sooooo much better.

 

[Justin G]

The Japanese version of Dokken in 1994 had different song arrangements and sounded so much heavier than the US version (Dysfunctional). The Japan version was sooooo much better.

Really? I hadn't heard this before. I may have to track that down, because Dysfunctional was a huge disappointment.

 

[Metaldrumz]

I had no idea about the Dokken album either. I must look into that as I actually liked that album.

I am enjoying reading the replies. I think I will email the band and try to get an answer if possible. The thing is both versions sound very good. Different but good. Later on I am going to add another example back to back clips from another song. This one has dramatic differences.

 

[Comic Book Dude]

Really? I hadn't heard this before. I may have to track that down, because Dysfunctional was a huge disappointment.

Yeah....the Japan version was released nearly a year before the US. My buddies and I were surprised at the difference between the two.

 

[Exploding Ned]

Happened alot back in the 60s/70s, then it sort of went away for the most part. And in recent years it's slowly returning. One example from back in the 70s was Nazareth "Hair Of The Dog". "Love Hurts" wasn't even on the UK version. Wasn't a hit over there. But of course the remastered import CD of it has it and alot of extra tracks. Many UK versions of albums back then had different tracks, different album covers, or sometimes completely different track running order than the U.S. versions.

 

[Metaldrumz]

Yea this has all that...different artwork, tracklist, and bonus tracks....what really popped out at me is that after multiple listens it sounds like completely different recordings, and not just mixes! Both recordings sounding awesome but quite different, and the songs are a bit different as well. Different intros, vocal melodies (although similiar), and other tidbits here and there.

Also these 2 releases were both released on the same day!

 

[adaher]

I have a question for those who know something about the recording process:

When recording, don't they usually have multiple takes? Perhaps they just decided to release the two best takes of each track? If so, it doesn't really add to the cost, does it?

 

[AeonicSlumber]

I have a question for those who know something about the recording process:

When recording, don't they usually have multiple takes? Perhaps they just decided to release the two best takes of each track? If so, it doesn't really add to the cost, does it?

A) most studios charge bands by time. Some charge the band by song, but most of them on an hourly or daily basis. The more time wasted, the more $$$.

B) Recordings have multiple takes because both the band and the producer felt the previous takes sucked. But even if all the takes on both versions were done in the same session, they both still have to be mixed and mastered which can cost upwards of tens of thousands of dollars in it of itself for just one album -- let alone 2.

C) OP is saying that not only are the recordings different, but so are the mixes, and productions. Thus, in this case, the two versions were not done in the same session. Not to mention, it doesn't even sound like they were done by the same producer according to OP.