The Music Biz Truth, Vol. 1, Issue 8
Déjà vu makes me blue
By "The Truth"
September 14, 2004
How annoying is it when you are browsing through the 'New Releases' section of your local record store and you see several albums that came out 5 months ago? Then you find out that these albums were originally released five months ago but that this is the re-issue. The what? Aren't re-issues issued when an album was out of print or hard to find for a while? Or better yet, re-mastered or released on CD when it hadn't been before? What's the point of re-issuing an album that came out no more than a year ago???
I'll tell you why. Record labels are presently re-issuing current releases like it's going out of style for three reasons: (A) the album didn't take off as they had planned; (B) the album is losing steam on the charts and they want to try and give it a boost back to the top; or (C) they can't find any other singles to release. I think all these reasons suck if you ask me. Quite honestly, if an album didn't take off the way you expected, and you really believe that it is chock full of quality material, then you need to re-examine your marketing plan. Instead of going through the trouble of recording new material, shooting new artwork, and producing new discs, you might want to meet with the marketing/promotions staff to see where they may have gone wrong. And if the album is simply falling off the charts, let it go. It's not the end of the world and the artist should just concentrate on touring or working on their next record (which they don't need to rush into stores, they should take their time). The last reason is quite possibly the most disturbing though. More often than not, this occurs after only one single has been released. If you can not find two worthy songs on an album, the album is not worthy of being released in the first place.
Unfortunately, there are situations where an artist records and records and records for years and every time they send a "finished product" to their label, it is not well-received. Either the A&R execs don't like the new direction the artist is going in, or they don't hear any "radio-friendly" material, and the artist is forced to return to their studio lair once again. I understand that this can become very taxing and disheartening for an artist but so is dropping one single and being told that there is nothing else to work on the album. So figure out what you'd prefer I guess.
Several examples of this "re-issue" craze include Mary J. Blige's "No More Drama", Usher's "Confessions", Janet Jackson's "Damita Jo", Trina's "Da Baddest Bitch", Jessica Simpson's "In This Skin", LL Cool J's "10" and Alicia Keys' "The Diary of Alicia Keys".
In my opinion, both Usher and Alicia Keys do not need to re-issue their respective albums. Both have sold really well, were well-received by critics and fans alike, and are still in the Top 30 on Soundscan's chart. However, both have recorded some new tracks (including duets with each other) and rounded up some previously rejected ones to compile a new "re-issued" version of their projects to be released soon. The only reason I can think of for why these two want to re-issue their albums is that they simply want to guarantee a spot for themselves on the chart through the end of the year. Well good luck to both Alicia and Usher with that, but I still think it's a waste. Why not direct your energy towards another project altogether instead of dwelling on something that's already been done and placed on store shelves months before?
As far as Janet Jackson, Trina and LL Cool J go, their stories are a bit sadder. None of the aforementioned albums sold well for them from the start and they were forced to resort to the old "let's strip something new on the album and put the new version back in stores with a sticker on the front advertising the added track" tactic. Janet's album still hasn't been re-released but there has been talk of this happening since the album came out the first time. Supposedly the new version will have some previously rejected tracks and some new remixes. In Trina's case the title track was released as her lead debut single and really went nowhere fast. So instead of servicing another song from the album, Atlantic Records decided to put out "Pull Over". That song did fare a little better for the raunchy rapper, but when fans who bought the CD when it first came out looked for it on the copies they possessed, they couldn't find it. Why you ask? Well it's simple. Atlantic apparently couldn't find another single to market off the original version so they released something else, and stripped in onto future copies of the album so the early buyers were just screwed. That's not fair and totally warped. How do the diehard fans that run to the records stores right away end up with an abbreviated version of the album? Not cool. And LL Cool J's album was doing so poorly that Def Jam decided to pull the album from store shelves so that they could add the duet he did with Jennifer Lopez for her album, "All I Have". Apparently that song was doing better on radio than his second single, "Paradise", so they figured they might as well try to use it to their advantage. The positive effects of that brilliant decision have yet to be seen.
At least in the "No More Drama" file, not that many people were running out to get the album right away. The radio success of the lead single, "Family Affair", wasn't translating over to sales. So Mary and MCA Records decided to reissue the album with several new remixes added and a prettier cover and it worked out well for them. The album moved up the charts a little, and after releasing the title track soon after, became an awards show darling that year.
For Jessica Simpson, the decision to re-issue her "In This Skin" album was a good one. The album tanked the first time around but after some careful re-tooling and the addition of a song that her viewers watched her record on her MTV reality show "Newlyweds" ("Take My Breath Away"), the album debuted much higher than before and continued to sell strongly for several weeks.
Even still, after all the triumphs and failures are tallied up, I think that the decision to re-issue a fairly new album is excessive and silly. There are two solutions to this problem before it gets entirely out of hand and there end up being two versions of everything – "the early bird" and "the late bloomer". Either the record labels need to wait a little while longer before releasing an album. Make sure that you have at least three strong songs that you can market and release as singles before you agree to put it on store shelves. If not, save yourself a future headache by having the artist record for a longer period of time so that you are not rushing out sub-par product. And if you believe that you must release a re-issue and it ends up being the right decision in the end, make it up to the fans who bought the album when it first came out by allowing them to trade their copy for the newer version. Seriously people, work it out.
# # #
Posted at 12:16 pm by MusicBizTruth
