New live DVD/BD 'ARENA TOUR 2012 ~HLS~' March 8, last of five 15th anni. releases

[FoObY]

Originally Posted by relmy

The problem is for people who do not buy singles because the material will be repeated. I was planning to buy LOVE and again due to them being minis. It is a clear misnaming for more profit.

That is the problem. It is not a hard idea to grasp. People will be angry if they've spent money.

totally this

[kotora]

When AHS members see the 5th release is live DVD and BD,

[Delirium-Zer0]

Originally Posted by Andrenekoi

I don't really get the point of a self cover album... I don't get the point for her on living from her past glory.

The point would be that her past SONGS were good, but the executions were amateurish. A Song for XX has some great songs that are just very, very frustrating to listen to because the arrangements do little to put the great melodies on display, and her vocals were very, very flat. Songs like "POWDER SNOW" and "For My Dear..." really need to be revisited now that Ayu's vocals are better controlled and pushed out properly, and now that Ayu's mixers & producers are better at thicker, more epic songs. ...well okay maybe that last point's ship has sailed, to be honest. Ayu's musical team from 2001-2003 would do those two songs a world of good, though.

But Ayu's self-cover versions have all been interesting juxtapositions if not improvements. A Song for XX "030213 Session #2" is one of the best tracks she's ever done. TO BE (10th Anniversary Version) breathed new life into the first ayu track I'd ever heard, and it was like hearing it for the first time all over again. If ayu did a full self-cover album there would be, I can guarantee, some real gems of performances in there that nobody would expect.

Originally Posted by Andrenekoi

I can't think of any artist that actually released a self-cover album and IMO it would feel way too decadent.

1. Chara, CHAGE and ASKA, T.M.Revolution, Nomiya Maki from Pizzicato Five, Ann Lewis, and Ayu's idol Yumi Matsutoya all come to mind just off the top of my head. They've all done self-cover albums, and they've all ranged from interesting to awesome.

2. Displaying your improvement over time as a musician is, by definition, the opposite of decadent.

Originally Posted by Andrenekoi

And it would most likely sell like any of her recent remixes album too.

And those remix albums have still been profitable which makes it worth it.

[TeamAyu2004]

^ are they self covers... wouldnt it just be remixes?
or is it considered the same thing?

[njanjayrp]

Ayu did nail For My Dear... in 2009. The live ver. was way better than the original.

[polka-dot-jewel]

Originally Posted by Delirium-Zer0

The point would be that her past SONGS were good, but the executions were amateurish. A Song for XX has some great songs that are just very, very frustrating to listen to because the arrangements do little to put the great melodies on display, and her vocals were very, very flat. Songs like "POWDER SNOW" and "For My Dear..." really need to be revisited now that Ayu's vocals are better controlled and pushed out properly, and now that Ayu's mixers & producers are better at thicker, more epic songs. ...well okay maybe that last point's ship has sailed, to be honest. Ayu's musical team from 2001-2003 would do those two songs a world of good, though.

But Ayu's self-cover versions have all been interesting juxtapositions if not improvements. A Song for XX "030213 Session #2" is one of the best tracks she's ever done. TO BE (10th Anniversary Version) breathed new life into the first ayu track I'd ever heard, and it was like hearing it for the first time all over again. If ayu did a full self-cover album there would be, I can guarantee, some real gems of performances in there that nobody would expect.

I'm blown away by her recent vocal performances of "For My Dear..." (PCDL) and "A Song For XX", and I'd love to hear studio versions of those. Really, most of the older songs she performed at PCDL were really good.

Now that I think about it, I kinda wish she had thrown in older songs with new vocals into these recent releases, like she did with her singles in 2008. We still have the rest of the year, and her new-vocal tracks from '08 were well-received, so I'm hoping she'll remember that and throw some out there this year.

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

^ are they self covers... wouldnt it just be remixes?
or is it considered the same thing?

I say the term "remix" can be described differently from person to person. When I heard the word "remix" I think of like...trance mixes, dance mixes, something like "title (whatever remix)". With Ayu's previous self-covers, they may have been mixed slightly differently, but they had the overall same melody and composition as before, just with new vocals, so I personally wouldn't consider those remixes. But to each their own, really.

[TeamAyu2004]

i dont know... when it says remix, to me, that means anything that is different from the original mix... hence the 're'-mix.
lol.
personally I dont think an artist can cover themselves because they already did the song, they are just doing a different version of it, which makes it a remix, lol...
but this is just me. LOL

[Zeke.]

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

i dont know... when it says remix, to me, that means anything that is different from the original mix... hence the 're'-mix.
lol.
personally I dont think an artist can cover themselves because they already did the song, they are just doing a different version of it, which makes it a remix, lol...
but this is just me. LOL

From wikipedia:

In popular music, a cover version or cover song, or simply cover, is a new performance or recording of a contemporary or previously recorded, commercially released song or popular song.

By that definition, a self-cover seems like the right term to use.

[TeamAyu2004]

Originally Posted by Zeke.

From wikipedia:

By that definition, a self-cover seems like the right term to use.

thats nice. Anyone can look up a wiki article.

from the same article:

The term "cover" goes back decades when cover version originally described a rival version of a tune recorded to compete with the recently released (original) version.

I highly doubt they mean the same person.

never once dose the article mention self covers. So no... it does not help for that definition.

[Zeke.]

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

thats nice. Anyone can look up a wiki article.

from the same article:



I highly doubt they mean the same person.

never once dose the article mention self covers. So no... it does not help for that definition.

Lol, of course anyone can but I'm the one who did it.

No need to be like that. I don't see why the term "self-cover" is a big deal. Especially when Ayu's 10th anniversary versions weren't really "remixed" (for example, see Christina's 'Genie 2.0'). They just were beefed up a bit, but over-all it was the same song with a louder arrangement.

[TeamAyu2004]

Originally Posted by Zeke.

Lol, of course anyone can but I'm the one who did it.

No need to be like that. I don't see why the term "self-cover" is a big deal. Especially when Ayu's 10th anniversary versions weren't really "remixed" (for example, see Christina's 'Genie 2.0'). They just were beefed up a bit, but over-all it was the same song with a louder arrangement.

lol, i wasnt trying to be like anything... i was just pointing out (not to nicely, sorry) that anyone can look up a wiki article... I did and it just seems like from that definition that it doesnt need to be stated that covers are by different people.

and its not a big deal, I was just saying that I would call it a remix. and the Christina example is kind perfect to see that its not a cover because they are calling it something else... which kinda makes it a remix because they changed it... when it comes to remixes it doesnt matter how much they change it just matters if its different or not...

but this is just me.
It seems a ton of people think it can be called self covers, whateves... I just call them remixes.

[Zeke.]

Originally Posted by TeamAyu2004

lol, i wasnt trying to be like anything... i was just pointing out (not to nicely, sorry) that anyone can look up a wiki article... I did and it just seems like from that definition that it doesnt need to be stated that covers are by different people.

and its not a big deal, I was just saying that I would call it a remix. and the Christina example is kind perfect to see that its not a cover because they are calling it something else... which kinda makes it a remix because they changed it... when it comes to remixes it doesnt matter how much they change it just matters if its different or not...

but this is just me.
It seems a ton of people think it can be called self covers, whateves... I just call them remixes.

The reason I used Christina's as an example was because hers WAS changed dramatically and remixed. So it would not be acceptable to call that a self-cover. I guess I would just call Ayu's re-records. Lol.

[TeamAyu2004]

Oh! I thought you were saying Christina was a cover! Sorry... i must of read that wrong! lol.

As we were talking about this I was completely thinking... Can music have remakes? lol.. I would call them that before covers... but I dont know..
I know TV Shows and movies are remade... but music... I dont see why not. lol

[Delirium-Zer0]

*eyeroll*

"Covers" are by other people.
"Self-covers" (this is a common term used in j-pop by the way, "self-cover" albums are marketed as "self-cover" albums) are covers by the same person. (Hence the "self-" prefix. I don't even see how there's debate about this.)

A remix has only the instrumentation changed. A self-cover has the vocals changed, and usually the instrumentation changed also. A self-cover makes changes as though the artist, in their current form, is a different artist with different talents and artistic ideas and tastes. Which is kind of the truth. A self cover is usually useless if it's done only a year or so after the song originally came out because there's probably not gonna be much difference.

Here's a handy comparison chart:
A Song for XX "she shell REPRODUCTION" (remix) | A Song for XX "030213 Session #2" (self-cover)
Dearest "Depth nostalgic windmix" (remix) | Dearest "Acoustic Piano Version" (self-cover)
Endless sorrow "Natural Green dub mix" (remix) | Endless sorrow ~gone with the wind ver.~ (self-cover)
LOVE~Destiny~ "TODD'S LOVERS CONVERSION" (remix) | LOVE~Destiny~ (10th Anniversary Version) (self-cover)

I hope this makes it easy for everyone to understand so they can stop debating just for the sake of debating.

[njanjayrp]

First of all re-arranging and remixing are two different things. When it comes to self-covers the tracks are usually re-arranged (Kaijura Yuki has a couple of self-cover albums and so does BONNIE PINK) and feature new vocals. Oh well I think Deli pretty much said it all...

[TeamAyu2004]

Originally Posted by Delirium-Zer0

*eyeroll*

"Covers" are by other people.
"Self-covers" (this is a common term used in j-pop by the way, "self-cover" albums are marketed as "self-cover" albums) are covers by the same person. (Hence the "self-" prefix. I don't even see how there's debate about this.)

A remix has only the instrumentation changed. A self-cover has the vocals changed, and usually the instrumentation changed also. A self-cover makes changes as though the artist, in their current form, is a different artist with different talents and artistic ideas and tastes. Which is kind of the truth. A self cover is usually useless if it's done only a year or so after the song originally came out because there's probably not gonna be much difference.

Here's a handy comparison chart:
A Song for XX "she shell REPRODUCTION" (remix) | A Song for XX "030213 Session #2" (self-cover)
Dearest "Depth nostalgic windmix" (remix) | Dearest "Acoustic Piano Version" (self-cover)
Endless sorrow "Natural Green dub mix" (remix) | Endless sorrow ~gone with the wind ver.~ (self-cover)
LOVE~Destiny~ "TODD'S LOVERS CONVERSION" (remix) | LOVE~Destiny~ (10th Anniversary Version) (self-cover)

I hope this makes it easy for everyone to understand so they can stop debating just for the sake of debating.

we could have done without the eye roll.
Yet again, another example of different opinions. everything you mentioned as self covers for ayumi are remixes in my book. The titles say it all... most of them are different versions, that to me has nothing to do with the original, which makes it a remix.
Anything that is different from the original is a remix, i guess call it what it want, its still the same person doing a different version of their song, which in the end is a remix.

also, i would like to point out this nice little article about remixes on wiki:

A remix is a song that has been edited to sound different from the original version. The person who remixed it might have changed the pitch of the singers' voice, changed the tempo and speed and has made the song shorter or longer, or instead of hearing just one person singing they might have duplicated the voice to make it sound like two people are singing, or make the voice echo.

and

Remixes should not be confused with edits, which usually involve shortening a final stereo master for marketing or broadcasting purposes. Another distinction should be made between a remix and a cover. A remix song recombines audio pieces from a recording to create an altered version of the song. A cover is a recording of a song that was previously recorded by someone else.

[BlackSilence]

*reads a page or two* i thought this thread was about the release of the DVD?

[Andrenekoi]

Originally Posted by Delirium-Zer0

*eyeroll*

"Covers" are by other people.
"Self-covers" (this is a common term used in j-pop by the way, "self-cover" albums are marketed as "self-cover" albums) are covers by the same person. (Hence the "self-" prefix. I don't even see how there's debate about this.)

A remix has only the instrumentation changed. A self-cover has the vocals changed, and usually the instrumentation changed also. A self-cover makes changes as though the artist, in their current form, is a different artist with different talents and artistic ideas and tastes. Which is kind of the truth. A self cover is usually useless if it's done only a year or so after the song originally came out because there's probably not gonna be much difference.

Here's a handy comparison chart:
A Song for XX "she shell REPRODUCTION" (remix) | A Song for XX "030213 Session #2" (self-cover)
Dearest "Depth nostalgic windmix" (remix) | Dearest "Acoustic Piano Version" (self-cover)
Endless sorrow "Natural Green dub mix" (remix) | Endless sorrow ~gone with the wind ver.~ (self-cover)
LOVE~Destiny~ "TODD'S LOVERS CONVERSION" (remix) | LOVE~Destiny~ (10th Anniversary Version) (self-cover)

I hope this makes it easy for everyone to understand so they can stop debating just for the sake of debating.

Don't keep the debate... Trust me, you won't convince him. Of anything. Never.

[DonkeyKongRemix]

Round-and-round the discussion goes!

[DogboyShugo]

I can see why people think the 5 releases were a joke, but in a way they're kind of not.

No matter what Ayu says or any website, I do not consider LOVE or again mini albums. The contents were treated like her previous singles in the past. A few originals, a few different versions of the originals, and the instrumentals? In what universe is that a mini album? That's all they were...Singles...A mini album is FIVE or Memorial address..., not LOVE or again. They had no remixes, no different versions, no instrumentals, just pure original music

I see the joke part there with them being treated as mini albums, but they all did come with different versions of songs so it wasn't a complete waste. There are probably a lot of fans who like instrumentals, remixes, acoustic, ect...So that wasn't a complete waste.