Faith No More
Angel Dust


2.0
poor

Review

by kygermo USER (20 Reviews)
December 22nd, 2008 | 22 replies | 7,051 views


Release Date: 1992 | Tracklist

Review Summary: Why fix something thats perfectly fine? Not a review on the album really, but a warning for you to stick with the original version.

1 of 5 thought this review was well written

(Note: This is a review for the Remastered edition, not the original.)


An album that still gets weekly rotation in my cd player since I discovered it in 1999, Angel Dust is something of an enigma. Fun, funny, intimidating, and at times downright terrifying, the album really put them on the map as some true pioneers. Gone were the awful comparisons to The Red Hot Chili Peppers, and the curse that was bestowed upon them within their song Epic, Faith No More shocked the world (especially while on tour for the lp, in which Michael Allen Patton did anything and everything to alienate audiences, something that would severely hurt them later with the release of King For A Day, Fool for A Lifetime). While AD didn’t match the success of their previous record The Real Thing in sales figures, it mopped the floor with it critically. Nowadays, Angel Dust stands as THE definitive Faith No More record, and their influence upon the modern music world is certainly not hard to see. Plus, this is my favorite band so you better believe Ill be bias.

So what the crap is up with this 2008 Remastered edition? A couple months back, I had written a review for the recently released Black Sabbath box set with Ronnie James Dio entitled The Rules Of Hell. Before I started that review off, I had a disclaimer in which I said I was not giving the rating I gave (3.5) based on the music itself. The absolute same goes for this, except I’m going to be more harsh because A :) Remastering Angel Dust is certainly not necessary, and B :) Why fix something that’s totally far and away from broken? If anybody were to remaster any FNM record, Id say the first two records with Chuck Mosely or The Real Thing because compared to the later FNM releases, The Real Thing’s sound quality is quiet.

This was under the radar on purpose. It had to of been. I recently read some reviews on it, and all across the board everybody was praising it. I bought the album off of Amazon and was surprised to see the packaging. It was a nice replica of the original lp pressing. As you already know, the music speaks for itself. But this “Re-Bastarding” of this classic album is absolutely unforgivable. If you can believe this, the sound engineers turned the sound down! I was hoping to get my face bashed in with “Everything’s Ruined” with that evil groove Bordin and Gould lay down throughout most of the song, but instead I had to make it louder! All of the pitch has been toned down in favor of bringing some hidden noise in the background more apparent. So, you sacrifice a superbly recorded, mixed, and mastered cd in favor of some neglected noises? Some of the changes are notable, but not essential. Right off the bat you can tell Bordin’s drums on Land Of Sunshine were toyed with, but why?!

Everybody likes great sounding cds. Look at The Clash’s London Calling cd from the 80s, and compare it to the newly mastered version in 1999. The differences are staggering, and plentiful. Look at Sabbath’s transition, as well as The Cure’s. Hell, I cant stand KISS but the re-released cds in 1997 of their back catalog sound great as well. But why did some executive pick Angel Dust to abuse?! For 1992, the sound quality of the cd is second to none. Even King for A Day’s mix is lacking compared to it, and King was released three years later! Look, I can understand somebody trying to get this album back on the map for a new generation to find, but don’t charge $30 for something you severely hurt. Thank God they kept the original album in the stores instead of putting that out of print and putting this new version in it’s place. Save your money, and your respect.

I noticed nobody had done this yet, and I took this upon myself to warn you about this, as you will be extremely disappointed if you’re a huge fan of this record as I am. One of my favorites ever by my favorite band just got kicked in the balls by a Studio engineer who wanted to breathe fresh air into a classic. It’s almost like taking apart a computer and stripping its hard drive from it to give you a “newly fixed, remastered blah blah” but the soul is gone. Besides, compared to $30 for this waste of money to $12 for the original, save the loot and your ears and buy the original. The studios had to be aggressive and make this record smaller and smaller just for a small victory for themselves. They just gave this album a midlife crisis. Thanks, now everything’s ruined.



Recent reviews by this author
Faith No More King for a Day... Fool for a LifetimeGlassjaw Coloring Book
Prince Sign O' The TimesDown Down III: Over The Under
Miles Davis Dark MagusThe Glove Blue Sunshine
user ratings (1616)
Chart.
4.4
superb
other reviews of this album
1 of

Comments:Add a Comment 
RoshanC
December 22nd 2008



219 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

This is close to being my favourite album as well, and im gonna stay the fuck away from this. it does seem a strange album to remaster, thanks for the warning

kygermo
December 22nd 2008



994 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

Yes, please do. It was very disheartning to hear this. I couldnt believe it.

AliW1993
Contributing Reviewer
December 22nd 2008



7234 Comments

Album Rating: 3.5

Nice review. I've only heard a couple of songs from this (the original), and have to say this seems unnecessary, as they seemed very well produced. I'll probably get it some time.This Message Edited On 12.22.08

kygermo
December 22nd 2008



994 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

^ Swear to God they did. When I get home from work tonight, Ill give you the link where you can compare.

kingsoby1
Emeritus
December 22nd 2008



4830 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

mike patton approves of large font.

Digging: Nmesh - Dream Sequins

Monticello
December 22nd 2008



805 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

A soundoff probably would have been a lot more effective for something like this.
Also, errors:

First paragraph, last sentence
Plus, this is my favorite band so you better believe I'll be biased.

third Paragraph, second sentence
It had to have been

This Message Edited On 12.22.08

Spamue1G
December 22nd 2008



1292 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

Monticello - Yeah, but it wouldn't have acted as a fair warning to people. As far as reviewing the remastering of an album goes, it's decent at the very least.

lateoctober
December 22nd 2008



171 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

Too many forced puns, and you basically should have made this a sound off. Most of this review is just one complaint on the sound being turned down and the bands recording history, there are also quite a few errors grammar wise.This Message Edited On 12.22.08

Gore
December 22nd 2008



332 Comments


WHy remaster it

kygermo
December 22nd 2008



994 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

Yeah Yeah I know, its not one of my best. Far from it actually. Very rushed indeed, I have no shame.

A sound off would have worked, but not really. Needless to say, I was anxious to see this was released but was severely disappointed.

And of course its a complaint, its a travesty! Why review an album that many people on here have already done? No point, so I bitched about whats wrong with it. Besides, I think comparing it to their other releases works well in terms of comparing them.

Maybe Ill get to editing it, but for now I worked a hard day only to come back and be sandblasted, so Im tired.

kygermo
December 22nd 2008



994 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

...and as I promised, here is the link that shows the difference between the 92 version and this waste of money.

http://www.ultimatemetal.com/forum/andy-sneap/437806-faith-no-more-angel-dust-2008-remaster.html

Willie
Moderator
December 22nd 2008



15774 Comments

Album Rating: 4.8

It was worth re-issuing because it was released 16 years ago. That means there's no hype for this anymore, it's probably not in stores anymore and therefore the album has mostly stagnated. Re-issuing it brings it back into the light (through reviews like this one, new release lists, etc) and might prompt someone to look into it. As for the sound, no one who has the original is going to get this, but by "remastering" it someone who gets it today won't have to worry that it might have some cheap early 90s production.

Digging: Teramaze - Esoteric Symbolism

badtaste
December 23rd 2008



824 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

Reviewing a remaster is dodgy.

Willie
Moderator
December 23rd 2008



15774 Comments

Album Rating: 4.8

Reviewing a remaster is dodgy.
Not really, it renews attention for an album that deserves it (in this case).

lateoctober
December 23rd 2008



171 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

Well if it makes Kygermo feel any better, I have not negged this. Willie seems to be spot on why Re-masters are justified, however Angel Dust has not stagnated over time. You can pretty much grab an older copy of The Real Thing and this album in any stores Metal/Alt section. Both albums have also been recently released in their original masterings in a value double pack.

kygermo
December 25th 2008



994 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

Is there any way I could possibly delete this and re-write it all over again? To be honest, I had 100% approval and because of this rushed review, Im now at 97% and that bothers me. I was digging my perfect track record and reading it again I could see why everybody negged it. And thanks for the thought lateoctober, I take to creative criticism well. And quite frankly, this "review" does kind of suck lol.

And Bad Taste, I only reviewed this so I could get the word out that everybody should ignore this and stick to the original 92 version. Its not dodgy, its just giving you all a heads up. This Message Edited On 12.25.08

badtaste
December 26th 2008



824 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

ohthanks, I was just about to buy the remaster as well.

edit: >_>This Message Edited On 12.26.08

StrizzMatik
April 16th 2009



3158 Comments

Album Rating: 5.0

The album isn't technically a remaster, it's a direct master from soundboard to CD, which is what MoFi does with it's line of re-releases. Yeah, the album isn't really any louder, but the mix is more distinct and generally has more audio clarity and is truer to what the album actually sounded like when it got tracked. In my opinion, the points you stated didn't justify a 2 rating, there ARE a lot of subtleties you'd never catch on the original recording (come on, this album requires headphones for a truely good listen anyways), and the album is hardly ruined.

And saying that Angel Dust had a superb mix? Um compared to what, The Real Thing? It sounds exactly like a record of its time, which is 17 years ago. You can barely hear any of the guitar on the record and it's low-volume throughout (not as bad as TRT but close). To anyone who thinks this guy has the correct opinion, get it yourself and don't take this review at face value before you listen to it. This Message Edited On 04.16.09

kygermo
April 16th 2009



994 Comments

Album Rating: 2.0

^^ I dunno man, to each their own. Me personally, I like the dynamics of the original. This re-release sounds...limp to me. Im not sure, though I see your points clearly. I think I gave the album such a low rating because I was severely disappointed in it, not to mention I spent 30 bux on it, too. But time has allowed me to lighten up with, especially since FNM is back together.

KILL
May 23rd 2010



67082 Comments

Album Rating: 4.5

yea this was pretty dumb



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





FAQ // STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2013 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Privacy Policy