Bought the U. S. mix of the Vibrators first album today at Truck Records in Oxford. It's much better than the U. K. mix. Got me thinking why did record companies issue different versions in different countries. The most obvious is the first Clash album that had substitute tracks.

Label tinkering is as old as rock music. In the 60s, the popularity of EPs and 45s in the UK led to drastically different LPs in the US. The Clash debut was not initially issued in the US because Epic didn't think it would sell, so it wasn't until after Rope that they decided to put it out, by which time there were non-LP single sides that could be swapped in for lesser album tracks. And so on....

The US labels always have someone involved who need to stamp their territorial imprint on whatever album it is. There have been many albums that I simply avoided instead of buying two: the debut Clash album, for instance. There have been others I care more about where I have gladly bought two [or more] copies from multiple territories: "Reality Effect" by The Tourists, for example. Owing to my fervor. And I'll sit here with a straight face in a house full of Tourists records from many nations and say that 'yes, the US version is superior.' Epic removed the two duff cuts on the album and replaced them with two top quality cuts from the debut Tourists album as produced by Conny Plank. Boom! Now it's perfect.

Former TP subscriber [81, 82, 83, 84]

[postpunkmonk.com]
For further rumination on the Fresh New Sound of Yesterday®

The Beatles catalogs on Capitol (in the States) and EMI/Parlophone (in the UK) are very different, up until Sgt. Pepper. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard fans argue over whether Capitol was doing The Beatles a favor by re-organizing their earliest releases to include non-LP singles here and there, or whether the American label was messing with albums that were in fine shape already.

Whenever anyone's tried to get my two cents' worth on that topic, I've always shrugged and told them, "You're asking the wrong guy." Until I got married, the only Beatles albums I had in my collection were the Red Album and the Blue Album. I found them as German imports, pressed on colored vinyl.

My wife brought the complete Beatles reissues on vinyl into the marriage -- the box set in the navy blue slipcover case. Those pressings were modeled after the British issues, so, again, I didn't have any grounds to compare the American and British versions.

Did the U.S. CD of Pure Mania use the U.S. LP mix? FWIW, I don't think the CD has ever been remastered in the U.S., so there should only be one CD version here.

What's the difference between the US and UK mixes?

I believe it all comes down to marketing...I heard somewhere that it's cheaper to advertise in Europe than it is in the US, thus why American versions come out at a later date if/when the band has stirred up enough interest outside of UK/ Europe. If a band is signed to a small label, let's say, in England, they wouldn't have the resources to promote much beyond their country's borders. If you somehow got picked up by an American label, then you had the resources to promote your music there. When I was in Europe in the 90's, I bought dozens of cd's because they hadn't been released yet in the US and I had no idea when they would make it over to the states because of the labels they were on. I bought a number of Gary Numan releases over there, mostly because they were on his own Numa label, and I wasn't sure if they would make it to the US. If I recollect, Bjork is on a dozen labels or so and she plays them against each other, so that if she wants an album released a certain way, she maintains creative control over it.

One problem that artists have with regards to releasing music overseas is that some of the songs on the album might be offensive to the censors/public. This was especially true in the past: for example, I remember one of the Manic Street Preacher's earliest albums in the 90's had some songs that were considered to be very offensive to other cultures (I believe Spain forced the band to release the album sans the offensive material, with lousy remixes being issued on the album in it's stead).

Also, an American label will release something with a different cover, just to pique interest among consumers...and then there were the bonus tracks, ah the bonus tracks. I was a sucker for the back in the day, reminds me of Slowdive's Souvlaki album, which had bonus tracks on the American release.

A review on Discogs some it up nicely the US version is more punky while the UK one is more pub rocky. I'm not an expert but to my untrained ear there are added keyboards on some tracks and the whole thing sounds faster louder and more alive.

belfast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Did the U.S. CD of Pure Mania use the U.S.
> LP mix? FWIW, I don't think the CD has ever been
> remastered in the U.S., so there should only be
> one CD version here.

Not sure I bought the CD version in the UK and that's definitely the UK mix

One common difference is the US label’s insistence on including hit singles on the album - often as the lead track. British acts so often treat singles and albums as two different things, which can be rather annoying for American audiences. Like, why do we have to buy all this extra stuff?!

Hence, Roxy Music’s Virginia Plain” and New Order’s “Blue Monday” were appended to American releases. Which is fine by me.

Sarah Records had a policy of not including their singles on albums, except for compilations. They talked about it as a political gesture, not wanting to make their bands' audience pay for the same song twice, but that assumes everyone bought both their singles and albums.

Totally agree Virginia Plain added to the first Roxy album makes it even more wonderful.

In Australia, the self-titled debut from Killing Joke didn't include Change. Although a B-side, it's one of my favourite songs by them. A friend obtained the US pressing and there it was. As mentioned here before, the biggest head scratcher for mine are the Super Black Market Clash omissions.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2024 02:44PM by Aitch.

For almost as long as I've been a fan, I've read/heard that the 1979 U.S. revision/release of The Clash is inferior to the 1977 UK original. Having heard both, plenty of times, I respectfully disagree. The U.S. release replaces four of the original album's less distinguished songs with five outstanding later singles that no Clash fan would want to be without -- "Clash City Rockers," "Complete Control," "White Man in Hammersmith Palais," "Jail Guitar Doors" and "I Fought the Law" -- and replaces the original "White Riot" with a later recording. The result is an album with much more variety and flavor, and a tremendously improved flow.

With the Clash debut, I don't really have a straight answer as to which version is THE one. I'm tempted to say it depends on one's listening habits. I pretty much listen to their entire catalog regularly (with the exception of the misbegotten Cut the Crap which does at least have a great single), so I strongly prefer the original UK album. The US version feels very much like a compilation to me, but to be fair, it sounds great - if there was only one Clash album to take to a desert island, it might be that one, but otherwise, I'd rather just listen to the singles and other non-LP recordings on something like Singles and Black Market Clash and the UK version of the debut.

The blog Save Your Face put together a playlist intended to improve GIVE 'EM ENOUGH ROPE by swapping out its weakest songs with the Clash's 1978 singles.

I think we should treat the u.s. version of the Clash album as mentioned above as a compilation. The u.k. version is the bands vision of their first album.

Oh, I'll gladly concur that the UK version of The Clash is the band's true debut. It'd take real brass (to be polite about it) to posit that the Stateside release is the one that's really their debut, especially since it hit the racks two years later. But to me, track for track, the U.S. version is a better listen.

There! Now then ... time for me to find a UK copy of Pure Mania and see if I have an opinion.