listening to lots of music lately and almost every second song is “remastered”; original is often not even available anymore.

and not one single time i can hear any kind of improvement. so what does it even mean, to remaster a song?

one of the worst cases, imo is atomic by blondie.

friggin classic

b-side abbba song?

and to add: iʼm not some kind of nostalgic puritan, plenty of songs get better after some remixing, covering and whatnot, like

The Clash - Rock The Casbah (12 inch Version)

But the remastered version?

dear god, if i wanted to listen to sting, i would listen to friggin sting.

  • 🇨🇦 tunetardis
    link
    fedilink
    132 years ago

    There’s a Snoop Dogg interview where he makes an interesting point about this. Apparently, after 7 years, an artist has the right to reclaim ownership from the label by remastering?

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      52 years ago

      well that makes sense, of course capitalism and greed has to be involved when stupid shit happens 😒

    • Scrubbles
      link
      fedilink
      English
      112 years ago

      This is essentially what Taylor Swift is doing with her Taylor’s Versions. After being ignored when she requested to buy her masters, she essentially did a “Fine I’ll do it myself” and is now remastering all of her old work.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        192 years ago

        From what I’ve heard, she didn’t remaster, she rerecorded those albums. These are new performances.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        72 years ago

        Correct. The royalties structure in music has the 2 parts - composition and performance. If you own both, you get 100% of the royalty from all those sales/streams.