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.
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.
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?
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.
From what I’ve heard, she didn’t remaster, she rerecorded those albums. These are new performances.
You’re correct they’re all new recordings of the songs, not remastered.
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.
well that makes sense, of course capitalism and greed has to be involved when stupid shit happens 😒