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 delicate balance a mastering engineer needs to keep, especially on music recorded a while ago on tape and are considered classics. They need to enhance it but at the same time retain the spirit and soul of the music. That’s why the changes are so subtle you sometimes barely notice anything. I’m sure a capable engineer can make a song recorded in the 60s sound like it was recorded more recently, but then it loses some of its character because how it sounded “old” is what makes it a classic in the first place.
Try the Steven Wilson remasters of King Crimson, and other music he has remastered. A more modern and not so subtle example is Oasis’ remaster of The Masterplan. You’ll notice the orchestral section is fuller, and some intruments that were not really audible in the original are clearer in the remaster.
One that I’ve been on the fence about liking recently is the Metallica - Master of Puppets remaster that came out about a year ago. I can tell the two are different but it’s so difficult to describe.