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@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year 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?

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 year 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.

      • shutz@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

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

      • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year 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.

    • birdcat@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

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