The 'Unnecessary Remaster' thread

haunt

haunt

Maker of Noise
I'm starting this thread because of Ride's 1990 album Nowhere. Last year it was reissued as a "20th anniversary remaster edition" and aside from the bonus content I'm disgusted. The original [even CD] was probably as pristine and perfect as any I've heard and has always served me as a good reference point of sonic excellence.

This got me thinking about the practice of modern remasters of releases from what I consider the pinnacle of the analog recording era. All it does is effectively remove much of what I consider to be historical context and cheapen its legacy by saying "you may have loved this but it didn't measure up to today's shitty standards". While it may give the material an audience of new ears, I don't agree with the methodology, or the newfound assumption that the volume knob is the enemy of the people.:cursing:
 
Once I've heard and fallen in love with an album...I usually hate listening to new remixes or re-masters.

Sometimes a remix/re-master can improve on the audio quality of the original, sometimes not...but what I dislike mostly is when it changes the original intent or "vibe" if you will, rather than just "lifting" the audio quality.
Of course, of the remix/re-master also kills the audio quality instead of imporving...then it's total garbage.
 
I rarely hear "remasters" that I actually like better than the originals. Especially if there was extensive remixing involved.

Some - Remastered due to leaps in processing technology - done from the same source - those can be very cool. "Same thing, just less hiss" or clicks or pops or what not.

Others, too many, are done just to make them louder.
 
My ears are pretty lame when it comes to frequencies and whatnot but they are super attuned when it comes to differences in a song/album I've been used to for years that sounds different in a remaster/remix. I remember hearing some Beatle albums when they first came out on CD and they had songs that faded off too early and it used to drive me nuts. When Led Zeppelin brought out "Remasters", my manager at the time was frothing at the mouth about their brilliance. But the original albums, for better or for worse, had so insinuated themselves in my consciousness that to be honest, I wasn't interested. Apart from two albums, I can't think of any album that I've ever bought or had or heard in close to 40 years that I've thought "I wish the sonic quality or mix was better.....".
 
grimtraveller said:
My ears are pretty lame when it comes to frequencies and whatnot but they are super attuned when it comes to differences in a song/album I've been used to for years that sounds different in a remaster/remix. I remember hearing some Beatle albums when they first came out on CD and they had songs that faded off too early and it used to drive me nuts. When Led Zeppelin brought out "Remasters", my manager at the time was frothing at the mouth about their brilliance. But the original albums, for better or for worse, had so insinuated themselves in my consciousness that to be honest, I wasn't interested. Apart from two albums, I can't think of any album that I've ever bought or had or heard in close to 40 years that I've thought "I wish the sonic quality or mix was better.....".
Click to expand...

Was one of them Black Sabbath - Paranoid? and the other Stooges - Raw Power?
Anyway, I know just what you mean about "what you're used to" as far as mix goes, and even beyond the mix itself. This is especially true with vinyl and the pops and ticks that develop over time. You come to expect them and their timing, you've earned them and they evolve to be part of the experience; the records become your personal versions to the point where you miss their flaws or 'it just doesn't sound right' when they are absent.
 
There are a few albums I've heard that haven't even been remastered, despite being billed as such. All that's happened is that someone's just amplified the volume of the tracks and chopped off everything above 0db. You can do that yourself at home with Cool Edit to a "quiet" album and save the money.
 
haunt said:
Was one of them Black Sabbath - Paranoid? and the other Stooges - Raw Power?
Click to expand...
No, one is this 1969 LP by The Gospelfolk. It has legendary status among collectors. But there's one particular song on it, it's so bad, I'm utterly amazed it came out. Even a beginner would've mixed it better. It sounds like a wooly ball of electric noise.
The other one is this compilation album by Melanie on the "Music for pleasure" label. I got it in 1990 and the first time I heard it, I thought it sounded rubbish. When I recorded it onto tape, I had to have the recording level full up just to get a low signal. I would've tossed it, just that it has the definitive version of "Good book" {I just love that song} and a lovely acoustic version of "Leftover wine". Just as I'm about to wonder how anyone could buy it, I remember that I did !
 
Even the cleaning up bit can be a worry in a remastering.
I have the Velvet underground Live 1969 with Lou Reed Double LP &, much later, CD. It is etched into my brain I love the feel/sound/atmosphere of it: "tape" noise & all. It is a live recording and not well done by any means but the performace is magical & the sound fits the music.
I recently got my hands on a CD that purports to be made from a much earlier generation copy tape . It's the same gig with a few extra tracks padding it out. The sound is much "cleaner" but there's no magic in the groove. I learned to love it as it was - I'm biased. Personally I think it's a crude digital clean up rather than earlier gen. tape.
I feel the same about some of the cleaned up stones releases: some of the mud that came from the Glimmer Twins learning their craft crudely was part of the sound of the stones.
Leadbelly recorded digitally would probably sound pretty cool as he had the right voice, guitar style etc but the LP I have of his Folkways (?) recordings sounds wonderful as it is.
We do tend to mythologize and base our tastes on the things that impressed us as we were learning to listen to music.
I've bought a few Reamasters and some were disasters, others less so. THose that were merely altered to reflect the diff between vinyl & CD (the RIAA stuff?) seem to be least damaged.
I've only bought a couple of remix remaster combos & that was LAMF using alternate mixes from the original recording period - I bought that because the original album I had sounded badly mixed. I also bought the remix of Raw power beacuse the original mix was pretty dreadful. I have to be honest though the latter didn't really improve very much if at all.
 
I heard a remaster of While My Guitar Gently Weeps this morning. First thing I noticed was that it was way too bright - at least compared to my usual expectations of the song. I guess if I had heard it on my big living room speakers, it would nor have been as noticeable. At least they didn't remix it. Remixing classics is just wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top