One of the problems is using terminology like making something "warm", "fat", having "bloom", adding "glue" putting a "glaze" on it, etc. It really doesn't describe something accurately. It's almost meaningless from an audio standpoint. In the audiophile community the favorite phrase is "as if the veils were removed" when they describe the latest/greatest piece of gear. But you hear it, repeat it, the magazine articles say it and it becomes fact. Everybody knows it, and if you don't hear it, you're either deaf or have an untrained ear. Or maybe the description doesn't fit the sound.
I find the same thing when people describe foods. They use flowery language, "this bourbon has notes of strawberry, tobacco and leather".. seriously? It got corn, barley, rye and aged in charred oak. It sounds impressive. It says "I have such developed senses that I smell and taste things that aren't' there!" Personally, I've never tasted a bourbon with strawberry or leather and I've tasted a LOT of bourbons (although some might have been improved by being served in an old shoe!).
So much music today is squashed to make it sound big, loud and impressive. There's little in terms of dynamic range. Louder is better becomes the mantra. One would think that the advent of the CD with 90dB S/N and high def streaming with 24 bit/192k would bring recordings that use the range to preserve the dynamics. Instead we went the opposite direction. Vinyl records were compressed because you had maybe 60dB S/N with good vinyl, 50 or less with recycled. Channel separation was maybe 20dB at 1K, less at high frequencies and bass was rendered in mono. Why do we have CDs with 20dB dynamic range?
I'm not sure what you mean when you say people recorded
very bright and loud and put onto tape and if it muddied it up then they make it clearer later on and then final product would put a very light smoth warm glaze to polish up any sharp sounds. Are you speaking of transient information? EQ? It really doesn't make sense to me. Producers in the past worked hard to make sure that the master tape they produced was generally clear, balanced and cohesive. Sounds were adjusted and blended. Bad recordings weren't "fixed" to sound clear and snappy. The goal was to have good tracks to work with.
Bad recordings rarely reached the final product stage, although there are exceptions. One of my favorite "bad recordings" is
Go Now by the Moody Blues. It's incredibly distorted. But it's an outstanding song, went to #1 in the UK and 10 in the US. Of course when it was released, you probably listened on a 45 record player with a 4" speaker, or on the car AM radio. A little distortion didn't matter.
As to why you don't think today's remasters don't sound good, well, it can be several things. There's the matter of taste. I'm sure the person doing the remaster thinks it sounds better. Most analog/vinyl recordings have less high frequency content and softer transients than today's digital recordings. Maybe he was trying to add that back via some fancyEQ, but then it can sound bright, so you pump up the lows and low mids. If your perspective is compressed bright digital recordings, then you'll try to make the new master sound like that. Maybe the reproduction system emphasized a sound that