Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Remasters (Generally)

Options
  • 29-07-2011 6:02pm
    #1
    henryporter
    Registered Users Posts: 2,089 ✭✭✭


    All the talk of Nirvana and Smiths remasters has got me thinking about the musical 'morality' of doing so - not from a monetary point of view, more so from the point of the distortion of the artifact as captured in time. Conceptually when an album is released it has reached the point where the artists and producers are satisfied with the 'product' and happy to let the critics and public have a listen. What is logic of remastering, other than the afore-alluded-to monetary motive? Obviously Kurt Cobain isn't going to have a say in how 'Nevermind' is re-conceived, is Morrissey going to be all that pushed about a 'purer' "Meat is Murder". All this when the delivery of music to the masses takes the form of 'lossy' mp3. Personally when I want an album, I'll try to buy the original, second-hand if necessary. Any views or opinions?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    nlgbbbblth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,668 ✭✭✭nlgbbbblth


    Some random thoughts.

    Lots of remasters suck.

    Too loud.
    Over compressed.
    Brickwalled.

    Examples of bad remastering
    Cocteau Twins
    XTC
    Suede
    Tindersticks

    In all cases the above albums are best enjoyed on vinyl or the original CDs.

    People think that louder = better.

    It doesn't.

    Just use the volume button on your stereo.

    The Smiths original Rough Trade CDs sound great. The Sire / WEA clones that emerged post-1987 are crappy.

    People are crying out for Prince remasters saying that the original CDs are "too quiet". They're missing the point - they sound fine - aside from Sign of The Times which sounds way better on double LP as the existing CD pressing is lifeless.

    Remasters are good for bonus tracks etc.

    A vinyl reissue is not more "worthy" or "cooler" than a CD reissue. Give me the original vinyl pressing any day.


  • Options
    #3
    Latchy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,191 ✭✭✭✭Latchy


    I like the Beatles remastered back catalogue with each song on the albums sounding as if they had only being recently recorded using the latest recording techniques and not back in the early,and late 60s ( although it was 21st century studio technology that was used to remaster them )

    The difference between these and the original mono and later released stereo recording is the detail with a crispness in the instruments and vocals ,even the original odd slip ups are there to be heard . Just makes it all sound so fresh .


  • Options
    #4
    Temaz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,758 ✭✭✭Temaz


    The Bob Dylan remasters are excellent, as are The Beatles.


Advertisement