Ishmael
Super Member
Every remastered album starts from a source, the original tape/digital file created by the artist. In other words, whatever the format, it was first their performance.
Now comes greed. Technology has advanced. The new sound engineers with today’s technology decide they can make the original performance “better” than The Beatles, Miles Davis, etc., actual performance. Then the reviewing pundits proclaim the “remastered” IS “better” and “Caaaching $$$”, the catalog is resold for the 4th, 5th, 6th time.
But what is being sold via this “remaster”? Let’s consider the Beatles Rubber Soul album. The Beatles performed in a recording studio to create the master tape, which they listened to, tweaked, and finally declared their album. Again, their performance.
But who performed the new “remastered” release? It wasn’t The Beatles; they did not perform in a recording studio to create a new master tape which they approved as their “remastered” album. So, who are the performers for the “remastered” Rubber Soul? The recording engineers and new technology are the performers, not The Beatles. The remastered Beatles, Rubber Soul in my opinion is more honestly titled “[Name], Recording Engineer & [Name], New Technology-Performing: The Beatles, Rubber Soul”. But then this might not move the resale of the catalog.
But you say it sounds better, and therein lies the conceit. It sounds different, because it is, it is no longer what The Beatles intended, but does that make it better? What have you lost? You’ve lost the intent and sound created by the artist. It is like the colorization of legendary black and white films. Casablanca dies in color, all the intent and creative energy that make it magnificent comes from being filmed in black and white. I can still recall pizza sized lacquer 33 rpm records on my childhood mono record player of Caruso singing, or John Phillip Sousa conducting his marches. Crackles, pops, noise, but through it all the wallop of reality, as I, a little boy, sang along or marched about the room.
Yet we persist in this strange conceit, unique from all the other arts. No one is remastering the Mona Lisa, better with lipstick or a tattoo, Michelangelo’s David re-sculpted to make the cover of GQ, or Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea rewritten into a romance novel. What happens after the 4th, 8th, 10th remastered Rubber Soul?
Think of it this way, there is the original Rubber Soul that John, Paul, George and Ringo performed and chose to release as their performance. Then comes the first “remaster” and the sound of the performance has been changed, made “better”, but not by them. Now move ahead to that 6th “remaster” of their performance, in each of the previous five “remasters”, the sound has changed, been made “better”, but each change is cumulative. Each must be more “different” from the previous “remaster” to sell that it is “better”. But when is that moment when the “remaster” has changed the performance of John, Paul, George and Ringo to the point that it no longer sounds like them? The moment when we have lost what The Beatles sounded like. We will have a “better/remaster”, but The Beatles will be gone.
So, stop, wait for that pre-amplifier with built in A/I mastering capabilities. You’ll save a bundle. Plus, after you and the A/I are done, maybe you or the A/I, will have your “better” Rubber Soul, just don’t call it by The Beatles.
Now comes greed. Technology has advanced. The new sound engineers with today’s technology decide they can make the original performance “better” than The Beatles, Miles Davis, etc., actual performance. Then the reviewing pundits proclaim the “remastered” IS “better” and “Caaaching $$$”, the catalog is resold for the 4th, 5th, 6th time.
But what is being sold via this “remaster”? Let’s consider the Beatles Rubber Soul album. The Beatles performed in a recording studio to create the master tape, which they listened to, tweaked, and finally declared their album. Again, their performance.
But who performed the new “remastered” release? It wasn’t The Beatles; they did not perform in a recording studio to create a new master tape which they approved as their “remastered” album. So, who are the performers for the “remastered” Rubber Soul? The recording engineers and new technology are the performers, not The Beatles. The remastered Beatles, Rubber Soul in my opinion is more honestly titled “[Name], Recording Engineer & [Name], New Technology-Performing: The Beatles, Rubber Soul”. But then this might not move the resale of the catalog.
But you say it sounds better, and therein lies the conceit. It sounds different, because it is, it is no longer what The Beatles intended, but does that make it better? What have you lost? You’ve lost the intent and sound created by the artist. It is like the colorization of legendary black and white films. Casablanca dies in color, all the intent and creative energy that make it magnificent comes from being filmed in black and white. I can still recall pizza sized lacquer 33 rpm records on my childhood mono record player of Caruso singing, or John Phillip Sousa conducting his marches. Crackles, pops, noise, but through it all the wallop of reality, as I, a little boy, sang along or marched about the room.
Yet we persist in this strange conceit, unique from all the other arts. No one is remastering the Mona Lisa, better with lipstick or a tattoo, Michelangelo’s David re-sculpted to make the cover of GQ, or Hemingway’s Old Man and the Sea rewritten into a romance novel. What happens after the 4th, 8th, 10th remastered Rubber Soul?
Think of it this way, there is the original Rubber Soul that John, Paul, George and Ringo performed and chose to release as their performance. Then comes the first “remaster” and the sound of the performance has been changed, made “better”, but not by them. Now move ahead to that 6th “remaster” of their performance, in each of the previous five “remasters”, the sound has changed, been made “better”, but each change is cumulative. Each must be more “different” from the previous “remaster” to sell that it is “better”. But when is that moment when the “remaster” has changed the performance of John, Paul, George and Ringo to the point that it no longer sounds like them? The moment when we have lost what The Beatles sounded like. We will have a “better/remaster”, but The Beatles will be gone.
So, stop, wait for that pre-amplifier with built in A/I mastering capabilities. You’ll save a bundle. Plus, after you and the A/I are done, maybe you or the A/I, will have your “better” Rubber Soul, just don’t call it by The Beatles.
