this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2023
24 points (100.0% liked)

Music

7302 readers
5 users here now

Discussion about all things music, music production, and the music industry. Your own music is also acceptable here.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Whom@beehaw.org
Evolone@beehaw.org
HooGoesThere@beehaw.org
cityboundforest@beehaw.org
alyaza@beehaw.org
TheRtRevKaiser@beehaw.org
DJDarren@beehaw.org
remington@beehaw.org
24
what does "remastered" even mean? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by birdcat@lemmy.ml to c/music@beehaw.org
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Terminarchs@slrpnk.net 26 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Mastering engineer here. Remastered means that the audio has been modified to fit a different sonic aesthetic.

In general this means made louder, clearer and perhaps bassier, to make it sound "as good" as contemporary albums, as well as optimising it for contemporary consumer sound systems (which nowadays range from 5.1 kits with huge subwoofers, to a mono smartphone speaker).

It's also an excuse to sell the same album again.

I'm not currently able to listen to the examples you've given, but I do believe it to be sometimes detrimental to change the aesthetic of a song and "take it out of it's era", because a cleaner or brighter mix might make it lose a lot of its charm.

It's also worth noting that nowadays, the quality of remasters can vary a lot due to more (potentially less experienced) people using music-making software to create and upload their own.

Hope that helped!

[–] birdcat@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

one more example, where you can hear the difference from the first second.

help by Beatles

original

remastered

the remastered version does indeed sound cleaner and even fuller, yet somehow still simply more empty. or I'm just Imagining things now 😅

[–] birdcat@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm listening with pretty fancy earphones, I can hear that is sounds more "clear" sometimes, but mostly it seems that stuff gets removed and sounds more flat overall if that makes sense. maybe can you post examples of good remastered songs?

[–] scytale@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There’s a delicate balance a mastering engineer needs to keep, especially on music recorded a while ago on tape and are considered classics. They need to enhance it but at the same time retain the spirit and soul of the music. That’s why the changes are so subtle you sometimes barely notice anything. I’m sure a capable engineer can make a song recorded in the 60s sound like it was recorded more recently, but then it loses some of its character because how it sounded “old” is what makes it a classic in the first place.

Try the Steven Wilson remasters of King Crimson, and other music he has remastered. A more modern and not so subtle example is Oasis’ remaster of The Masterplan. You’ll notice the orchestral section is fuller, and some intruments that were not really audible in the original are clearer in the remaster.

[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

One that I've been on the fence about liking recently is the Metallica - Master of Puppets remaster that came out about a year ago. I can tell the two are different but it's so difficult to describe.

[–] SenorBolsa@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The one original I don't miss is the CD mix of Rushs Vapor Trails, as that was practically unlistenable and I have no idea who approved it, it clipped like crazy to the point where I was afraid it would damage speakers. Finally remixed in 2013 to a loud (which is fair that's the vibe of it) but listenable mix. I'm glad rush managed to make that happen, one little victory is a great track that was murdered by the mixing.

Sugar Ray is also highly brick walled but I can't tell if that's agressive mixing or just an aesthetic choice to have that kind of distortion and dirtyness in there.

[–] birdcat@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

late reply and you probably dont care, but holy shit, I DO GET IT NOW! i bought something from bandcamp simply to support the artist, then i got it as FLAC and jesusfuckingchrist! all those years spotify was stealing like 50% of the music i listen to! switched to apple music and god dammit ... those remasters do sound SO MUCH better, its like discovering everything new! keep the those remasters coming 😍 (but with 24bits pls, i swear i can hear the difference in like 90% of cases, made blind tests and all) the only confusing thing is this spatial audio / dolby atmos stuff. could literally not stop crying when listening to beethovens 9th and dark side of the moon, ~~but the doors were so bad, i cannot even listen to the "normal" versions anymore~~ just listened again and was wrong again, sounds kinda cool, keep those coming too i guess, no idea, but you audio and master engineers are doing gods work, keep it up and all the best 😊👌

[–] tunetardis@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

You're correct they're all new recordings of the songs, not remastered.

[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 7 points 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.ml 5 points 1 year ago

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

[–] SenorBolsa@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It could literally mean anything from a complete remixing from studio tracks to just adjusting the levels and eq a little and calling it good.

[–] birdcat@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

if only phones and such had an equalizer huh? 🤣

[–] SenorBolsa@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Most listeners won't touch it apart from boosting bass, you also want to make it play well with the typical compressor and EQ profiles of FM radio still. Listeners expect music to start at a certain profile and want to go from their on their own as well.

[–] Devi@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

A master tape is the song recorded in the studio which will then be replicated and distributed. A remaster means you make a new one of those. Often that can mean just re-recording (a lot of Taylors remasters do this) or it can mean you totally change the music. There's never a situation where you can't get the old version though. Just buy the old CD/vinyl/tape/whatever that comes from the master you like.