@voodoolounge
I agree. Giles Martin remastered Beatle records his father mastered as intended. What I hear is cranked up bass and accentuating vocals or instruments. I guess Giles needs the money.
As a Beatles fan it’s pretty frustrating that neither the 2009 remasters nor Giles’ efforts bear repeated plays.
You’d think with all of the technical advances since 1987 he could do just a little better than his dad?
I guess not.
Perhaps his job was simply to represent them in a slightly more modern light?
Perhaps his job was to keep milking the biggest cash cow that popular music has ever seen?
If so, then Giles has succeeded fabulously.
However, there will always be those like me who wished he’d keep his hands off the knob twiddling and present the albums as straight transfers, as I believe he did with the sonically excellent Esher Demos off the 2018 White Album set.
Unfortunately, I have found that the vast majority of remasters offer nothing over the original issues.
A few exceptions might include the most recent Jimmy Page Zeppelin remasters, perhaps some Mofi releases, the 2012 Dylan reissues, the Springsteen, or even the 2012 Johnny Marr Smiths reissues.
The key word is ’might’. There are many who prefer the earlier Barry Diament Zep remasters, the Rough Trade UK Smiths releases, or even the Springsteen Box etc etc.
Again, my opinion, but I can’t remember hearing many remasters that blew away it’s predecessor in terms of sonics. Ok, the 90s Dylan Street Legal was an improvement over the muddy original, but it was a remix.
The 2003 Blonde on Blonde was an improvement over the earlier version.
The jury is still out on whether the ISB, Kinks or Scott Walker remasters are any better than earlier efforts.
There’s no doubt that remasters might improve things, but obviously a lot of care and expertise is needed. Not to mention a strong desire to do as little knob twiddling as possible.
Just allow the technology to do its work.
