They were always mastered, there was just the 90s-2000s race for loudness that changed how they were mastered. There are some genre's that benefitted from that loudness war (pop music sonics changed dramatically) but yeah anything which should have had subtlety got squashed to oblivion.
How do you feel about more recent re-masters where they have been more sensitive to over-compression and in some cases re-re-mastered to address the appalling re-masters?
I have some issue with re-masters that attempt to fix problems with the source material. I'm not a huge fan of artists tinkering with the original material, adding elements that got lost in the mix due to overdubs/noise, were not technically possible, or just re-mixing for their taste. At least Taylor Swift is up-front about re-recording her albums.
My gut is that music recorded/mastered to tape is going to sound 'as intended' on vinyl and everything recorded digitally (the old DDD label on CDs) targeted CD. I have nothing scientific to back that up though.
I don't trust them enough to risk spending money on more re-masters. I always go for the original.
Interestingly, I've grown to dislike music that is too perfectly produced. I like that the singing isn't perfect, there's some background noise picked up by the mikes, etc.
For example, listen to some of the Jefferson Airplane albums from the 60s. Those albums would never be produced today, because the band is a bit of a mess. The harmonies are out of sync, the pitch is imperfect, the timing erratic, everything is off kilter. But that rawness is, strangely enough, what makes the albums so endearing and a treasure. It's like the band has come by your house and is just having fun in your living room.
So much better than the antiseptically perfect modern productions, along with that awful ubiquitous autotuning. Barf. C'mon, dare to have a sour note here and there.
I find recordings of Moreschi (the last castrated tenor as far as I'm aware) to be very fascinating for that reason. The quality is terrible, he isn't hitting the notes or the rhythm particularly well, and yet it's really endearing.
https://youtu.be/KLjvfqnD0ws is one that has been digitally cleaned up but prefer listening to the messy version sometimes
Totally different type of music, but I feel the same way about rap.
Eminem's very early music feels amateurish, you can hear various audio issues. But it's some of its best work.
Now, anyone who makes an album can make something. That sounds absolutely spotless with about $2,000 worth of gear. Something's lost, there's something nice about hearing a mistake someone makes, but they don't have enough money to rerecord it so it stays on the record.
Rarely when I make my own music, I'll just leave some of the problems in there.
How do you feel about more recent re-masters where they have been more sensitive to over-compression and in some cases re-re-mastered to address the appalling re-masters? I have some issue with re-masters that attempt to fix problems with the source material. I'm not a huge fan of artists tinkering with the original material, adding elements that got lost in the mix due to overdubs/noise, were not technically possible, or just re-mixing for their taste. At least Taylor Swift is up-front about re-recording her albums.
My gut is that music recorded/mastered to tape is going to sound 'as intended' on vinyl and everything recorded digitally (the old DDD label on CDs) targeted CD. I have nothing scientific to back that up though.