It’s more complicated than that. They are trying to bring the level of the original master up to the volume level of modern music which is much louder. If they would only retain the dynamics of the original they could increase the volume without ruining the relative dynamics of the original. They think it sounds better when it’s been remastered, but we don’t.
I believe it all has to do with copyrights. And let's not exclude money. It's like saying let me rewrite the Bible. it's a gold masterpiece it was written in a different time, when you alter it you change everything but that's just my opinion.
I agree with all of you about the lost equilibrium in some remastered albums. On the others way around, it unveils impressing features for very of albums (78 rpm vinyls of the beginning of 1900). For instance the composer Pablo Martin Meliton Sarasate played in 1904 but his Gramophone are too difficult to hear even the melody is suspending our breath. The remastering brings to a new vision of his music but with a wonderful freedom and other interpretations are difficult to compare to the Composer’s playing. The thing to regret is the sound of the violon which is not a Stradivarius... If it is a full fake of the original music, it would be nice to know. If it is the real digital cleaning with respected volumes and tempo, it would be interesting to know how they did it.
Thanks for this Community for helping iur thoughts. Spotify would be. Elcome to explain things and let us know if they did other restaurations line that if it is a real one!
@ThomWim, I'd even let them put "We finally learned how to do quality remasters and not screw with the listeners" in every title if they actually cleaned up their act, started doing proper remasters and stopped adding bazillions of useless bonus tracks. There's a reason a given producer made the album sound a given way and selected those tracks and arranged them in that order.