Record sales are undoubtedly the most logical reasoning behind the popularity of this activity. Led Zeppelin have made virtually no new material since 1998, instead choosing to re-sculpt and repress former glories, outselling Taylor Swift’s 1989 on the Billboard Album Charts last October. While bands like Led Zeppelin argue that remastering allows their music to reach a new audience and create a high-definition listening experience, this cannot be the only factor when younger and less commercially successful bands like Supergrass are copying the Jimmy Page led rockers.

In a week where The Rolling Stones are about to re-issue their 1971 work Sticky Fingers and where Supergrass announce plans for the re-release of their 1995 breakthrough I Should Coco any critic would be skeptical about Jimmy Page’s purely creative reasons for remastering. According to Page the archaic technology of 1975 hindered Physical Graffiti reaching its full potential with the updated versions of their records being better than “the original ones” in term of sound quality at least. While this is undeniably true, a better argument is that the band are aiming to access a new generation of music lovers, but is this the best way to gain new fans? In an age where young music-heads demand their music to be downloaded and streamed into their ears in a matter of seconds, is the time and energy that bands put into constructing deluxe editions and intricate album covers really worth it?

In a week where re-issuing and re-mastering seems to be the most fashionable statement in the music industry, it’s time to ask whether remastering is actually an artistically worthy activity or just another means of making money before bands bring out another greatest hits compilation.