I am fine with re-recorded albums being a new release group… when they are actually a new release group.
Taylor Swift did it solely to prevent someone else from making money. She wasn’t re-imagining anything. She wasn’t revisiting anything. It was solely - buy my album so that the money goes to me.
Twisted Sister did it because they didn’t like what “the suits” (A&R, producers, label) did to their songs. Here are our songs, the way they were meant to be heard.
But where do you draw the line?
Ozzy Osbourne didn’t feel like paying royalties to the bass and keyboard players from the original albums, so he had just those parts recorded by someone new.
Rob Zombie (or was it White Zombie, I can never keep them straight) did “remix” albums which actually involved new recordings except for a couple samples/stems.
So, then, what is the cutoff for these “re-recorded” albums?
How much actually needs re-done to be considered different.