Klaus, re: the mono remasters in particular, isn't the whole point that a) they are precisely that, remasters, no remixing/re effecting done at all, and b)we the general public are finally getting to hear them, which means that we are getting that most direct window into the past? The hope of many was that there would be no heavy hand with the mono in terms of eq/limiting/(God forbid)NR, and if that is indeed the case, what other damage was there to be done? I mean, clearly there was eq and limiting on the original mono releases (however many versions of those there were for each album) but I wouldn't include the mastering engineers take(s) on things (intended for vinyl with its limitations) as part of the magic I"m looking forward to hearing...(whenever my boxed set shows up from Amazon, in 3-6 weeks...sigh).
I'm just not seeing how the mono could be seen as revisionist in that context, particularly considering the frequent, extreme shortcomings of the stereo mixes we've had to "suffer" with (an odd way to talk about some of the best music of the 20th century to be sure). Only analogy I can come up with at the moment, but it's like taking a classic film, say a Tarkovsy work, and pretend that the only version that was regularly broadcast or otherwise available to the public is some crappy Turner-colorized version. I'd be pretty desperate to see the original b/w no matter what they had to do to xfer it, would certainly be happy that it be available on DVD and not have to search for rare, expensive (and probably inferior, bootleg) VHS/Beta copies, and would certainly think of it as the true original (even if said colorization had been done only weeks after the orig print).