I understand my point of view is a bit harsh when you factor in the business side but mastering engineers should educate their clients some more. I know one big name engineer who provide 2 masters...one properly mastered and one which is brickwalled and lets the client decide! What!!! The client, no surprise here, always prefers the brickwalled version. Why he even gives them a choice...I don't know. It's a long, difficult conversation but the main blame should be on the mastering engineers followed by the producer.
I don't think it's harsh, I'm with you on this. I've been trying to educate my clients since I got my first producing gig in '92. Most of the time they listen politely, then act as if the conversation never happened. Once I was asked who the hell I thought I was, compress the F'ing thing or "F" off, when I told him that was the mastering engineer's job he fired me on the spot! Only once has anyone ever really listened and then actually taken my advice when I was producing for them and that was Bjork. In 20 years I have never had any luck with the suits.
In Europe there are a lot of kids calling themselves mastering engineers who don't even know what a mastering engineer does, let alone have the slightest bit of skill at it. The main problem though is the consumer, they are the only ones who can really influence the suits. If some artists can make high fidelity and low compression fashionable and sell a boat load of recordings, the suits will jump on the band wagon and this loudness war could be over in months. But the kids just want slamming on their iPods, closer to a square wave the better and dynamic range is a pair of dirty words.
Audio post is far more sane, we've got some pretty strict rules on both peak and rms levels on program material and compression is generally used for compression rather than for slamming.
Good chatting and I like your list.
G