I think there has to be a distinction.
Compression is a wonderful useful tool. It should not be used as an overall slur for what people might be referring to - brickwall LIMITING to create more loudness.
Compression can be used for incredible more powerful effect, and at times deliberately used to reduce the dynamic range - in order to alter the way something sounds and how you hear it.
This Tommy Bolin track was from the very first album I mixed 48 years ago. We deliberately put the whole mix through a compressor called a ‘GainBrain’ to create a very particular sound. Nothing to do with loudness, we had no idea what that meant back then. It was all about squashing the sounds on purpose.
I used the same technique back then on a track or two for Bruford - and when that album was recently remixed (not by me!) they came across as very strange and weak without that intentional power.
Another interesting point. I was temporarily living in America when Pink Floyd’s 'The Wall' was released in 1979. I was living in Chicago and a local FM radio station decided to play it continuously without any commercials for a full 24 hours nonstop. It sounded absolutely amazing the way they presented it. I had a very powerful and expensive hifi system.
So I went out and bought the LP the very next day. Boy was I disappointed at how weak and middle-y the whole thing came across on vinyl by comparison.
I think a lot of it is all relative. Yes, loudness wars which started so much with radio and streaming have made a lot of music suffer.
But don’t just make it sound like compression is a negative thing. Yes - maybe comparisons between originals and remasters can be an interesting dilemma - but sometimes a change in attitude for new remixes might be a deliberate decision.
Just my thoughts!! SWTx