5 ms·

I think it's possibly a bit rich to say that they didn't listen to it just because they had a different opinion. I found the same thing on first listen, becaus

I think it's possibly a bit rich to say that they didn't listen to it just because they had a different opinion. I found the same thing on first listen, because a few things were subtly "wrong" (different). On second or third listen I love the new version, the production and vocals are just that little bit more polished in a fair few ways and I've gotten used to the slightly different mix. The new bonus tracks are pretty decent and it's nice to rediscover one of my favourite albums again. It wasn't at all dissimilar to the effect I get when trying new headphones - I hate them for a little while, invariably. Then I get used to the new tonal balance and I learn to love the sound (if they're good headphones)

soperj 6y ago
I've had the same thing happen with live versions. The Pixies play "Where is my mind" very differently live, the vocal lines especially. First time I heard it was jarring because of the expectation and I didn't think it was good as the recorded version. Recorded version feels much worse now.
- protomyth 6y ago
  I hate, just hate, the album version of Kiss's God of Thunder, but they speed it up live and it sounds amazing. STP was amazing in the Fargo Civic Center which makes me think the person who mixed their album just hated life because it is noticeably inferior. On the other hand, Aerosmith has sounded like crap the two times I've seen them in concert. It gets weird when you buy the import (for the US) versions of some songs. A lot of the Seattle bands sounded better to my ear on the versions sold in Europe. Japan is always an odd duck.
  - whatever_dude 6y ago
    Tangential, but I've had a somewhat similar experience. Iron Maiden's "Flash of the Blade" used to be my favorite song by the band, but somehow it was not one of their biggest hits. I had it recorded on tape and would listen to it daily. When I finally had money I bought the album it was in, and couldn't not believe how bland the song sounded. Turns out the cassette player I used to play the song was speeding it up - not super noticeable on its own, but obvious if you compared it directly, and the sped up version is MUCH better.
    - protomyth 6y ago
      Thinking about it, that makes a lot of sense. I listen to some of the folks on YouTube that do covers of songs. A lot of them speed up the song and it sounds better than the original. I wonder what causes that. Is there any software that would allow the minimal speed-up to make it enjoyable to listen to again? Also, maybe check some of the live versions. I get the feeling those might be a bit faster.
lm28469 6y ago
This phenomenon happens when you compare anything similar side to side. Every time I fire up my calibrated color profile for my pc screen the colors look all wrong for a few minutes, even though I know they are the absolute "right" colors. So when it comes to topics with no rights or wrongs it's even more subjective, try with wine or whisky, TV screens, driving sensations in a car, sitting on a chair &c. You'll always find someone to argue X is right and Y is wrong but in the end it's 100% subjective, you know you're in for a ride when people start talking about missing "soul", "magic", "unquantifiable and unmeasurable qualities"
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
eric_b 6y ago
No, the problem isn't that the critics disagreed with me - the problem is that every critical write up I found said this new release was amazing, breathtaking, incredible, brave, [insert extreme superlative here] etc. Not one review I found had the guts to say "eh, 15 is abysmal on the new record, especially compared to the raw energy and feeling of the original". It's OK to like the new version, but to say it's brave is really stretching belief. It's like if a bunch of art critics fawned over Da Vinci making an exact copy of the Mona Lisa again. Sure, he might knock it out of the park the second time, but it's not the same.
- bombcar 6y ago
  I would be suspect of reviews in general - you'd need to find a group of experts without bias (if you want a review of the technical aspects) or of fans who have had enough time to "digest" both versions. Amusingly enough someone like Apple could get answers over time by watching play counts of both for people who have both versions.

soperj 6y ago

I've had the same thing happen with live versions. The Pixies play "Where is my mind" very differently live, the vocal lines especially. First time I heard it was jarring because of the expectation and I didn't think it was good as the recorded version. Recorded version feels much worse now.

protomyth 6y ago
I hate, just hate, the album version of Kiss's God of Thunder, but they speed it up live and it sounds amazing. STP was amazing in the Fargo Civic Center which makes me think the person who mixed their album just hated life because it is noticeably inferior. On the other hand, Aerosmith has sounded like crap the two times I've seen them in concert. It gets weird when you buy the import (for the US) versions of some songs. A lot of the Seattle bands sounded better to my ear on the versions sold in Europe. Japan is always an odd duck.
- whatever_dude 6y ago
  Tangential, but I've had a somewhat similar experience. Iron Maiden's "Flash of the Blade" used to be my favorite song by the band, but somehow it was not one of their biggest hits. I had it recorded on tape and would listen to it daily. When I finally had money I bought the album it was in, and couldn't not believe how bland the song sounded. Turns out the cassette player I used to play the song was speeding it up - not super noticeable on its own, but obvious if you compared it directly, and the sped up version is MUCH better.
  - protomyth 6y ago
    Thinking about it, that makes a lot of sense. I listen to some of the folks on YouTube that do covers of songs. A lot of them speed up the song and it sounds better than the original. I wonder what causes that. Is there any software that would allow the minimal speed-up to make it enjoyable to listen to again? Also, maybe check some of the live versions. I get the feeling those might be a bit faster.

lm28469 6y ago

This phenomenon happens when you compare anything similar side to side. Every time I fire up my calibrated color profile for my pc screen the colors look all wrong for a few minutes, even though I know they are the absolute "right" colors. So when it comes to topics with no rights or wrongs it's even more subjective, try with wine or whisky, TV screens, driving sensations in a car, sitting on a chair &c. You'll always find someone to argue X is right and Y is wrong but in the end it's 100% subjective, you know you're in for a ride when people start talking about missing "soul", "magic", "unquantifiable and unmeasurable qualities"

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

eric_b 6y ago

No, the problem isn't that the critics disagreed with me - the problem is that every critical write up I found said this new release was amazing, breathtaking, incredible, brave, [insert extreme superlative here] etc. Not one review I found had the guts to say "eh, 15 is abysmal on the new record, especially compared to the raw energy and feeling of the original". It's OK to like the new version, but to say it's brave is really stretching belief. It's like if a bunch of art critics fawned over Da Vinci making an exact copy of the Mona Lisa again. Sure, he might knock it out of the park the second time, but it's not the same.

bombcar 6y ago
I would be suspect of reviews in general - you'd need to find a group of experts without bias (if you want a review of the technical aspects) or of fans who have had enough time to "digest" both versions. Amusingly enough someone like Apple could get answers over time by watching play counts of both for people who have both versions.