Added: 4 years ago
From: AllGunsBlazing
Views: 39,573
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (178)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Both of them are good :)

  • quiet LOUD quiet, this version is excellent

  • Wow, it doesn't sound like pop music.

  • i think the vox is toned down. Barely any chorus on the vox

  • The album version is painful to listen to. This is way better.

  • I prefer the Scott Litt version. The distancing on the vocals gave it a little more umph... But that's just my opinion.

    

  • @cereal359 yeah i agree...

  • this one sounds great of the albini mixes though i wasn't as sure about heart-shaped box original albini mix this one is very convincing compared to the one that was originally released.

  • many people are misinformed. the only songs different from the released cd versions are this song and heart shaped box. all other songs are steve albini's mixes. only 2 songs...not the whole album.

  • @bluejay55118 That's actually not entirely true. Scott Litt did remix the three singles (check out the "Walmart" version of Pennyroyal Tea, too), but they tweaked the levels of the mix in Mastering. Vocals were brought up on all songs and bass guitar was increased a bit as well. I'd add that, to my ears, the drums are the centerpiece in the Albini mix, whereas they sound compressed and less prominent on the official release. I like the Albini mixes, personally.

  • @bluejay55118 you are wrong.

  • @kennydoggins You may disagree with my opinion but, actually I am not wrong. i have a vinyl promo copy of the original Steve Albini mix.

  • @bluejay55118 so what are you comparing your promo copy with? because comparing the two albums in mp3, it's obvious on almost every track the commercial release was more "sharp" and has less overall range. vocals are louder and have some crappy delay effect as well. either way, i highly prefer whatever my "albini mix". look into it.

    i think what you should do is digitize your vinyl and share it.

  • the drums sound better without the extra reverb echo they added to them in the released version.

  • the guitar in the chorus sounds like bleach, but still pretty good, more grunge than the final mix, but the final mix is better, no doubt

  • It simply sounds like you're listening to the band live in the studio. But seriously, its a very small difference. Everett True mentions an original tape in his biography about them, which turns out to be 99% more accurate than the Charles Cross bullshit one. Mainly because he actually knew them and he interviewed a lot of fucking people for that book.

  • are these versions available for sale? the whole album? much better than the originally released version.

  • in my opinion i feel like just the little things they did to these songs. took away from the. like in heart shapped box the sheer power of that guitar is sooo much more than in the released version! and i feel like if that album has hit number 1. . just imagine what i would have done if it was release with steve albini damn you record companys pressuring kurt into changing it just cause u didnt like it!

  • this song could have totally been a breeders song from pod, really nice song

  • It's a very thin recording but much more organic and real. Much more punk. Sounds like a genuine American Underground Rock record.

  • this version is grunge

  • this version so much more organic and true to their sound. Its not just about how loud the instruments are, its about dynamics, guitar to far right or far left, the atmosphere in this version is beautiful, you cannot hear it in the revised version. To best hear the difference, you have to wear headphones.

  • @milkspam23 to truly appreciate any true artists vision, such as kurt Cobain, you must listen to their records with headphones. When ever I get a new album, I listen to it through the cans first.

  • @evilerg Hey, not to be rude, but I have something to say. When you listen to music in headphones, you are preventing your left ear from hearing what your right ear is hearing, and vice-versa. So, actually, by listening to rock music in headphones, you hearing it a little different than curt would have heard it in the studio : ) I would suggest setting up a proper stereo field in your room, and listen to it on some regular speakers.

  • @ilovethesechords Right on, but I dont just listen with one ear at a time. Can you close your eyes and tune out all instruments except one? Either thru headphones or a stereo system....everyone hears music differently.

  • @ilovethesechords Wrong, Thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard

  • @madcap2003 Sir, I have just been informed of something called "Ben Bauer," he did research in making headphones sound more natural. All I'm saying is that listening to stuff in headphones sounds differently that on speakers. I'm making the assumption that the dudes in nirvana didn't sit in the recording studio and make critical judgements on the sound ... on a pair of headphones.

    SO..

    Yeah/.

  • Too noisy for the moodiness of the song to shine through IMO

  • Was this mixed on Logitech laptop speakers?

  • @dddux Mate this was in 1993 ! Not fucking modern day !

  • Long time Albini worshipper here, make no mistake. But must say I adore the standard release version, only because this version is practically un-mixed. Vocals are distant. Sounds un-mastered too. I wonder if Albini would prefer this version to the final Scott Litt version? It is lacking in dynamics. The drums sound better in this version, as well as the cello, but the overall mix is still in need of some love. I'd be very interested in hearing Steve's FINISHED version of this song.

  • Having seen Albini work and his process, these sound like rough mixes. No FX added or fader riding present tends to support this. Don't think this is the real deal guys. However, this is an amazing platform in which to build the final mixes. This record would not sound as it does without this amazing engineer involved. He definitely made life easier for Litt by capturing great audio and performances.

  • Sounds like a musician mixed it--not an A&R guy

  • I like this mix better. Much more natural.

  • @mrpixx360 I agree. It's a bit more spacey, and the chorus is more pronounced. Without the extra layer of vocal, it feels more... isolated, sad.

  • Comment removed

  • @RoboDope YEEEEEAAAAAH I CAN SCREEEAAAM ALOT TOOOOOOOO!!!!

  • these tracks are really great takes..... its good start from this mix to start adjusting levels and adding reverb to get some ambience.

  • Steve has said numerous times that all these so-called "Steve Albini mixes" on the internet are fakes.

  • @MRBLuD Yeah, but Steve is also a jerk. So, it makes perfect since why he'd say that.

  • Wonderful. What else should I say. Who gives a shit what mix it is. Just enjoy!!

  • the litt remix is a whole lot better. the vocals sound flat, the guitars are too loud, the drums sound like garbage cans. litt did exactly what kurt, kris, and dave wanted him to do.

  • the biggest difference i see is in the violin. especially at the end. i love that sound. like from velvet underground & nico only more toned down. very nice and subtle.

  • @Staleness665 Cello

  • wish they had stick to this version, is a whole lot more powerful.

  • this sounds exactly the same as the one on the in utero cd

  • man i'm gonna download this version.

  • his recordings are true to how the band sounded live

  • Ehh? I don't get it. The Litt Version is a lot more... "fullfilled??:)" I'm actually quite happy they remixed those whew songs. As they didn't give Litt all the songs?

  • sounds like kind of a low quality mp3 to me... is there a higher bitrate version?

  • SO MUCH better than the other version.

  • Of course... Albini mixes in a digital audio format just isn't enough for me... they really need to release them in an analog format or something.

  • @checkeredgeek They did. In 2003 the released the original Albini masters on vinyl.

  • Intentionally? I'd heard it was a mistake or something... although, that makes very little sense. Maybe they just didn't call attention to the fact that it was Steve Albini's mix. Are you talking about the picture-disc vinyl?

  • @persons0 yeah the pressings are from UK they're being sold on ebay between $75

    bucks and $250 bucks go check em out bro i really wished that geffen wouldve shut their mouths and let the albini mix see the light of day

  • I love the Albini mixes of In Utero, I like Litt's too, the guitar really does just leap out at you on the Albini mix.

  • Damn listen to the bass at the end ! sounds like a metal tube hitting concrete, I love it

  • I like everything about this particular version better than the released mix... except the bass. I believe the bass is more pronounced in the released version. But being a bass player, I'm biased like that. Moreover, Albini has a habit of making the bass sound dry.

  • I like that the vocals aren't overblown with reverb on this mix. I hate it when a band has a great singer who's voice is amazing, and the audio engineer that mixes down their songs uses too many effects on the vocals, it takes away from the talent in the voice. the released mix on in utero takes away from Kurt's talented vocals.

  • magnificent. kicks the normal mix in the teeth. they really sound like the pixies/breeders in this mix (thats a good thing).

  • as far as im concerned, this IS the normal mix.

  • hahaha i agree. cheers

  • @looshkin66 Listen to the parts during the verses where he raises his voice. Listen to those parts on the original mix. Once you do that then you should hear that in this mix there's no effect in the vocals that makes it sound like Kurt is yelling across a large room.

  • @looshkin66 i think it is

  • @looshkin66 you and 13 ppl are deaf or need a new sound system.

  • @casavan you didn't get the point of that comment

  • Comment removed

  • @user3182 now I understand thanks we are saying the same

  • This mix is so much better... great separation during the verses, that wall of noise during the chorus... the drums have too much "room" sound on then, but apart from that it's great...

  • no, personally I don't think the vocals are on the verge of being lost at all...they are lower than what the normal ear is accustomed to, from listening to top 40 radio...but, if you hear a band play live, this is about the level you would be hearing them at...in fact you can actually hear the vocals even better in this recording.

  • I know this is entirely subjective, but even through the heavy compression of this system, I can hear that this version is flawless(!), i mean yeah, I guess if you have a 'sentimental attachment' to the sold album you're gonna like that better? Personally, I think this is a pure, un-adulterated perfect recording...you can hear every instrument clean, clear and crisp...minimal and yet sounds as close to what Nirvana sounded when they played live, no unnecessary 'production effects', just perfect

  • vocal are on the verge of being lost though; no?

  • Interesting, but not necessarily better to the final version.

  • Sounds like a guitar player mixed it.

  • Steve Albini was a guitarist

  • Yeah, having read folks' comments & giving this recording a good few listens, well, my ego'd like for me to be all punk rawk & say, "This is it!" but In Utero's still my favourite record, the way I picked it up, as a teenager.

    I love The Jesus Lizard and all kinds of Bay Area punk & thrash & all kinds of other wierd shit, but I'm gonna stick with the Scott Litt remix in my mix CDs (almost wrote mix tapes haha ^^)

  • whoa this very good. the guitars sound great even for it being way overly compressed for this youtube shit quality. I love how hi the cello is mixed. mr albini does a great job on making things sound timeless and not a product of their time like nevermind for example. yes this unmastered

  • Steve Albini is really fucking good at giving the different parts of a song a major difference while keeping it subtle.

  • i prefer this version

    chorus has got more guts

  • ^this

  • Can't hear the vocals on the bridge - "in the sun"

  • What are you talking about, I can hear them fine!

  • Sounds to much like a demo tape to me. Like someone else said, sounds like there a "band playing in a room". The atmosphere is lost a little here IMO. Very roomey and open sounding.

    Id actually wish I could listen to more of Scott Litts remixes. To me his versions of Pennyroyal tea, heart shaped box and All apologies sounded more meaningful and heavy in a emotional sort of way. I'd like to hear a remix of my favorite song Sappy, not that it would be better, but it would be interesting to see.

  • Well, the whole point of Steven Albini's recording technique is to make is sound like there's a band playing live in the room, just capturing them as they would sound. It's OK if you don't like it, but it's not a failure on his part. I mean, the band worked with him for that very reason.

  • I realize Albini likes to record like that. But I still think the Scott Litt remix sounds better for all 3 songs. And there is a reason the Band wanted them remixed.

    The band didn't like the way it sounded. Krist said the guitar solo on HSB "sounds like a fucking abortion hitting the floor". Cobain said "The first time I played it at home, I knew there was something wrong. I got no emotion from it, I was just numb."

  • i prefere the albini vertions cos they sound more natural and raw rather than polished and perfect

  • I think this version expresses more emotion in it than the released version! Seriously.

  • everyone likes the versions that werent on the albums but some just arnt as good as the ones on the album

    live versions are a different story

  • I used to have this on cassette, this is much better.

  • this is how kurt wanted to sound

  • Kurt wanted to remix the song so evidently not.

  • haha

  • its better - for being more raw

  • This is unmastered, sounds great as a mix. Wish they went with Steves mix.

  • not as good as the record version

  • puck u

  • THey figured that HSB and ALL Appologies would be the singles. ALot of radio stations wouldnt have played it the original way. I dont think its a big deal

  • This version as the last song (without the hidden track) in the album, I think it sounds nihilistic. It's beautiful. I'm really not surprised to know Geffen got scared hearing this.

  • yeah,geffen sucks

    all the fuckinmajors suck . . . capitalism is so much stupid!

  • thank you at least some of us have a future. DIY or die.

  • the recording is raw and untreated, just like the intent of the song. way better than any remixed bullshit.

  • this sounds a lot softer..to me

  • it sounds much heavier and more raw here. I enjoy the album version more because it sounds lighter and softer.

  • It doesn't sound like a finished product to me.

  • it was never mastered

  • No, this is the mastered version, it's just not the one that wound up on the album. This is simply the way that Steve Albini mastered it compared to Scott Litt mastering it.

  • well, it's Steve's mix...the bass drum is more up front, the cello on the outro is louder and Kurt's vocal melody isn't really there...and the chorus is louder

  • i know.

  • There also is some weird guitar noise toward the end. I like it! It should have been in the final mix.

  • albini didnt master it.... he recorded and mixed it.... scott litt re-mixed heart shaped box and all apologies. Bob ludwig mastered the album. mixing and mastering are two completely different entities.

  • I know, but there's an LP floating around that features Steve Albini's mix which is comparable to Rapeman, Big Black, and Shellac's mastering. This particular recording is from a DAT tape that came directly from the soundboard.

  • yes, i have it.... (personally I think it sounds better than the mastered album).... but yeah, i think the albini mix album is un-mastered. :)

  • to tell the truth, don't really hear the difference, besides being a tiny little bit poppier. i don't see why gold mountain called it "unlistenable"

  • This almost mainstream now...that was way back in '93, when the worst kind of pop shit was on the charts. Think of the times.

  • so? mainstream music in the 90's and now hasn't changed that much. in utero isn't anymore "unlistenable" than nevermind.

  • Depends what you call mainstream - I consider Sonic Youth mainstream, because everyone I know listens to them. 15 years ago that was not the case. 'Raw' now is entirely different from what it used to be in '93. Of course, if you think top 40 is mainstream, then your statement is true.

  • i also consider sonic youth mainstream, but not because everyone i know listens to them. i know what you mean though, i would consider the devil wears prada, bring me the horizon and all that other shit to have some mainstream popularity so i guess it's all in your opinion.

  • @safetosaydontquoteme With this song in particular, probably the chorus is very aggressive. That's all I can come up with...

  • As nice as Albini's recording and mix of the drums sound (the ace his sleeve as an engineer), I think his down-with-vocals-and-up-with-d­rums-and-guitar-mix does nothing for this song. The melody is in the vocal so that's were the focus should be (like in the Litt mix). That said, I think Albini did an amazing job with the other 'In Utero' tracks. Also, his mix of 'Pennyroyal Tea' was the superior version, I think Litt's additions were interesting to hear, but unnecessary.

  • nowhere near as good as the remixed. vox to low in the mix, gts sound mushy on the chorus.

  • this one is much better. the wildly contrasting cello at the end is just amazing around 3:00

  • Albini used screwy mic placement techniques, like taping a kick drum mic to the floor and ambient mics on the walls. You can hear his signature resonating through the final mix. I see why the label cheeseballs wanted a remix, you know if they released it like this, it would get panned by more cheeseballs. Ultimately, once albini was in the mix, he stayed in the mix, this album would not have had half the ambient impact it has without that element.

  • I don't know if I'd use the word screwy. I've tried those placements myself and with the right mics you can get a "hugh" drum sound without.

    In this recording, Albini uses a mixture of room sounds (recorded using mic placed at a distance from the drumkit) mixed with a short delay to make the drums sound big.

  • I don't know if I'd use the word screwy. I've tried those placements myself and with the right mics you can get a "hugh" drum sound without.

    In this recording, Albini uses a mixture of room sounds (recorded using mic placed at a distance from the drumkit) mixed with a short delay to make the drums sound big.

  • I have tons of respect for Albini, taping a kick drum to the floor, which I have done many more bizarre things myself to achieve ambient or interesting sounds (including pzm wall mounts at at a distant parallel breaking most "rules" there are), I would have to call slightly screwy, weather you, me or Albini was doing it...because it sort of is. Now using a term like "wrong" or "stupid" then I would completely agree with you. No rules, just sound.

  • why do i find the "poppier" version more artier?

  • because you use words like "artier"

  • shit. i don't get it

  • LMAO

  • awesome

  • Refreshing and raw unlike the commercial version.

  • Wish they would rerelease Nevermind w/ the original mix instead of that "bubble gum pop" mix they had another producer come in and do to it after the powers that be didn't approve. You can't tell that Grohl is beating the hell out of the drums and it just sounds simply bad.

  • what the machine wants.. they get...

    its too bad, like this version too..

  • I also would like to hear all Nevermind as it really is... Only heard In Bloom (Sub Pop Version). Would be great to have other stuff, too. It's much grittier than the released, shiny version. It's lost some of its magic...

  • I once saw a red bootleg CD that had the Albini tapes, but being in college in 94 and it being $35, I passed. Never saw it again. Pops up here and there, like this.

  • The version of Teen Spirit on "With The Lights Out" has a more Pixies feel and isn't bad. There's also a raw version of Breed on the boxset as well.

  • Listen to Last Call by Elliott Smith.

    If you like In Utero you should like that song. Not enough people have heard of Elliott Smith & he is one of my favorite artists.

    Anyway, I only mentioned him because I was listening to the song now :3

  • Sounds like a demo tape to me.

  • BOOOOOO why dont you just go listen to Nevermind then

  • In a certain way, zatzzo is right. It has a really open, roomy sound which big time productions don't have. I dunno if I'd call it demo quality...I'd call it Albini quality. Drums are SO Albini - they pretty much always sound like that on every Shellac album I've heard. Guitars are really woolly, strings are mixed down, vocal is not really in-your-face like a "big hit record". I love this mix but I can kinda see why the big guys would fear alienating the chumps who buy records from the radio...

  • I like this one...though the heart shaped box one i don't...theres sumthing about it

  • thx for the post! nice song, never heard it before

  • Albini is one of the best producers ever, In Utero, Surfer Rosa, Pod, he's produced a ton of great albums

  • engineered

    :D

  • i definitely think that this is how nirvana SHOULD sound on record, but i do prefer the mix on In Utero.

  • It's certainly less "poppy".

  • I agree with misterpoochie, this is how Nirvana SHOULD sound! anyone who disagrees missed the boat and should become a "MY Chemical Romance" fan!

    If you do agree we recomend Shellac!

  • i cant really tell the difference except for the vocals

    is there really a difference on anything else?

  • Basically volumes and tones were switched around in the final mixes. It's the same recording in reality, just modified.

  • The guitar is bassier and louder, the bass is softer, the drums don't have as much treble , the distortion is louder (it definitely was not compressed) and is more midrange than a DS-2 should be, one less vocal track, no reverberated vocals.

    Pretty much everything was altered for the album release.

  • as much as I dig the Live Sound..... The bass is q'd in the wrong range. And sounds like ass on most speakers. Always mix on multiple sets of speakes should be a rule of thumb.

  • I prefer this version to the one on In Utero (:

  • You can hear bass on this version. Thanks for

    uploading it.

  • this is true nirvana.

    not processed shit

  • much as I dig albini's apporach..

    it just sounds like a rough demo

    comin from the next room

  • That's Albini's style.

  • you're right. albini's style is to put the vocals down in the mix and put several mics everywhere to get the right tight sound out of the rest. Guess what?? it works!!! this is how nirVANa wanted to sound

  • Oh no!! record company puts out the CRISP CLEAN million sella!!

  • no shit...that's what the point was. To make it sound like you were in the room.

  • I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact you are listening to the track over youtube?

  • incredibly good point. haha. i never thought of that. it would be nice to hear these old mixes of in utero songs without the 'YouTube quality slash'. Still, you cant have it all. :-(

  • Now if they could only have shut off Dave Grohl's drums.

  • Albini's mix was released on Vinyl?

  • Only by accident and only in Germany a few years back.

    The wrong master was sent to the pressing plant and only a few hundred were released.

  • And how much are these copies going for?

  • I saw one on eBay for 300 USD... I was so damned pissed that I couldn't get a hold of it!

  • Is this available on bootleg or anywhere?

  • cello and vocals are much clearer, that reverb on the finished album covered up a lot of out of tune/weak notes, ala Mtv unplugged, sounds like a lot of one take vocals

  • apparently albini likes to record as much live stuff as possible. I think for in utero thats how it should be.

  • i love it