"Poll question: Nirvana "In Utero" - Steve Albini vs Scott Litt"
So someone through this up on youtube. It's not completely accurate as they match the peak instead of the RMS level, but yall can tell the quality beyond 'louder is better' right?
1. "i voted for Litt" In response to Reply # 0 Sun Feb-17-13 02:43 PM by forgivenphoenix
but I do think the Albini mixes are probably more interesting artistically. the Litt versions sound more like 'radio singles' and are more straightforward and accessible than the songs Albini mixed.
Albini's Pennyroyal Tea is more interesting and unsettling than Litt's to me, mostly because of the fading guitars.
6. "for a group that sold 9 mil? copies of their previous release" In response to Reply # 2 Tue Feb-19-13 03:33 PM by forgivenphoenix
i think having a 'radio ready' single is important.
*edit* i'm not sure i understand exactly what you meant by your question. are you meaning that the definition of 'radio ready' would be different for one band relative to another?
granted, Nirvana's public image at the time of In Utero was as far as what was conventionally thought of as Pop as a band that had a #1 album could be, but they were being marketed as a major-hyped release and leaning for accessible and clear rather than atmosphere seemed more practical.
as far as the song on it's own, i think Litt's work made the songs more accessible aside from the coda on Pennyroyal Tea. Albini's work sounded more murky and dark, but either my mind is attached to the version that was released or I like the 'brightness' and clarity of the Litt one.
i could feel differently if there was a high-fidelity version of the Albini attempt tho.
3. "There were elements that I liked of both but mostly liked Litt's" In response to Reply # 0 Tue Feb-19-13 12:59 PM by zuma1986
I think that the ending of "All Apologies" works better with a louder sound falling apart. But on "Pennyroyal Tea" the loudness and all the effects on Litt's just sounds too much.