Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kinnikpasswordforgetter
bebop junkie i enjoy your long grunge posts. especially you into yer schtick/layne staley post which i thought was fantastic.
can't believe you think WTLO wasn't great tho. ok -the mastering was ATROCIOUS, to the point of ruining some songs completely. but they put in a lot of effort and chose versions of songs that hadn't been bootlegged loads already. all in all it was a decent effort. it should have just wrapped up the loose ends completely and had ALL the remaining songs we haven't heard ever like 'ivy league' and 'the son'.
|
I'll mention some things that i don't like about "With The Lights Out". Hopefully my instance on it will be clear after that: The artwork is awful and gives me the impression some lazy person was involved in that department. The box-set includes songs with participation from Chad Channing, Mark Lanegan and Mark Pickerel, for instance, and i certainly consider it an accurate depiction of Nirvana's evolution; but a lame picture of the most famous incarnation of the band, which doesn't make any sense in regards to providing a context of what the box-set is about, just makes me think that they did the easiest thing next to just printing the logo on a blank or black background and then send it to the stores. When it was initially mentioned that an antology would be released, there were rumours that it was gonna be a heart-shaped box-set, but it never materialized. There probably aren't too many pieces of graphic work (other than Kurt Cobain's paintings and shit) that could be creatively used for packaging, but my point still stands and not only regarding "With The Lights Out". I think that fucking best-of for which they weren't able to assemble a cover or even pull off a decent title, it's also noteworthy in the same aspect. Then the mastering and mixing doesn't really satisfy me in quite a
few songs. You have used the word "atrocious" to refer to the results, and i have to say i strongly agree with you. I also think that the fact that they didn't bother to use the master tapes in some cases, taking instead dubious cassette tapes as sources, is a very despicable move.
There surely are some songs that i enjoyed hearing for the first time, especially those rough sessions that were the gestation for "In Utero", but i somehow feel that the people in charge of that project didn't take a deeper look on the archives, and pretty much just went ahead in taking the money off the bootlegers by making official stuff that was already available relatively easily in unofficial records such as the "Outcesticide" and "Into The Black" compilations. In this case, speculation nurtures my opinion, but it does so to the point that i have the impression that, if they actually release another artifact to celebrate the anniversary of "Nevermind", they might as well just snag the content of "Loose Ends" and/or "The Chosen Rejects" and put the damn thing on sale, mixed differently, sounding bombastic, with a cover consisting of a shitty photo taken from the lamest Nirvana-oriented tumblr page (note the irony here); some people on the internet have done it better for many years. Yeah, i doubt they'll release too much from the tapes that are hiding on safety boxes, because they gotta save the golden goose for future releases. After all, it does seem the interest in Nirvana is far from getting to the end of its days (I know i'm still interested). I'd eat my shorts if "Ivy League", "The Son", or "Song in D" and all the other jams and still obscure Nirvana songs that have caused interest for years, is actually released soon.
Anyway, i won't deny there are good things that "With The Lights Out" actually has to offer, musically and otherwise. Right now i don't feel necessary to diss Thurston Moore's liner notes, or the chronology included in the booklet. I won't throw the DVD right into the flames at this point, either (Why make this post any longer?). All in all, i gotta say i strongly agree with you in considering it just a decent artifact, after all is said and done. Unless we'd actually have different concepts of the two words. I don't think "decent" would be a rightful equivalent of "great" for you, or am i wrong?