There is something wrong if the mix in the single CD sucks and every song in the DVD sounds better than the CD equivalent effectively making the CD completely redundant to listen to.
"It's just a mixing choice."
Some mixing choice are better than others. Should reviewers ignore how the producer mixed the song when assessing the worth of an album. Should John Mc rewrite his reviews whenever he commented on the quality of the mix.
The mix on the CD completely sucks especially when you play them back to back with the DVD version.
"So what? They are totally different experiences with different performances and different purposes."
17 great performance vs 8 songs with crappy production choice.
Why on earth should I listen to the latter?
In fact even if they were identical performance with identical mixes. Why should I listen to the version with less songs?
I mean there is a CD and there is a DVD version of 7 World Collide by Neil Finn. To fit in a single CD they omitted several songs from the DVD including in my assessment their best songs. Therefore I conclude the CD to be worthless because there is absolutely no reason why I should listen to the CD version when the DVD version has more songs and it has better songs there.
Similar to Under The blood red sky, I have the CD and the DVD mix of both version ripped in my computer. Now can you give me a single good reason why I should listen to the CD version if I think it's inferior to the DVD version?
Also my point is that if you are going to assess U@ as a live artist you can't accurately assess them by the live album they released.
If I only judge U2 by the live albums. I would say U2 are a mediocre live band because Under A Blood Red Sky is a mediocre live album. Now if I take in consideration the DVD version, I would say they are an awesome live act at their peak.
In a hypothetical scenario that John Mc reviewed the CD version and then conclude they are a weak live act while ignoring the DVD version, then that's hardly fair in assessing the legacy of the group from a live perspective. Especially when it was the performance on Red Rocks that was captured on DVD has the critical consensus to be one of the great live performance of all time. Now whether John MC agrees with that assessment is his prerogative but I don't think anyone should simply ignore it merely because it release on DVD instead of CD.
: In fact *most* live albums are messed with
: later. (even Live At Leeds had parts changed
: on different releases).
: Changing the mixing of guitar is hardly
: butchering anything. It's just a mixing
: choice. I'd look down upon that far less
: than I would at people rerecording parts for
: live albums later in the studio. And I
: barely look down upon that either since
: pretty much everyone does that anyway.
: >>Also 8 songs in the CD vs 17 songs
: in the DVD.
: So what? They are totally different
: experiences with different performances and
: different purposes. Essentially different
: albums under the same title.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index