Red Mosquito

Because six million people held hands and sang along to "Lithium," that's why!

Really though, I can understand why you wouldn't think it a great show. There are a few songs they totally botch ("Sliver" included--definitely a worse version than the Wishkah version!), but I skip around those few and still find it a really enjoyable listen. If nothing else I give them credit for putting it out as a standalone release rather than stuffing it into a box set that costs $120.

Kevin Davis wrote:If nothing else I give them credit for putting it out as a standalone release rather than stuffing it into a box set that costs $120.

True dat.

If you're thinking of picking this up, KD, I'm pretty happy with the 2CD reissue and the DVD. The considerable extra expense for the audio version of the live show and an expanded booklet doesn't really seem worth it.

Birds in Hell wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Bad Mix. Bad Gig. DVD is complete, CD is edited, doesn't matter...the whole show sucks.

Agree, I've never understood why that show is so frequently cited as being a high-water mark for the band: they kind of sucked. Particularly in comparison to a legit blistering performance like the Paramount show.

I've never been very fond of those mid/late 1992 Euro shows generally. They're kind of blah.

Reading is very blah, even by their standards at the time. I'd rather listen to any of the well recorded shows from the Euro tour, or even the Buenos Aries show, than Reading.

Oh, this might matter to some: the vocals are inexplicably absent from the Rio demo of Very Ape.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Bad Mix. Bad Gig. DVD is complete, CD is edited, doesn't matter...the whole show sucks.

Agree, I've never understood why that show is so frequently cited as being a high-water mark for the band: they kind of sucked. Particularly in comparison to a legit blistering performance like the Paramount show.

I've never been very fond of those mid/late 1992 Euro shows generally. They're kind of blah.

Reading is very blah, even by their standards at the time. I'd rather listen to any of the well recorded shows from the Euro tour, or even the Buenos Aries show, than Reading.

I've never really heard of Reading noted as a high water mark (but I'm sure it probably was inall the press for that release), I always thought it was significant mainly because it was the last European show and the fact that they pulled the show off at all. I've read interviews with Grohl where the rehearsal they had the night before was a disaster and they were worried they were going to be really terrible.

I totally agree it's not a blistering show too. The Australian tour in early 1992 had some much better performances but you can see that that the band was having fun and pulling out old covers etc at Reading.

I still thought the video quality and the audio SOUNDED pretty good on the DVD. The vinyl sounds good to me too from memory. Sure the cd cut one song and some banter to fit the time constraints of the format but what they cut wasn't exactly essential listening. The absence of an uninspired version of Love Buzz with a terribly out of tune guitar shouldn't really be a deal breaker. They cut banter from the Paramount release too. Fortunately they didn't try erase any mention of past girlfriends/wives though.

Well, here's another way of putting it. If I was doing a *mix* of well-recorded Nirvana live stuff, I probably wouldn't use anything from Reading. It might be the least important of all the pro-recorded shows in terms of good performances of songs. Very little from Reading is what I would consider "live album" worthy. That's why I've always frowned upon the spotlighting of the Reading performance as though it's some high standard. But I guess it was an easy sell. It was very heavily recorded and it works as a standalone release because it isn't tied to any particular album. But it's probably one of the most overhyped and overrated performances of all time. Kind of like when a certain other band played in Philadelphia...

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Well, here's another way of putting it. If I was doing a *mix* of well-recorded Nirvana live stuff, I probably wouldn't use anything from Reading. It might be the least important of all the pro-recorded shows in terms of good performances of songs. Very little from Reading is what I would consider "live album" worthy. That's why I've always frowned upon the spotlighting of the Reading performance as though it's some high standard. But I guess it was an easy sell. It was very heavily recorded and it works as a standalone release because it isn't tied to any particular album. But it's probably one of the most overhyped and overrated performances of all time. Kind of like when a certain other band played in Philadelphia...

I'd hazard a guess that it was maybe one of the few pro-quality full length shows from that post-Nevermind and pre-In Utero era plus the 'mythical' status as you said would make it an easier sell than say Nirvana: Live at the Palace, Melbourne 1992.

Fuzzcharger wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Well, here's another way of putting it. If I was doing a *mix* of well-recorded Nirvana live stuff, I probably wouldn't use anything from Reading. It might be the least important of all the pro-recorded shows in terms of good performances of songs. Very little from Reading is what I would consider "live album" worthy. That's why I've always frowned upon the spotlighting of the Reading performance as though it's some high standard. But I guess it was an easy sell. It was very heavily recorded and it works as a standalone release because it isn't tied to any particular album. But it's probably one of the most overhyped and overrated performances of all time. Kind of like when a certain other band played in Philadelphia...

I'd hazard a guess that it was maybe one of the few pro-quality full length shows from that post-Nevermind and pre-In Utero era plus the 'mythical' status as you said would make it an easier sell than say Nirvana: Live at the Palace, Melbourne 1992.

I think it's an issue of having remixable video *and* audio of something. As far as I know, that only applies to Paramount, Reading, Unplugged & Live And Loud. There may be other shows but I'm not aware of them. The Portland 1990 show on the "Bleach" deluxe might apply as well. There is multi-cam but I don't know if it's remixable or locked in. That's a very good performance that should have been a no-brainer to include as a DVD in that chinsy-ass "Bleach" deluxe.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Bad Mix. Bad Gig. DVD is complete, CD is edited, doesn't matter...the whole show sucks.

Agree, I've never understood why that show is so frequently cited as being a high-water mark for the band: they kind of sucked. Particularly in comparison to a legit blistering performance like the Paramount show.

I've never been very fond of those mid/late 1992 Euro shows generally. They're kind of blah.

Reading is very blah, even by their standards at the time. I'd rather listen to any of the well recorded shows from the Euro tour, or even the Buenos Aries show, than Reading.

That Buenos Aires is the greatest "bad show" from any band I've ever heard. It's farce at the highest level. I'm sure the audience was properly confused but listening to it now it's hilarious, with a killer setlist and ridiculous stage banter. No "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? Sure! "Beeswax"? Why the fuck not? Singing "Hey" over the first verse of "Come As You Are"? Naturally!

If you love Nirvana, you owe it to yourself to check that show out. It's Nirvana at their absolute best and absolute worst at the same time.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Well, here's another way of putting it. If I was doing a *mix* of well-recorded Nirvana live stuff, I probably wouldn't use anything from Reading. It might be the least important of all the pro-recorded shows in terms of good performances of songs. Very little from Reading is what I would consider "live album" worthy. That's why I've always frowned upon the spotlighting of the Reading performance as though it's some high standard. But I guess it was an easy sell. It was very heavily recorded and it works as a standalone release because it isn't tied to any particular album. But it's probably one of the most overhyped and overrated performances of all time. Kind of like when a certain other band played in Philadelphia...

They should have just used "Lithium" from Reading due to the significance of the moment and that's it. Using a 1991 version of "Lithium" makes no sense at all.

matt reeder wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Bad Mix. Bad Gig. DVD is complete, CD is edited, doesn't matter...the whole show sucks.

Agree, I've never understood why that show is so frequently cited as being a high-water mark for the band: they kind of sucked. Particularly in comparison to a legit blistering performance like the Paramount show.

I've never been very fond of those mid/late 1992 Euro shows generally. They're kind of blah.

Reading is very blah, even by their standards at the time. I'd rather listen to any of the well recorded shows from the Euro tour, or even the Buenos Aries show, than Reading.

That Buenos Aires is the greatest "bad show" from any band I've ever heard. It's farce at the highest level. I'm sure the audience was properly confused but listening to it now it's hilarious, with a killer setlist and ridiculous stage banter. No "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? Sure! "Beeswax"? Why the fuck not? Singing "Hey" over the first verse of "Come As You Are"? Naturally!

If you love Nirvana, you owe it to yourself to check that show out. It's Nirvana at their absolute best and absolute worst at the same time.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Well, here's another way of putting it. If I was doing a *mix* of well-recorded Nirvana live stuff, I probably wouldn't use anything from Reading. It might be the least important of all the pro-recorded shows in terms of good performances of songs. Very little from Reading is what I would consider "live album" worthy. That's why I've always frowned upon the spotlighting of the Reading performance as though it's some high standard. But I guess it was an easy sell. It was very heavily recorded and it works as a standalone release because it isn't tied to any particular album. But it's probably one of the most overhyped and overrated performances of all time. Kind of like when a certain other band played in Philadelphia...

They should have just used "Lithium" from Reading due to the significance of the moment and that's it. Using a 1991 version of "Lithium" makes no sense at all.

It was the audience fault for fucking with Calamity Jane before..that´s why they didnt played the hit, and they kept goofing around.

Ill listen to it right now....

VinylGuy wrote:

matt reeder wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:

Birds in Hell wrote:

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Bad Mix. Bad Gig. DVD is complete, CD is edited, doesn't matter...the whole show sucks.

Agree, I've never understood why that show is so frequently cited as being a high-water mark for the band: they kind of sucked. Particularly in comparison to a legit blistering performance like the Paramount show.

I've never been very fond of those mid/late 1992 Euro shows generally. They're kind of blah.

Reading is very blah, even by their standards at the time. I'd rather listen to any of the well recorded shows from the Euro tour, or even the Buenos Aries show, than Reading.

That Buenos Aires is the greatest "bad show" from any band I've ever heard. It's farce at the highest level. I'm sure the audience was properly confused but listening to it now it's hilarious, with a killer setlist and ridiculous stage banter. No "Smells Like Teen Spirit"? Sure! "Beeswax"? Why the fuck not? Singing "Hey" over the first verse of "Come As You Are"? Naturally!

If you love Nirvana, you owe it to yourself to check that show out. It's Nirvana at their absolute best and absolute worst at the same time.

Wendy Carlos's Twin wrote:Well, here's another way of putting it. If I was doing a *mix* of well-recorded Nirvana live stuff, I probably wouldn't use anything from Reading. It might be the least important of all the pro-recorded shows in terms of good performances of songs. Very little from Reading is what I would consider "live album" worthy. That's why I've always frowned upon the spotlighting of the Reading performance as though it's some high standard. But I guess it was an easy sell. It was very heavily recorded and it works as a standalone release because it isn't tied to any particular album. But it's probably one of the most overhyped and overrated performances of all time. Kind of like when a certain other band played in Philadelphia...

They should have just used "Lithium" from Reading due to the significance of the moment and that's it. Using a 1991 version of "Lithium" makes no sense at all.

It was the audience fault for fucking with Calamity Jane before..that´s why they didnt played the hit, and they kept goofing around.

Ill listen to it right now....

matt reeder wrote:

Thanks for posting that. I've had this show on a Kiss The Stone bootleg cd for years but never thought to look it up on the u-choob!

Fuzzcharger wrote:

matt reeder wrote:

Thanks for posting that. I've had this show on a Kiss The Stone bootleg cd for years but never thought to look it up on the u-choob!

If you ever want to sell that CD let me know - I had it many years ago and sold it for money, and have been regretting selling it since then. It's one of the few boot CDs I would love to own again.

matt reeder wrote:

Fuzzcharger wrote:

matt reeder wrote:

Thanks for posting that. I've had this show on a Kiss The Stone bootleg cd for years but never thought to look it up on the u-choob!

If you ever want to sell that CD let me know - I had it many years ago and sold it for money, and have been regretting selling it since then. It's one of the few boot CDs I would love to own again.

Sure thing, your name is at the top of the list. I don't tend to sell bootlegs very often so don't hold your breath however I still regret selling my original "Outcesticide" bootlegs many, many years ago.

Anyone know if the DVD made it's way out into the world yet?
I did some quick searching yesterday but came up empty.

Pitchfork sure liked this thing:
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/185 ... y-edition/

Nice review, but I wish I had a pink slip for every tin-eared music writer who has suggested that "Rape Me" "cops the riff" from "Smells Like Teen Spirit." I understand you don't have to be a musician to be a critic but I do think a class in basic theory would help weed out some of this kind of drivel. Ugh.

southp wrote:Anyone know if the DVD made it's way out into the world yet?
I did some quick searching yesterday but came up empty.

I watched it last night. Well at least the bonus features. The rehearsals/soundcheck footage is pretty interesting. Grohl totally kills it on the drums even sound checking. The European tv shows were interesting too. I like how they all bought suits for one then all had weird jackets for another.

have they remixed the version of Gallons of Rubbing Alchohol? i always loved how the version i've lived with sounded but wouldn't be opposed to hearing a fresh take on it

Kevin Davis wrote:Pitchfork sure liked this thing:
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/185 ... y-edition/

Nice review, but I wish I had a pink slip for every tin-eared music writer who has suggested that "Rape Me" "cops the riff" from "Smells Like Teen Spirit." I understand you don't have to be a musician to be a critic but I do think a class in basic theory would help weed out some of this kind of drivel. Ugh.

Meh, this album is very very over-rated.

gems and rhinestones wrote:Meh, this album is very very over-rated.