You can find his mixes on Nirvana's youtube channel --- Heart Shaped Box [1]
I actually always felt the original track stood out (in a bad way) on the album and it's interesting to hear how much of that was introduced by the remix.
The recording style Albini uses here was also in evidence with another classic rock album he references here, PJ Harvey's 'Rid of Me'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVeP-AHFk-s
Some people (eg. Elvis Costello) hate this 'naturalistic' style, but I think the overproduced style that dominates radio often strips tracks of their personality.
My take is that as a singer songwriter he can't stand the fact that Albini makes the drums and guitars as prominent as the vocals, and gives the vocals so much room ambience. I think it works fantastically on a rock album that's supposed to be dark and brooding anyway.
If you want to get into it, start by putting the released version on repeat and listen to it a few times in a row. To start, focus on Kurt Cobain’s voice, specifically where it ‘sits’ in the mix. Then, switch to Steve Albini’s version.
When I hear Steve Albini’s version, Kurt Cobain’s voice is less pronounced. What do you think??
If that helps, I can point out more differences. Or, maybe you can point out some you hear?
Which is funny, as there are many very repetitive tracks I like with long running times which never bore me. (Random example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXbdzLgwME0 .)
Nirvana is an excellent rabbit hole band, though. There are plenty of b-sides, bootlegs, demos, technically unreleased tracks, compilations, etc etc. They've released box sets that have pretty much everything besides the live bootlegs.
In a totally other genre, Michael Jackson Thriller vocal studo outtakes are breathtaking.
I'm a professional record producer and songwriter. Here are my thoughts:
Very likely it's the other way around. Albini is notoriously hard-headed about refusing to use compression on tracks and mixes. He's gone on record about how compressors ruin the tone, expressivity, and micro-dynamics of recorded sounds.
Regardless of whether you agree with that, and he does have a point, compression performs one job admirably: it prevents dynamic sounds from unexpectedly popping out of a determined dynamic range.
This is a disagreement lots of people have had with Albini's method, and he's also a little prickly about these things. He has an artistic vision of "properly" recording bands and mixing them in a way that doesn't adulterate or modify their live sound. In other words, he tries to get the final sound just through exacting microphone placement while recording, and applies the absolute minimum of post-processing.
However, the consensus in commercial record production at this point is that signal processing such as compression, distortion, and equalization, even in dramatic quantity, can create a more compelling audio result. Albini certainly views this as leading to a decline in fidelity (in the etymological sense of truth), and possibly as leading to a decline in artistic integrity (heavily debated).
A couple final ideas:
- In a recorded-music world, what constitutes an "authentic" or "true" sound?
- Should a studio operator (recording/mixing) aim to respect the real-world sound of the artist, or the intentions of the artist? How do you identify the intentions of an artist?
Overall Albini's mix sounds much more live, which is exactly what he had in mind before he recorded with the band. The final mix is compressed, balanced, radio-friendly: it sounds more like it could fit on Nevermind than some of the other songs on In Utero.
Deerhoof for example has the drummer right front.
I might be wrong, but I've always felt like Albini's aim to sound like you're in the room with the band, where the drums boom and the vocals are quieter.
[1] https://youtu.be/W6Gp8up3l8Y [2] https://youtu.be/F9pwGlgQz2E?t=173
As a total aside: Albini's attitude and writing is a breath of fresh air in today's world polluted by corporate backstabbery and doublespeak. Albini is a professional. He says what he thinks, wants do his work and make his money, and doesn't try and lay claim to the entire future legacy of the band because he's good at slinging electrons around a board.
Like you said, it's the difference between it sounding like you're in a small room with a band or in a large venue where some of the clarity is lost.
Very much like it's a person in a room, instead of processed.
It is far less "in your face", and arguably, teenagers then might not have thought it cool. Like a band from the 70's or 80's.
Albini's does lack that separation that differentiated the remixed songs from contemporary and then recent punk and "always-on" grudge imho.
It definitely feel more "indie" but not 100% in a good way for me.