Gearslutz.com - View Single Post

Oscar · 8th July 2006

I had to stop lurking to jump on this one. I've been listening to the album cut & Michael's version back to back for the last 30 minutes, and wow. Michael's version is so much better that the album cut becomes unlistenable when played next to it (at least to my ears). No disrespect to the people who engineered & mixed the album cut, because I'm sure they're much better at what they do than I would be, but if I was in their shoes I would have felt uncomfortably aweful knowing that my version was going to be on the album when a more musical sounding, sonically superior version was going to end up shelved, possibly forever.

This is coming from the perspective of someone who was very young when Ozzmosis came out, appreciates & enjoys Ozzy's music, but doesn't consider himself an Ozzy fanatic. I understand where the label was coming from when they decided people might think Michael's version of the album was boring because it sounds like the same old formula, or played out, but the true test of an album is how good it sounds outside its "time". There have been a lot of albums that were good when they came out, but have all but disappeared now. Then there are the classics that will never sound bad in any context. I'm not trying to group Michael's version or the released version of Ozzmosis in either of those categories, but it seems to me that the label sacrificed some of the album's long range appeal in order to make it sound more current. At the time, the released version may have sold more albums than Michael's version would have. But me, listening to the two versions in 2006... no contest.

Comparitively, the drums on the released version sound lifeless and, well, just lame. Sonically the album version sounds harsh and muddy to me after listening to Michael's version. Also, there are little musical elements in certain guitar parts that are pushed WAY further back in the mix on the album version. When Ozzy is dead and sales figures and relevancy don't matter anymore, it's truly a shame that Michael's version is just a "demo" that Ozzy's fans don't get to hear.

Edit: I think my post sounds more serious than intended. The seriousness stems from anger with label execs choosing profit over integrity and making the "product" as in demand as possible over making the music as good as possible.

8th July 2006	#50
Oscar Gear nut Joined: Mar 2006 Posts: 79	I had to stop lurking to jump on this one. I've been listening to the album cut & Michael's version back to back for the last 30 minutes, and wow. Michael's version is so much better that the album cut becomes unlistenable when played next to it (at least to my ears). No disrespect to the people who engineered & mixed the album cut, because I'm sure they're much better at what they do than I would be, but if I was in their shoes I would have felt uncomfortably aweful knowing that my version was going to be on the album when a more musical sounding, sonically superior version was going to end up shelved, possibly forever. This is coming from the perspective of someone who was very young when Ozzmosis came out, appreciates & enjoys Ozzy's music, but doesn't consider himself an Ozzy fanatic. I understand where the label was coming from when they decided people might think Michael's version of the album was boring because it sounds like the same old formula, or played out, but the true test of an album is how good it sounds outside its "time". There have been a lot of albums that were good when they came out, but have all but disappeared now. Then there are the classics that will never sound bad in any context. I'm not trying to group Michael's version or the released version of Ozzmosis in either of those categories, but it seems to me that the label sacrificed some of the album's long range appeal in order to make it sound more current. At the time, the released version may have sold more albums than Michael's version would have. But me, listening to the two versions in 2006... no contest. Comparitively, the drums on the released version sound lifeless and, well, just lame. Sonically the album version sounds harsh and muddy to me after listening to Michael's version. Also, there are little musical elements in certain guitar parts that are pushed WAY further back in the mix on the album version. When Ozzy is dead and sales figures and relevancy don't matter anymore, it's truly a shame that Michael's version is just a "demo" that Ozzy's fans don't get to hear. Edit: I think my post sounds more serious than intended. The seriousness stems from anger with label execs choosing profit over integrity and making the "product" as in demand as possible over making the music as good as possible.