Nirvana – Bleach | The Line of Best Fit

Nirvana

"Bleach"

11 November 2009, 08:00 | Written by Ash Akhtar

(Albums)

(Nirvana)

The PR attached to the 2009 remaster of Nirvana's 1989 recording, Bleach, states, 'This record is important'. Put into historical context, that certainly makes for a fair statement.When Nirvana and producer Jack Endino took up residence in Seattle's 'Reciprocal Recording Studios' at the end of 1988, shifting millions of records was probably not the primary thought of 21-year-old Kurt Cobain. Nonetheless, after 'Nevermind', 'Bleach' went on to achieve platinum sales, making it only one of two platinum selling records for label Sub Pop (the other is Flight Of The Conchords' eponymous 2008 record). Not bad for an album that cost just Â£400 to make.The two decades since the record's release have seen Cobain's rise to fame, his suicide and a derided resurrection in Guitar Hero 5. Licensing tracks to rhythm games brings with it great financial reward, so (without wishing to excuse the act) it's easy to see why the choice was made. It also means that songs appearing in the game are remixed to allow each instrument to sound individually. Beyond this, songs are levelled using compression, to ensure there are no glaring differences in volume.Similarly, the remastering of 'classic' albums is often intended to exploit a fan's willingness to complete the collection of their favourite band. The Beatles, Rolling Stones and Def Leppard are amongst those who had remasters out in 2009.Now joining that selection is Nirvana and, specifically, their debut album for Sub Pop Records, 'Bleach'. Some of the questions for people that already own the original album ask are: Is it worth buying? How different does it sound? What have they done to it?Remastered by the capable George Marino at Sterling Sound, let's look at how the remaster sounds in comparison to the original.I ripped two tracks ('About A Girl' and 'Blew') as WAV files and analysed them in Wavelab. Here's the original of 'About A Girl'.[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="497" caption="About A Girl (Original)"]

[/caption]As can be seen by simply looking at the wave, there is room for dynamic movement within the song, but there are a number of high peaks, particularly around the 2 minute mark (level gauge indicates that these peak at -0.02db just shy of the flat 0db). Any increase in volume to the overall file would mean result in those peaks exceeding 0db causing the file to clip (distort).[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500" caption="About A Girl (Remastered)"]

[/caption]In comparison to the wave and level indicator of the remastered version, it's immediately apparent just how much louder the overall recording is. Not only that, but the peaks are a lot more uniform which implies that the whole file has been compressed to give it more gain, and the top of those original peaks have been, to all intents and purposes, lopped off.As soon as the drums come in on this laid-back, and naturally more dynamic number, the peak volume (as indicated by the meters) hits 0db and stays there throughout. The original, however, retains dynamic level changes so the volume rises and falls as the band play harder or softer respectively.The equalisation of the track has also changed, with the remaster favouring less treble across the hi-hats, ride and tambourine - and generally making for a less exciting listen. Bass-light headphones (Sennheiser HD 280s) indicate the remaster contains more bass and greater lower mid-range frequencies giving the recordings more grind to bring them into line with present day rock records. A good stereo system will highlight the reduction in sound quality, but, on an average system, the most discernible change is increased volume.[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500" caption="Blew (Original)"]

[/caption]Moving to full-on rock song, 'Blew', and more of the subtly nuanced bass-string noises can be heard on the intro to the remaster, but this is probably due to sheer volume than anything else. Again, the levels sit at 0db throughout with Kurt's vocal sitting high in the mix as the presence of those splashy cymbals have been vastly reduced. There are less peaks in danger of clipping on this track, with only a couple at around 43 and 44s.[caption id="" align="alignnone" width="500" caption="Blew (Remastered)"]

[/caption]With the development of technology, the way we listen to music has changed drastically. As an MP3 amongst the collection on an 80GB iPod (or equivalent), the remastered tracks from 'Bleach' are going to stand up against the others in terms of volume, so you won't have to turn them up that extra 3db. Whether that trade-off is worth the overall loss of quality is up to the listener and their individual preferences.Of course, Bleach is a great album. Not only is it fun to listen to, it contains some of Nirvana's best songs. In addition to this straight remaster, however, is a remastered recording of their oft bootlegged performance at the Pine Street Theatre (Portland, Oregon). With a remastered DVD and CD of their 1992 Reading headline show (Nirvana's final UK performance) scheduled for release later this year, this is easily the better concert of the two. Though it may not contain any material from Nevermind, Kurt's performance and passion is far more evident here than the shoddy Reading show. You have to hand it to Sub Pop, they know their audience is not simply going to buy a straight remaster of Bleach. By including the extra concert (and glossy inlay book, no doubt), they will ensure a sizeable chunk of Nirvana's audience make a repeat purchase.To anyone who already owns Bleach, and doesn't necessarily want to have to buy this reissue, you can achieve the same (and better) results by simply turning up your amp the next time you listen to this important record.