Was there ever a remaster or good cover of this song? I know it's iconic and a classic and all that, but if we're being honest, the song is very low quality. Midi instruments, not the greatest singing, poor mixing and weird shifts in volume, etc. I feel like it could be a really enjoyable song. But there are so many technical problems that make me not ever want to listen to it. Does there exist a "better" version?
>>41839349There's some mixing problems with this one, but it's very very good:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4W3kLO5fek
Stuff like this proves music tastes aren't objective
>>41839349the jank gives it charm, soul if you will
>>41840619I like the song, I just want a better listening experience. Just imagine it with real instrumentation, even. It'd be great.
>>41839364this sounds way worse. because it's a cover. something about the bad raw quality of the first gives a garage rock kinda vibe to it that warms the soul. but adding better production takes it out of that goldylock zone.
