[BoiWonda]

Wow, Pullhair Rubeye, actually played for-real reversed, starting at track 8 and going to track 1... rather than each individual song reversed, but still played in track 1-8 order

really recommended. i am blown away. this is like sung tongs 2.

EDIT: I found a YouTube link:

[BoiWonda]

Is it considered breaking the link rule if we're uploading the reversed version? Believe it or not, it seems that alllllll the fan and bootleg versions of this album DO NOT PROPERLY REVERSE THE ALBUM LOL

The last moment of the album is Avey getting up from the chair and walking away -- it plays so wonderfully at the end of the album. Also "Track 1" makes more sense in its actual context: the "end credits" with a fade out and everything... also the flow and build-up of the album is so much better too.

So I reversed the album proper starting with track 8 and have a link, but not sure if it's ok to share. Have it ready to go if it is.

[andthephantom]

I'm interested in trying this out. But the speed isn't corrected on this version, which makes it hard to evaluate.

Anybody know what Avey says about the track order?

[scrambledgreggs]

opis helpus definitely makes more sense as a penultimate track. but sis around the sandmill I always thought made a great opener

[denjanenna]

yeah, i like the idea, but sis around the sandmill doesn’t work as a closer for me

[BoiWonda]

The thing is, the end of Sandmill features the sound of someone leaving.

When they said reverse the record, they meant it. They didn't mean, reverse each song individually and keep the un-reversed sequencing. It's so crazy how that actually became the standard / known version and it is so obviously meant to be heard from 8 to 1, and the proof is in the ending/opening songs having leaving footsteps and the fact that the album gradually builds up to the ending from Track 8.

This is definitely the "proper" way to hear it and any other view is only depriving people of the actual intended sequencing -- it's Avey and Kria's fault for reversing it in the first place and causing the confusion, but if you still disagree, take the original album as one continuous WAV file and reverse THAT and tell me it isn't seamless.

I forgot about the fact that there are transitions! How did I not think of the most obvious proof! There are transitions present between songs when reversed from 8 to 1, but not when played the 'popular' way, 1 to 8.

[Dallou]

still funny that they were like "hmmm yes let's put the album backward and release it that way"

[headroom)))]

This is a cool idea, and makes a lot of sense. I guess for me the Pull Hair album is just me listening/watching the Unitarian Church bootleg. Haven't found a way to really connect with the actual album, but am psyched to give this version a couple of listens.

That reverse move felt like a punch to the stomach in 2007, but over the years I've come to understand it, as it's their art and that's how they wanted to present it. I also really like the idea of someone not knowing the original versions of the songs and liking the reversed album sound, and then later on discovering the originals. Wasn't the case for me, but I imagine that would be a pretty remarkable discovery for this theoretical person, haha.

Also agree with andthephantom, wish the speed was corrected so the voices sound natural.

[Cooper]

Obligatory: I love the reversed bootlegs but this album is perfectly good, even great, and totally dignified within the confines of the backwards gimmick. They didn’t release an album without making sure the literal music that would play when you pressed play wasn’t the intended listening experience

[scrambledgreggs]

I'm not arguing that reversing the tracklisting isn't the correct way to listen (I'm sure it is) but I think the way most people have heard it (starting with Sis) is just as good. I've always loved this album

[meys]

This just blew my mind lmfao

[Collected Animals]

Why would you call it Rubeye Pullhair and not Eye Rub Hair Pull

BoiWonda wrote:

Is it considered breaking the link rule if we're uploading the reversed version?

Youtube is always ok.

[meys]

Collected Animals wrote:

Why would you call it Rubeye Pullhair and not Eye Rub Hair Pull

[headroom)))]

Listened to the reversed album in reverse track order and I do agree that that sequence flows better and makes sense with the entering/leaving sounds that serve as bookends.

However, I just listened to the original release in its backwards glory, and I gotta say, it sounds good! I think when I detach the the idea of the original songs to what I'm listening to and treat it as just sound, it has a ton of cool psychedelic moments. I actually think the original backwards version is way more interesting than the reversed versions. BUT, the live songs are miles away better than both. There's something really sad and unsatisfying when you listen to Foetus No Man guitar parts with no vocals on the "forward" version. But flipped and pitched it just sounds like a cool instrumental.

All in all, I can now see why they released it this way. It doesn't feel like a stunt, just a bold decision. But like most people here, I would jump out my seat for a version faithful to the live songs with their wild studio trickery.

[BoiWonda]

headroom))) wrote:

This is a cool idea, and makes a lot of sense. I guess for me the Pull Hair album is just me listening/watching the Unitarian Church bootleg. Haven't found a way to really connect with the actual album, but am psyched to give this version a couple of listens.

That reverse move felt like a punch to the stomach in 2007, but over the years I've come to understand it, as it's their art and that's how they wanted to present it. I also really like the idea of someone not knowing the original versions of the songs and liking the reversed album sound, and then later on discovering the originals. Wasn't the case for me, but I imagine that would be a pretty remarkable discovery for this theoretical person, haha.

Also agree with andthephantom, wish the speed was corrected so the voices sound natural.

I confess I have never actually heard the album all the way through as-released an Sandmill came up on shuffle, out of seriously 200,000 songs the day after I made this topic, but it was the reversed, released version.

I immediately was taken to the sonic place of MPP and FBK with that deep reversed base -- it was like a sonic underwater world and made me realize actually, we really should be listening to it as-released! It's actually crazy, but you REALLY need to be open-minded and hear it in your car with good bass -- the bass paints the whole thing and grounds it.

Cooper wrote:

Obligatory: I love the reversed bootlegs but this album is perfectly good, even great, and totally dignified within the confines of the backwards gimmick. They didn’t release an album without making sure the literal music that would play when you pressed play wasn’t the intended listening experience

^^^Yes, I actually am like, really torn about 1.) I feel like so many, myself included, dismissed this album for years and 2.) Those who reversed it... reversed it WRONG lolol and it's like SO MUCH CONFUSION over an album!!

headroom))) wrote:

Listened to the reversed album in reverse track order and I do agree that that sequence flows better and makes sense with the entering/leaving sounds that serve as bookends.

However, I just listened to the original release in its backwards glory, and I gotta say, it sounds good! I think when I detach the the idea of the original songs to what I'm listening to and treat it as just sound, it has a ton of cool psychedelic moments. I actually think the original backwards version is way more interesting than the reversed versions. ....

All in all, I can now see why they released it this way. It doesn't feel like a stunt, just a bold decision. But like most people here, I would jump out my seat for a version faithful to the live songs with their wild studio trickery.

I am so blown away by how good this project is. Basically listening to it in reverse has had me appreciating the original now!!!

scrambledgreggs wrote:

I'm not arguing that reversing the tracklisting isn't the correct way to listen (I'm sure it is) but I think the way most people have heard it (starting with Sis) is just as good. I've always loved this album

Sis DOES sound like such a convincing opening too...

meys wrote:

This just blew my mind lmfao

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hash]

I always listened to the "corrected" version with Piano Saw at the start, etc

It meant any "transitions" between tracks would be preserved, eg the bending piano notes at the end of Opis Helpus in the released version make more sense leading into Foetus No-Man which is sped up

I guess it makes less sense when Foetus No-Man is slowed back down though, lol. Oh well.

[BoiWonda]

The version I have is simply the entire album reversed, I think the YouTube link is different.

Why is the notion of speed change being brought up? Do you need to slow or speed somethin up, in addition to reversing?

[andthephantom]

BoiWonda wrote:

Why is the notion of speed change being brought up? Do you need to slow or speed somethin up, in addition to reversing?

foetus no-man slowed down by 1/2 - it ends up at 4:05

palenka slowed down by 1/3 - it ends up at 4:14

sasong slowed down by 1/2 - its ends up 4:27

[BoiWonda]

Ok, thanks. But wouldn't speed changes be part of the song's composition in a much more blatant way than simply reversing? Did they simply reverse the record or did they do the above speed changes as well?

[andthephantom]

They did the speed changes too.

[Mr_Neffets]

BoiWonda wrote:

Ok, thanks. But wouldn't speed changes be part of the song's composition in a much more blatant way than simply reversing? Did they simply reverse the record or did they do the above speed changes as well?

By changing the speed, you get the songs to match the pitch of the guitar when they were performed live. (skip to 4:14)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uEV-5_L83k&t=253[/youtube]

[scrambledgreggs]

andthephantom wrote:

BoiWonda wrote:

Why is the notion of speed change being brought up? Do you need to slow or speed somethin up, in addition to reversing?

foetus no-man slowed down by 1/2 - it ends up at 4:05

palenka slowed down by 1/3 - it ends up at 4:14

sasong slowed down by 1/2 - its ends up 4:27

woah my Palenka has always been slowed by 1/2 and is 5:38. I guess that's too slow!

[Fovrodi]

Something of a revelation for me too, wish it weren't too hard for me to listen to anymore

I only listened to a boot or two of the Avey/Kria tour. Always thought "Yelling at the Night" was a working title for something that ended up on the album. Also didn't know they ever did I'm Your Eagle Kisser live

[andthephantom]

scrambledgreggs wrote:

andthephantom wrote:

BoiWonda wrote:

Why is the notion of speed change being brought up? Do you need to slow or speed somethin up, in addition to reversing?

foetus no-man slowed down by 1/2 - it ends up at 4:05

palenka slowed down by 1/3 - it ends up at 4:14

sasong slowed down by 1/2 - its ends up 4:27

woah my Palenka has always been slowed by 1/2 and is 5:38. I guess that's too slow!

I suppose I don’t KNOW that those specific adjustments are correct. Palenka has always felt a little fast still. I don’t remember where I got these adjustments from.

[scrambledgreggs]

Fovrodi wrote:

Something of a revelation for me too, wish it weren't too hard for me to listen to anymore

I only listened to a boot or two of the Avey/Kria tour. Always thought "Yelling at the Night" was a working title for something that ended up on the album. Also didn't know they ever did I'm Your Eagle Kisser live

the spirit re-release with bonus content has my hopes up for the reversed Pullhair release having Yelling at the Night, Dance to Your Daddy, and maybe those untitled Kria songs as extra tracks? assuming they got recorded at some point...

a guy can dream

[jfw7]

5:38 palenka is right I think according to my post history. You can check against one of the live recordings to be sure

[BoiWonda]

Mr_Neffets wrote:

BoiWonda wrote:

Ok, thanks. But wouldn't speed changes be part of the song's composition in a much more blatant way than simply reversing? Did they simply reverse the record or did they do the above speed changes as well?

By changing the speed, you get the songs to match the pitch of the guitar when they were performed live. (skip to 4:14)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uEV-5_L83k&t=253[/youtube]

jfw7 wrote:

5:38 palenka is right I think according to my post history. You can check against one of the live recordings to be sure

Thanks!