I was looking at the Wikipedia page on The Doors’ song “Light My Fire” and came across this section:
I never knew this. The higher speed version makes the song slightly punchier than the familiar more laid-back slower one.
Here’s the speed-corrected version. Which do you prefer?
I not have an ear for this type of thing. Sounds the same to me
Yes, I hear a difference. I think I prefer the slower version, I am sure because of familiarity, but also because I think of the Doors as being psychedelic and maybe even a tad creepy/scary, and the slight slowing has that feel in it.
The correct-speed one sounds almost jaunty to my ear.
The same thing happened with some tracks on Miles Davis’s Kind of Blue, so they were released a bit too slow. In that case, the speed-corrected version really sounds wonderful.
I prefer the faster version. It sounds lighter and clearer. I couldn’t listen to it all, though (7 minutes… ugh).
While I have much appreciation for music, I don’t have much for The Doors. Their stuff sounds smoky, muddy, and depressing most of the time. I’ve always thought it had a lot to do with the production and your link/post sort-of reinforces that.
Thanks for sharing this.
I felt the same way on first listen, but having listened to it a few times it’s grown on me and now the more familiar version sounds slow! I kind of prefer the vocal part of the song in the faster tempo and the extended solo in the slower version.
I suppose that the faster speed was the artists’ original intention and so I’ll download it.
I prefer the faster version, almost entirely because Morrison’s voice sounds interesting in the lilting upper register. Usually we hear him growling, mumbling, slurring, screaming, so this sounds like a fresh new change.
Because this song was all over top 40 radio when I was a teenager, the faster version is the one I heard first and most often. The album version always sounded draggy to me. I discovered the key difference while playing along to the single on the radio and later to the album version on record.
I prefer the original from a worn in LP played hundreds of times on a cheap stereo. Nothing anyone does now will ever make it sound better than that.
Same here. I’m embarrassed to admit it.
Very interesting. Thank you for linking to the speed-corrected version. For my ear, the difference is enormous; the speedier version sounds frantic while the slower one conveys more menace. I was taken aback at first but the manic pulse is fitting.
This. It’s almost like meditation, like disappearing into a favorite book, away from the world. I feel 20 again, reading The Lord of the Rings trilogy in my first apartment on a rainy weekend afternoon and drifting off… I’ve heard the quicker version and like that, too.
Same here. The faster version sounds more like a pop song, while the other version sounds more reflective of the drug culture of the day. The pop-sounding version does sort of explain the follow-on single, Hello, I Love You, which was roundly scorned for being bubblegum music. It would seem that a mistake in recording created success for the group.
I prefer the slow version, as well. I can hear the pitch change, the organ’s tone becomes more piercing and Morrison’s voice croons a lot less. However, the tempo change is jarring. It’s the same recording, but it doesn’t feel like it grooves anywhere near as well as the recording I’m familiar with. The corrected one kind of stomps along, while the original has a more casual step to it.
Which makes me wonder about a track that my band recorded that I think we did a bit too fast, and lost its feel. Maybe we can use the same recording, but drop the speed 3.5% when we dump it from tape? It’d be cheaper than re-recording it.
Surprised it took this long for someone to notice … or care. (Actually, I’m sure anybody who’s ever played along with the record has noticed. I’ve always played it in A minor, the “corrected” key. There’s plenty of recordings out there where the pitch is a half step off or even less with the performance key.)
Anyhow, I can’t really say I have a preference either way. If you played the sped-up version for me without telling me, I don’t think I would notice. Maybe subliminally I’d be able to tell something is a little off, but without a reference point of having heard the song recently, I wouldn’t know.
I can always hear when a song is fast/slow vs other versions of it.
It’s immediately recognizable. Sounds less dark, which is to be expected.
Versus other performances where they played the true/faster, the now-faster recording seems extremely clean/crisp vs them, too.
Not sure how I feel about this. 
Just out of curiosity, I checked the difference in speed, and it’s a tempo of about 128 bpm vs 132 bpm. That’s certainly enough to be noticeable, but for me, it’s more the pitch that I notice when I hear them back-to-back.
Just in case someone has trouble finding the slower version:
Hearing both songs in portions makes the difference more notable.
I think I prefer the slowed down version. I say I “think” because, honestly, if you had not told me that this was slightly faster, I’m not sure I would have caught it.
I tend to like slower, more somber rock, so I naturally gravitate to the slower moodier version. It is entirely possible that my mind had already decided before I even listened to the faster version that I was not going to like it as much.
Of course, by that time, I was going to be right!
Girl we couldn’t get much higher.
You should change “higher” to “better.”