Dave, I'm talking Nirvana in 1991. Exactly the same syndrome Dave.
I remember walking from flat to flat hearing Nevermind being played all over. Everyone raving about it. The problem was, as you walked from one section another, it was hard to work out which song was being played - because they all sound so familiar. They have their "best" versions of each song, but they are all essentially the same thing.
YES - if you listen to it a lot, you can tell the difference, but you'd only do that if you really liked the initial sound. It's a bit like looking at a field of roses and saying that this one here is prettier than that one there. To most people not interested in flowers, they'd all look as good as each other, but maybe a particularly large one would catch their eye.
See, I like Muse as I like Nirvana, but not enough to start to try and work out the real difference between their songs. Listening to their albums to me is like listening to a single long song with a couple of bits where it's better. The difference between the songs just isn't enough for me to invest time in them, it all becomes a blur. That's why people cherry pick and only listen to the "hits" over and over.
Don't be offended by it, it's just the way it is. I'm happy to admit I like a fair few bands in exactly the same situation - it's just a realistic outlook on life and not a slur on your personal tastes. If you're offended that somebody thinks a band you're into is over-rated, then it's likely that they are and the defensiveness comes from the fact you feel you're being criticised for being a sheep. It's not that at all, but people who aren't "fans" don't feel they should be belittled because "they don't understand the musical genius". It's just a defensive response and it's irritating.
