The same happens with books. I happen to like both versions of Stephen King's _The Stand_ — the one first published, cut down to a reasonable size at his editor's insistence, and the one he published later, representing his original vision. But I honestly have to say that the shorter version is just as good as the longer one, so I tend to side with the editor here.
And Neal Stephenson's newer books seem to lack an editor to tell him they could do with somewhat tighter writing.
Cranking out a mediocre first draft and then revising it can be a very effective process, provided you don't get overly attached to that first draft.
Oh god Stephenson, he'd have made a much better example for published first drafts, but he's been doing this his whole career. Even the Big U and Zodiac, which I love, could both benefit from some serious editorial review.
And Neal Stephenson's newer books seem to lack an editor to tell him they could do with somewhat tighter writing.
Cranking out a mediocre first draft and then revising it can be a very effective process, provided you don't get overly attached to that first draft.