As I think about it, it seems that my lack of enthusiasm for the Buckley version stems from the fact that to me the song is one from the POV of a middle-aged man who is looking back on his life and his relationships (both physical and spiritual) and trying to unpack the memories good and bad.

With that in mind, a singer still in their 20's - no matter how much soul or passion they bring - miss the mark because one cannot mimic the sort of experience, approach, and attitude that comes with age. It's the same reason that having someone like, say, Bono or Paul McCartney try and cover a song of youthful angst and rebellion comes off as lacking the necessary life-perspective behind it. Sure, they can recall what it was like to be 20, but the feelings and internal reality of a 20 year old are different than the memories of it and an old guy whinging about the difficulties a young person faces can often feel forced or silly. So for this song while a young singer might be able to imagine themselves as an older version of themselves wandering the dusty rooms of their life, it's at best a good approximation.

And, as a middle-aged dude myself, I can sense that inauthenticity (for lack of a better word), while that genuine truth is clear when the song is sung by someone of the right age.

Even worse is using this song as some sort of celebratory anthem. It's not. It may not be full doom and gloom, but there is a melancholy to the lyrics *and* music that sort of renders any use of this as an upbeat joyful song of triumph to be a misapplication.

Anyway, I'm sure that now this comment will be downvoted simply because my opinion doesn't match that of others who are unaware that subjective opinions and interpretations of art is not a matter of right or wrong.