930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: vansmack on August 17, 2004, 05:08:00 pm
-
Bill Simmons of ESPN and Chuck Klosterman of Esquire and Spin magazines recently exchanged emails on pop culture and sports. They came up with an interesting idea that I think makes for a great discussion:
Bill Simmons: If Billy Corgan died in '94 instead of Kurt Cobain, would MTV have been running "The Smashing Pumpkins, 10 Years Later" retrospectives this summer?
Chuck Klosterman: A: No, his retrospective would only run on MTV2. Had Corgan died, it would have been a bigger deal than Shannon Hoon, but still way smaller than Cobain. Plus, in the spring of '94, the Pumpkins had only released "Gish" and "Siamese Dream," and these were not iconic records. "Siamese Dream" is very good, and the songs were absolutely everywhere, but it did not become a definitive sonic backdrop for the national aesthetic. When people hear the first nine seconds of "Smells Like Teen Spirit," they immediately associate those chords with that specific cultural era; when people hear the first nine seconds of "Today," they often think to themselves, "Is this 'Cherub Rock'?"
Simmons: I agree with your take on the Pumpkins. As much as it hurts. Although I still believe that their best 10 songs are better than Nirvana's best 10 songs, the fact remains, Nirvana came first and paved the way. It's like comparing David Thompson to Doctor J. The stats might back you up, but you still can't do it.
Alright, a few subquestion to add to the mix:
(1) Do the Foo Fighters never happen?
(2) Does James Iha start the Foo Fighters instead?
(3) Who's not thankful that Zwan never happened?
(4) Does Courtney not freak out, Melissa nevers leaves, and Hole becomes a multi-platinum dynasty for chick rock? Or does she simply become the next Yoko Ono?
(5) Does Curt Cobain become the Axl Rose of the Alternative era? Everybody waits for the comeback but he can't get his shit together, so the rest of the guys get it together and then the Foo Fighters happen?
(6) Is Nirvana's 4th or 5th album a concept album, compared to Pet Sounds at it's release, calls it the end for Nirvana and 20 years later heralded as the greatest album of all time?
(7) Is anybody else surprised that Billy Corgan is still here? Scratch that.
(7) Do we sit around and talk all day about catching the secret Nirvana shows at the Black Cat to warm up for their big Tour?
(8) Oh, and are the Pumpkins 10 best better than Nirvana's ten best?
-
Had "Gish" had the type of promotion "Nevermind" did then the answer to Bill Simmons question would be "Yes"
-
They should be doing HOLE ten years later, because they were much better than Nirvana, never mind the Pumpkins.
-
Originally posted by Bollocks:
They should be doing HOLE ten years later, because they were much better than Nirvana, never mind the Pumpkins.
how about Joy Division ten years later.
-
Joy Division never sold as many records as Nirvana. Even though disco was popular and there was a ton of crap around the time of JD, there was also a ton of great stuff as well. The main difference is that MTV (or as Henry Rollins calls it, Empty TV) was the vehicle for Nirvana's success. I think kids didn't know better, so metal was cool in the 80's. But when along comes David to slay Goliath, those kids aren't going to buy Motley Crue or Poison anymore. Once they become aware of their crappy suburban surroundings, Cobain will have the edge over Vince Neil. His voice speaks to them, so there ya go.
And it's no secret that the way to immortalize yourself or your band is through premature death. That way people will always be saying "oh, if only he had lived..." and "oh, I saw him once..." Blah blah blah. I love Ian Curtis and Joy Division, easily one of my favorite bands. But I never really connected with Nirvana. I saw them in Nov. 1993 and the ticket scalpers way overbought the show. Ultimately, I thought the Breeders (who opened the show) were better than Nirvana. Nirvana was not a fun or enjoyable show. Even Joy Division, for all its doom and gloom, makes me feel happier than Nirvana ever did.
Funny thing is that I saw the Pumpkins a week later and it blew Nirvana out of the water. There was not a ticket to be had on the street, and some guy paid $120 to get in. Corgan always had an attitude, but Jimmy Chamberlin kicked Dave Grohl's ass. Not that I would make that statement today, but back then he did. It wasn't until Grohl left Nirvana that I really began to appreciate him as a drummer, musician and of course songwriter. But I'm probably in the minority here that thinks Nirvana=overrated, Pumpkins=great at the time, and grunge=ultimately worse for the state of today's music. Grunge was great for at least opening people's minds and letting certain bands have some exposure that they never would have had otherwise...but grunge is also responsible for everything from Candlebox and Creed to Nickelback and Puddle of Mudd. Yuck. No thank you.
-
for the umpth time Nirvana was not a GRUNGE band! like the Posies not everyone in Seattle at the time could be tagged a grunge band... and I'm so sick of hearing how Nirvana ruined rock n roll blah blah blah. it was Stone Temple Pilots, Bush, and Sponge... all well known bandwagon jumpers who decided to ape Soundgarden and Pearl Jam in order to get signed, thus leading to Scrunge.
Secondly Limp Bizkit was a direct result of their record company openly paying radio stations to get thier shite on the radio... they are ones not Nirvana responsible for Puddle of Mud, Korn, and Slipknot.
-
Originally posted by Bollocks:
They should be doing HOLE ten years later, because they were much better than Nirvana, never mind the Pumpkins.
uh who do think wrote those Hole songs... they bare a certain resemblence to Kurt's output and isn't interesting that Hole/Courtney has never been able to do anything good musically since Kurt died? hell even billy who should have never been let of out of his basement couldn't ghost write for her. and wasn't trent reznor in there as well?
-
Not to be the devil's asshole Kosmo...I can totally see your point...but then why does Fred Durst have a Cobain tattoo? (Just trying to engage in discourse...not trying to flame ya!)
-
also don't the record companies paying off radio stations contribute more to popularity of these groups? there is a segment of music fans who still rely on the radio for what they listen to...
-
Originally posted by bunnyman:
Not to be the devil's asshole Kosmo...I can totally see your point...but then why does Fred Durst have a Cobain tattoo? (Just trying to engage in discourse...not trying to flame ya!)
because he knew his career as vanilla ice wannabee wasn't going anywhere, so he jumped on the biggest bandwagon and icon he could find at the time... plus he did shitty 80's covers so that musical directors could put at least something of these on the air..
-
Well, the Rolling Stone article on Clear Channel pretty much establishes that. But MTV still has influence as well. I'm surprised Clear Channel hasn't bought them out yet.
-
I'd say it's because he's a douche bag. Doesn't he have an Elvis tattoo also? Should we blame the King on Durst's crappy music?
EDIT: Yep, he sure does.
<img src="http://www.vanishingtattoo.com/images/tattoo/FredDurst1.jpg" alt=" - " />
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Originally posted by bunnyman:
Not to be the devil's asshole Kosmo...I can totally see your point...but then why does Fred Durst have a Cobain tattoo? (Just trying to engage in discourse...not trying to flame ya!)
because he knew his career as vanilla ice wannabee wasn't going anywhere, so he jumped on the biggest bandwagon and icon he could find at the time... plus he did shitty 80's covers so that musical directors could put at least something of these on the air.. [/b]
-
I don't think Nirvana ruined music...I just get a little annoyed when there was so much other good music at the time that gets overlooked. I respect Nirvana in many ways, but they also had the misfortune of making it more difficult for a lot of other bands...expectations were high for everyone to find the next Nirvana. I'm not saying that it's their fault. If it hadn't been them, it would have been someone else. Ultimately, they made some really great music. But I also don't believe that Nirvana is a better than Smashing Pumpkins. Not to mention the tremendous talent in the bands coming out of the UK that got shafted because they couldn't match the sales of Nirvana or Pearl Jam.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
also don't the record companies paying off radio stations contribute more to popularity of these groups? there is a segment of music fans who still rely on the radio for what they listen to...
a segment? kosmo...we both know that "segment" is like at LEAST 25% of the country, and i tend to think its more like 50%.
I saw Nirvana and the Pumpkins and the Pumpkins were 20 times better live.
I think , Nirvana paved the way for Soundgarden, STP and those bands. who then paved the way for Bush and then Korn and then Limp Bizkit.
its all angry power chord music.
the posies = seattle best band
-
Agreed on the Posies!
-
I'd argue the all-time importance of Nirvana with anybody anytime.
I realize there were many bands doing 'it' well before Nirvana (see Pixies), but Cobain was able to put it all together in a way that affected & galvanized an entire generation. It's one of only a handful of records that I can remember hearing at the time - not knowing what it was - knowing that I'd love it - and had to have it. It changed everything for me. Much the same way Kiss Rock N Roll Over did years before.
I'd agree that you could put a better list of songs together for the Pumpkins though. I'd start with these. In order of my personal preference:
I Am One
Siva
Snail
Mayonaise
Bullet w/ Butterfly Wings
Rhinocerous
Tristessa
Geek USA
Muzzle
Soma
Upon further review - Gish still rocks ass.
Smashing Pumpkins are also the only band I've ever seen do one of those small club tours after they had achieved arena type fame (I think VS was referring to this above). It really was something to behold - bringing all that stadium energy into a small 500 general admission joint. One of the few times the cliche "blow the roof off" may have been applicable. They opened with I Am One & I was temporarily insane.
***************
"And it's no secret that the way to immortalize yourself or your band is through premature death."
A Turkish friend I once had used a quote something like this:
Die young and create a beautiful ghost
-
well it's all Canada's fault anyways :D
here's a little story about a Vancouver band called 54-40
who had a couple rocking records that leaned a bit to dark and moody side.
they were a radio hit in Canada and the kids in Seattle heard it and liked it.
And the influences creep into some of the bands sound.
Now I heard 54-40 when they were a Canadian Rock Radio Staple. And thought they were ahead of the pack at the time. Their influences ran from R.E.M. to Midnight Oil. Of course like all go rock bands they veer to a more country sound. And like Blue Rodeo are ignored here in the states.
Personally, 13 Engines live whupped Crushed Squash with both hands tied their back. Shame they didn't write anything as lousy as "Trapped Like a Rat in Cage", otherwise they might have made a mark on the landscape.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Originally posted by Bollocks:
They should be doing HOLE ten years later, because they were much better than Nirvana, never mind the Pumpkins.
uh who do think wrote those Hole songs... they bare a certain resemblence to Kurt's output and isn't interesting that Hole/Courtney has never been able to do anything good musically since Kurt died? hell even billy who should have never been let of out of his basement couldn't ghost write for her. and wasn't trent reznor in there as well? [/b]
All I'm saying is that I could quite happily sit through a Hole album but if you put me in the hands of the US military and wanted to torture and abuse me, simply start playing "Nevermind" and I'm spilling my guts before the first 20 seconds are up.
-
see, the major disagreement that i have with Nirvana, and i guess this could go with anyone.
is this..
Did Kurt Cobain really bring it all together to influence a generation? or did he influence the media and THEY influenced a generation?
I am not positive that Nirvana didnt just happen to be the band that the media (radio,MTV etc) decided to use to change a VERY stagnant time in pop music.
Was the world so ready for something new?
Living in Canada when all of this happened, i think had a little different perspective on the whole thing. Kids werent listening to Nirvana so much, but everything that spawned from it.
In 1990 there was ONE place for underagers to see shows, by 1993 there was like 6.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
the posies = seattle best band
THAT is the truth...
-
Originally posted by Bollocks:
to torture and abuse
they use your posts for that, actually.
-
If you think about it all those hair metal bands that claim that Nirvana ended their careers, should be thankful. It frozen them in time like all dinosaurs are. It's not like they went away, in fact they are still probably as popular today as they were then. Think of the new dreck that those bands could be releasing today. Now they can go out and play shows for olde time sake with all the old hits and not produce anything new.
Same thing happed with all the Prog Rock bands the Sex Pistols "took" down, like Yes, Moody Blues and Jethro Tull. They still seem to bring in the crowds and money to play thier old stuff.
Will in 20 years Franz Ferndinad get the same blame as Nirvana and the Sex Pistols?
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
see, the major disagreement that i have with Nirvana, and i guess this could go with anyone.
is this..
Did Kurt Cobain really bring it all together to influence a generation? or did he influence the media and THEY influenced a generation?
I am not positive that Nirvana didnt just happen to be the band that the media (radio,MTV etc) decided to use to change a VERY stagnant time in pop music.
Was the world so ready for something new?
Living in Canada when all of this happened, i think had a little different perspective on the whole thing. Kids werent listening to Nirvana so much, but everything that spawned from it.
In 1990 there was ONE place for underagers to see shows, by 1993 there was like 6.
I couldn't disagree more. Music had degenerated to such a point (all the third generation hair metal bands) that yes - the "world was so ready for something new."
There's no way Nirvana was a media conspiracy. None of the media corps are that smart or saavy. They are only very capable of exploiting a sound/movement etc. after being shocked by its initial success - "everything that spawned from it." That's the real problem behind genre change moments like this. You know that for the next decade you're going to be bombarded with the next big knockoff & most times they are hardly worthy. Much to the detriment of all the other great music that still is actually being created. It happened with metal - "grunge" - rap-metal - and even rap & hip hop. That's what really is killing music. The general public's inablity to choose for themselves & to be lead by music companies only looking to maximize $$.
Good thing we all know better! :D
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Will in 20 years Franz Ferndinad get the same blame as Nirvana and the Sex Pistols?
More likely The Strokes, 'cuz that's how whacked things are...
I completely agree with Grotty on the unlikelihood that Nirvana was a media conspiracy. What did the media have in the game at that point? Not that they didn't play a role in the precipitous rise and now-legendary reverance.
-
Originally posted by grotty:
There's no way Nirvana was a media conspiracy.
the first time i heard "smells like teen spirit" on the radio in 9/91 the DJ said "this is so exciting, this is THE next big thing in music right here, Nirvana" I remember that to this day, and I've been told its the indentical thing said when first played on 99.1 WHFS.
thats all I'm saying.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by grotty:
There's no way Nirvana was a media conspiracy.
the first time i heard "smells like teen spirit" on the radio in 9/91 the DJ said "this is so exciting, this is THE next big thing in music right here, Nirvana" I remember that to this day, and I've been told its the indentical thing said when first played on 99.1 WHFS.
thats all I'm saying. [/b]
That may be true...but-
HFS was very different then. Not perfect - but not yet the media conglomerate bitch they are today.
I'd also bet that it was later in the game by then. No doubt radio - labels - etc. are able to jump fairly quickly in their best interests onto an exploding sound. ("Not that they didn't play a role in the precipitous rise and now-legendary reverance." - Bags)
In all fairness - maybe that was also said with some sincerity. I probably said the same thing to different people. It really sounded that different. And people were liking it. Reacting to it. It had to signal something was happening. Even if it was only the death of Warrant.
-
Originally posted by grotty:
the death of Warrant.
thats the real reason i dont like Nirvana..
:D
-
and it was all those 4th generation hair metal bands that couldn't get a record deal to save thier life, who changed their clothes and "attitude" to become grunge bands.
The Strokes could be the group that causes the current genre "changes". However, they certainly weren't not an organic success as lots of "promotional fees" were spent to get them on the airways...
The White Stripes, get my vote, as they are more organic, having worked they way up the ladder much like Nirvana.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by Bollocks:
to torture and abuse
they use your posts for that, actually. [/b]
You know me, always eager to help Rummie and the boys.
-
From what I know about Cobain, I can tell you he probably didn't want to be labeled the way he has been labeled by the media for the past 10 years. I think he felt so much pressure from all angles. I'm not sure Courtney Spungen helped matters either.
As with all things new and exciting, they tend to fade once the clones creep in and try to cash in. But I think that Cobain really loved and cherished music in a way that only a real artist can. He was the real deal, trying to make music for the right reasons. But I think he knew and was able to foresee what his music had done to the industry, and yes, I really do think Nirvana's impact was that big. If you had to narrow it down to one factor or band, it was them. And he probably hated himself for it. I know I shouldn't psychoanalyze him, but in a way I think it just makes sense that Cobain realized that he had helped create (or at least make popular) "alternative rock" as a major genre. Lollapalooza demonstrated that there was indeed an audience there.
But to paraphrase Johnny Rotten, if you want to stop being a rock star then just STOP. It's that simple. And I believe that it's true. In my opinion, Nirvana happened because they were at the right place at the right time. So many brilliant pieces of music never get heard on a large scale because people aren't ready to listen. Cobain's legacy will always live on because of how he sealed his fate. Like all great art and artists, death at one's peak guarantees immortality. And as a result, those artists become legends. So there ya go. His music still holds its own, of course.
And for the record, yes, the Pumpkins in concert made some people lose their shit as well. "I Am One" live and "Silverfuck" always went over big. I do miss those shows back in 1993 and 1994. They were really soemthing.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
The White Stripes, get my vote, as they are more organic, having worked they way up the ladder much like Nirvana.
What ladder did Nirvana climb up? EMPTY V put them right up there on the pedestal. Without that video for teenage spirit, I doubt they would have ever made a name for themselves outside of Seattle or the college campuses around the country.
-
Originally posted by Bollocks:
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
The White Stripes, get my vote, as they are more organic, having worked they way up the ladder much like Nirvana.
What ladder did Nirvana climb up? EMPTY V put them right up there on the pedestal. Without that video for teenage spirit, I doubt they would have ever made a name for themselves outside of Seattle or the college campuses around the country. [/b]
You are such the contrarian. Rhett with a rosbif accent. I don't know how you can stand living here since you hate American sports, politics and music so. :D
Again - even MTV was different then. Transitioning yes - but still better & still occasionally decent. I'd even argue that that period was MTVs finest. They were actually playing some decent *music* (see original 120 minutes). For everyone who yearns for the old old school MTV - are you kidding me? Look back at what they were playing near inception. Really any video they could get their hands on. It may be the biggest batch of crap EVER. Talk about artificially inflating a bands exposure - popularity - etc. Mike & the freakin' Mechanics?!?!?!?!?!!?
-
Silly me....when Bleach and the first Mudhoney lp were out I though Mudhoney would be the first band to make it big from Seattle. I remember arguing with a guy in my dorm about which band would get huge. He swore it would be nirvana. This was in 89 or 90....when exactly did Nevermind come out anyway? About a year later me and some friends went to a shitty local club in Richmond called Twisters. It was Monday and we went every Monday cuz it was free to get in that night and see the bands. Smashing Pumkins were playing and we'd never even heard of them. To this day definately the most surprising show I'd ever seen and maybe the best small club show I've ever seen. Their sound was just so huge...we all went out and bought Gish in the next few days.
I haven't really added anything here...just thinking back.
-
Originally posted by grotty:
I don't know how you can stand living here since you hate American sports, politics and music so.
the dental insurance.
and to be closer to Canada!
-
"we went every Monday cuz it was free to get in that night and see the bands. Smashing Pumkins were playing and we'd never even heard of them. To this day definately the most surprising show I'd ever seen and maybe the best small club show I've ever seen. Their sound was just so huge...we all went out and bought Gish in the next few days."
Chaz - you just described the exact reason why I - and most others on this board I suspect - go to shows. It's for magic moments like this.
You've given me goose bumps :o
-
Originally posted by grotty:
[/b]
[/qb]
You are such the contrarian. Rhett with a rosbif accent. I don't know how you can stand living here since you hate American sports, politics and music so. :D
Again - even MTV was different then. Transitioning yes - but still better & still occasionally decent. I'd even argue that that period was MTVs finest. They were actually playing some decent *music* (see original 120 minutes). For everyone who yearns for the old old school MTV - are you kidding me? Look back at what they were playing near inception. Really any video they could get their hands on. It may be the biggest batch of crap EVER. Talk about artificially inflating a bands exposure - popularity - etc. Mike & the freakin' Mechanics?!?!?!?!?!!? [/QB][/QUOTE]
At what time of the night was 120 minutes on???? Hardly primetime now was it? I know, I used to stay up to watch it back then.
I just do one of these :p
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by grotty:
I don't know how you can stand living here since you hate American sports, politics and music so.
the dental insurance.
and to be closer to Canada! [/b]
Don't forget to get cheap Canadian prescription drugs!
-
Originally posted by Bollocks:
I just do one of these :roll: whenever I hear this shit about Cobain and his music and he was all about the music man, and didn't care about fame or fortune...BULLSHIT!!The fact there are Nirvana VIDEOS contradicts that. God bless him for making a mint out of his mediocre drivvel, but don't try to make him out as some musical folk hero when all he is is nothing more than an unwashed member of N'Sync.
How about some proof - facts - etc. rather than just conjecture and opinion. To compare Nirvana in any way to a manufactured boy band a la N Sync is just way beyond absurdity.
And for the record - just how and why is making a video ANY different from making a record in the first place? Using that analogy - all ANY band should ever do is play gigs.
And in Cobain's case, maybe best intentions turned out to not deliver what he really wanted and needed. I think that's why there's a saying - Be careful what you wish for.
And finally...where you going?
-
Originally posted by grotty:
all ANY band should ever do is play gigs.
I'm fine with that.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by grotty:
all ANY band should ever do is play gigs.
I'm fine with that. [/b]
And record the gigs so you can buy what you just heard instead of the over-produced studio stuff.
-
Originally posted by Bollocks:
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by grotty:
all ANY band should ever do is play gigs.
I'm fine with that. [/b]
And record the gigs so you can buy what you just heard instead of the over-produced studio stuff. [/b]
And maybe a video of the show too!
-
Originally posted by grotty:
[/b]
How about some proof - facts - etc. rather than just conjecture and opinion. To compare Nirvana in any way to a manufactured boy band a la N Sync is just way beyond absurdity.
And for the record - just how and why is making a video ANY different from making a record in the first place? Using that analogy - all ANY band should ever do is play gigs.
And in Cobain's case, maybe best intentions turned out to not deliver what he really wanted and needed. I think that's why there's a saying - Be careful what you wish for.
And finally...where you going? [/QB]
My comments were simply my opinion, and if we were in a court of law I might make the effort to produce supporting evidence...but we're not and I don't care enough anyway. BTW, I was comparing Nirvana to N'Sync in regards to marketing, not manufacturing.
Ireland.
-
Originally posted by Bollocks:
Ireland.
No wonder you're moving to IREland, mankie.
look in the dictionary
Ire.
abbr.
Ireland.
ire
n.
Anger; wrath. See Synonyms at anger.
The Land of Anger.
seems like the right place for you :) :) :)
-
Sorry for starting the topic then running off - I'm on west coast time, you know?
I too thought Mudhoney would be the first to make it big. But, the lack of a catchy video did them in.
I too think that Nirvana gets credit for revolutionizing music by being at the right time and the right place, not by being the best at what they did. They are far better then the copiers already mentioned (Candlebox, Bush, STP, etc. though I am guilty of seeing all of them live at some point).
I heard Nirvana on Sunday night LA radio long before I saw them on MTV, but the instant I saw the video, I knew things were going to change. We live in a picture driven world now.
The industry was devoid of anything with substance at the time and had completely burned out on the hair bands. If I remember correctly, the hair bands were making hits with their one acoustic track, and folks were buying the albums because of that track and were ignoring the rest of the crap. If I could have a dollar for everytime I've gone through somebody's collection and found Extreme: Pornographity in their collection and asked them to name two songs off of it and they couldn't. And those that could would say "Cold Hearted" with "More than Words" and not a single person could ever answer a third song.
The modern rock stations that had survived on the new wave eighties were on the brink of BQing. I remember turning off KROQ somewhere around 1986/7 when that song "I wanna be a Cowboy, and you can be my cowgirl" by Boy's Don't Cry Cry and thinking this is the end of radio as I know it. Metal bands were in, new wave was out and I was listening to classic rock.
Nirvana put a picture to the movement, a brilliant picture at that, and no matter what you envision is being rebelled against in that video, you put it with something. I put it with the music industry.
So while I agree that no matter what the Pumpkins could have done, despite being far superior musically, they didn't have the timing or the pictures that the media wanted to put to the movement and will never be held in the same accolades, even had Cobain not killed himself and Billy did. So I agree that MTV2 runs the Pumpkins 10 Year Anniversary and not MTV.
-
first of all, wasn't nirvana from olympia, not seattle? if we are counting them as the same place, either beat happening or sleater-kinney is/was the best seattle band. if you want to blame anyone for nirvana, blame calvin
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
Will in 20 years Franz Ferndinad get the same blame as Nirvana and the Sex Pistols?
In 20 years, only 2% of the world will know who Franz is, kinda like now.
-
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
Originally posted by grotty:
the death of Warrant.
thats the real reason i dont like Nirvana..
:D [/b]
Wait a minute, didnt Def Leppard blame Warrant for killing heavy metal?
-
Did Nirvana make it big because Kurt was pretty?
Did Smashing pumpkins make some pretty dull rock before they were influenced by grunge?
Isnt this like arguing about which turd smells least bad?
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Did Nirvana make it big because Kurt was pretty?
Did Smashing pumpkins make some pretty dull rock before they were influenced by grunge?
Isnt this like arguing about which turd smells least bad?
Between those two turds I'd have to say the Pumpkins smell the least bad.
-
coming from someone who wasn't listening to music or sitting in the front seat of the car when these bands came out i must say nirvan got lucky and had decent enough material to be picked up and were in the right place. its like everything in life. itslike getting a setlist or something at a concert. you maybe a bigger better fan, own the bands cds, know all the words or whatever. the person next to you who doesn't even like the band could get the setlist or whatever.
at least both bands stopped before the music got worse. they changed how music is but every few years there is a new thing and it will be like that until music companies lose all their money and clear channel is in the situation a country is in(lose lose).
-
I'll preface this by saying I think the Pumpkins were probably the best band of the 1990's; go ahead and laugh if you will. That said, I agree that Corgan dying in 1994 wouldn't give SP the popularity Nirvana now enjoys. But what if Corgan died in 1997? Cobain died at - arguably - a peak of his band's popularity; shouldn't it be fair to consider not what would have happened had Corgan died on the same date, but at a similar point in his band's history? I think if Corgan had died post releasing Mellon Collie, that the Pumpkins would be just as big, if not bigger, then Nirvana. Not to mention the increased attention that would have been given that MCIS-demos boxset which contains alot of the Pumpkins best work.
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Did Smashing pumpkins make some pretty dull rock before they were influenced by grunge?
I'd have to say no. IMO, Gish (their first album) was by far the best and far from dull.