Author Topic: Pumpkins vs. Nirvana  (Read 7859 times)

Guiny

  • Guest
Re: Pumpkins vs. Nirvana
« Reply #45 on: August 18, 2004, 04:43:00 pm »
Quote
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.

Guiny

  • Guest
Re: Pumpkins vs. Nirvana
« Reply #46 on: August 18, 2004, 04:46:00 pm »
Quote
Originally posted by sonickteam2:
   
Quote
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?

markie

  • Member
  • Posts: 13178
Re: Pumpkins vs. Nirvana
« Reply #47 on: August 18, 2004, 04:51:00 pm »
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?

mankie

  • Guest
Re: Pumpkins vs. Nirvana
« Reply #48 on: August 18, 2004, 04:52:00 pm »
Quote
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.

flawd101

  • Guest
Re: Pumpkins vs. Nirvana
« Reply #49 on: August 18, 2004, 08:01:00 pm »
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).

Julian, Alleged Computer F**kface

  • Member
  • Posts: 5970
  • JULIAN'S AMERICA - It makes my taco pop!
Re: Pumpkins vs. Nirvana
« Reply #50 on: August 19, 2004, 09:13:00 am »
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.

Sailor Ripley

  • Guest
Re: Pumpkins vs. Nirvana
« Reply #51 on: August 19, 2004, 09:23:00 am »
Quote
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.