You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- metallex78
- Rep: 194
Re: Never mind Nevermind, 1991 was all about Guns N' Roses
I saw it happen when Pearl Jam first broke. The same kids that were listening to GN'R alongside me a week earlier were all of a sudden dissing them as uncool, while listening to PJ. I was kinda like, WTF? they're both kickass rock bands, why do I have to choose all of a sudden?
I dig all rock, from Pantera to U2. I don't buy into what the media tells me is popular. If anything, I unfairly dismissed Nirvana for years, because of the stupid hype that surrounded them.
Re: Never mind Nevermind, 1991 was all about Guns N' Roses
Nirvana were undoubtedly the foil used to spearhead the backlash against GnR
but kurt also seized on that initiative & was complicit in manipulating the idea of kurt/cool & troubled vs axl/drag & trouble
he was able to use the media in a far more successful way than axl (but then, who isn't?)
having said that, kurt was the best american songwriter since the 70's, probably since the late 60's so all is forgiven
I bet 9/10 people in the whole "scene", couldn't name you 5 fucking tracks off of Nevermind. Yet it "changed the landscape of music".
No, the fucking Beatles changed the landscape of music.
1st point - wrong. nvrmnd is classic pop album up there w/thriller
every song is a hit
everyone knows every song
in utero is one of the greatest rock albums ever but nvrmnd is as perfect a pop-rock album you'll ever get, it's flawless
2nd point - of course nirvana changed the landscape. they were the beatles of their day.
i do agree great party rock has it's place - showaddywaddy/slade/kiss all rule
but jovi & whitesnake fucking suck serious stinky ass
gimme stormbringer
Re: Never mind Nevermind, 1991 was all about Guns N' Roses
I'm not saying Nirvana is better than anyone. I'm saying it's nonsense to believe Nirvana's success was based on the media's manipulation. That's ridiculous. They were the right band at the right time. The media, like always, jumped on them after the kids started buying their albums.
I remember that period very well, and I can tell you what I witnessed was that the media jumped on Nirvana AFTER they blew up. SLTS debuted as just another alt rock song/video. I promise you that. It got them up the charts, but they didn't really blow up until "Come As You Are," "In Bloom" and "Lithium." All of which were FANTASTIC singles. No one expected Nirvana to do as well as they did, just like no one expected GN'R to do as well as they did.
I don't know what the problem is here. Both Nirvana and Pearl Jam had monster albums, and I'm pretty sure Ten sold more than Nevermind. They all got over based on their talent. Nirvana included.
Re: Never mind Nevermind, 1991 was all about Guns N' Roses
18 million shipped APPETITE FOR DESTRUCTION GUNS 'N ROSES GEFFEN
13 million shipped TEN PEARL JAM EPIC
10 million shipped NEVERMIND NIRVANA DGC
latest RIAA certifications....all awesome rock albums with huge classic pop/rock singles. I wouldn't say any of those records is better than the other...can't slice the cheese that thin.
Re: Never mind Nevermind, 1991 was all about Guns N' Roses
having said that, kurt was the best american songwriter since the 70's, probably since the late 60's so all is forgiven
1st point - wrong. nvrmnd is classic pop album up there w/thriller
every song is a hit
everyone knows every song
in utero is one of the greatest rock albums ever but nvrmnd is as perfect a pop-rock album you'll ever get, it's flawless2nd point - of course nirvana changed the landscape. they were the beatles of their day.
I swear sometimes you just post shit for the reaction. Seriously dude WTF . 
Re: Never mind Nevermind, 1991 was all about Guns N' Roses
I'm not saying Nirvana is better than anyone. I'm saying it's nonsense to believe Nirvana's success was based on the media's manipulation. That's ridiculous. They were the right band at the right time. The media, like always, jumped on them after the kids started buying their albums.
I remember that period very well, and I can tell you what I witnessed was that the media jumped on Nirvana AFTER they blew up. SLTS debuted as just another alt rock song/video. I promise you that. It got them up the charts, but they didn't really blow up until "Come As You Are," "In Bloom" and "Lithium." All of which were FANTASTIC singles. No one expected Nirvana to do as well as they did, just like no one expected GN'R to do as well as they did.
Definitely NOT the case where I was living. Nirvana was pretty much on the way out. It had run it's course and nobody really cared UNTILL the MTV Unplugged album like Monkey Suggested. Then when Kurt killed himself he was suddenly this Matyr so... ... Nirvana was all hype at least in my neck of the woods cause nobody really cared about them. It was Pearl Jam, Metallica, Guns N' Roses, U2(for the older kids) etc etc.... Soundgarden was also way bigger here than Nirvana ever was.
It's pretty interesting to see how different it was in different areas of the world. In all honesty Nirvana was pretty small where I'm from and to this day nobody I know really gives a shit about them yet everyone still claims to love Pearl Jam and that is usually linked to Ten and Vs
I dont' think there is a problem at all with liking whatever bands people want to like but from my experience Nirvana's legacy is quite clearly a product of continued media manipulation as well as how the media wrongfully portrayed Nirvana as the godfathers of the genre, more important than anyone back in the day as it was happening. It's so not true.
Let's think for a moment if Pearl Jam had been doing the MTV videos and Rolling Stone magazine covers after Ten. It's almost as though Pearl Jam rebelled against all that stuff so the media latched onto NIrvana as a 2nd choice and ran with them instead.
Re: Never mind Nevermind, 1991 was all about Guns N' Roses
johndivney wrote:having said that, kurt was the best american songwriter since the 70's, probably since the late 60's so all is forgiven
1st point - wrong. nvrmnd is classic pop album up there w/thriller
every song is a hit
everyone knows every song
in utero is one of the greatest rock albums ever but nvrmnd is as perfect a pop-rock album you'll ever get, it's flawless2nd point - of course nirvana changed the landscape. they were the beatles of their day.
I swear sometimes you just post shit for the reaction. Seriously dude WTF .
I agree. That is about the dumbest post ever.
If I remember correctly John was the one that came in here awhile back trying to tell us how Bleach was their best album and was loaded with great melodies.
And Nevermind is not better than In Utero, and Nevermind is not known for every song. To actually even think it's comparable to the fucking Beatles is insane.
Kurt was the best American song writers since the 70's. You've gotta be shittin' me. If I knew I could rhyme mosquito and libido years ago, I would've been a major success too. I thought i'd be laughed at for shit like that.
Re: Never mind Nevermind, 1991 was all about Guns N' Roses
I can't speak for Canada, only the States. Nirvana was huge.
I know I'm going to get trounced for this, but here it goes... 
Pearl Jam, when Even Flow and Alive came out, pretty much came across as the pretty boys of the Seattle group. That's seriously not a knock against them. But their album was more polished than AI, SG and Nirvana's were. They were better looking than the other groups. The music was much more pop friendly than the others. They weren't as dark or aggressive, where as Nirvana was really the grungy, rawer sounding, smells bad, unpolished of the group, which is why they probably get looked at as the real deal, fair or not.
And I always got the feeling that that was the reason PJ pulled away from the spotlight, wouldn't do videos and became a much more rawer sounding band, because of how they came across back then. Even going back and remixing TEN, because they didn't like how polished it was. And the remixes I heard were very cool, btw. But I think that goes to show how conscious they were about it, to revisit that album so many years later when it was such a seminal record for them. It's almost like they were embarrassed by it, or it represented something negative to them. Okay, flame away
And it's hard to compete when you have those 2 great albums and you die. You never failed, you never got fat or old. You never had an average selling album. You died at your peak with so much potential; those type of stars will always be looked at differently. From Joplin to James Dean.
And I think Kurt had MUCH more to do with their portrayal in the media than the media conspiring to make them the biggest band in the world. He was much smarter and media savvy than people think, and he cultivated their image perfectly. I think the media just lapped up what he gave them, and again, that goes to show that he was one of those rare stars like Morrison, Bowie, who could successfully do that, and was a walking contradiction like all of them were/are, too.
Re: Never mind Nevermind, 1991 was all about Guns N' Roses
Bono wrote:johndivney wrote:having said that, kurt was the best american songwriter since the 70's, probably since the late 60's so all is forgiven
1st point - wrong. nvrmnd is classic pop album up there w/thriller
every song is a hit
everyone knows every song
in utero is one of the greatest rock albums ever but nvrmnd is as perfect a pop-rock album you'll ever get, it's flawless2nd point - of course nirvana changed the landscape. they were the beatles of their day.
I swear sometimes you just post shit for the reaction. Seriously dude WTF .
I agree. That is about the dumbest post ever.
If I remember correctly John was the one that came in here awhile back trying to tell us how Bleach was their best album and was loaded with great melodies.
And Nevermind is not better than In Utero, and Nevermind is not known for every song. To actually even think it's comparable to the fucking Beatles is insane.
Kurt was the best American song writers since the 70's. You've gotta be shittin' me. If I knew I could rhyme mosquito and libido years ago, I would've been a major success too. I thought i'd be laughed at for shit like that.
1962 - dylan
1968 - townes
1989 - kurt
maybe curtis mayfield would have something to say, but not too many others.
big deal libido/mosquito. a hit's a hit & that's a great one.
if you guys dunno people who know nevermind you oughta get smarter & better friends. nevermind, like is this it, is one of those rock/indie crossover's that are consumed into pop culture. every single song is p much instantly recognisable to anyone who has been merely an acquaintance of someone who likes music
i didn't fucking say nevermind was better than in utero
& i doubt i said bleach was loaded with melodies
but it is a fantastic record
& there are some killer, genius, tunes on there
which brings me to the beatles. the parallels are endless but the two most striking are how indebted their songs are to their influences but polished into pristine pop that elevated rock music & also, obviously, their cultural impact. it was them who broke through to the mainstream, not sonic youth or the pixies. don't get me wrong in that Nirvana were alone in the transformation - REM for one were another indie rock band that changed the status quo - but Nirvana led the charge & left the imprint simply because they had the best material.
Pearl Jam, when Even Flow and Alive came out, pretty much came across as the pretty boys of the Seattle group. That's seriously not a knock against them. But their album was more polished than AI, SG and Nirvana's were. They were better looking than the other groups. The music was much more pop friendly than the others. They weren't as dark or aggressive, where as Nirvana was really the grungy, rawer sounding, smells bad, unpolished of the group, which is why they probably get looked at as the real deal, fair or not.
And I always got the feeling that that was the reason PJ pulled away from the spotlight, wouldn't do videos and became a much more rawer sounding band, because of how they came across back then. Even going back and remixing TEN, because they didn't like how polished it was. And the remixes I heard were very cool, btw. But I think that goes to show how conscious they were about it, to revisit that album so many years later when it was such a seminal record for them. It's almost like they were embarrassed by it, or it represented something negative to them. Okay, flame away
And I think Kurt had MUCH more to do with their portrayal in the media than the media conspiring to make them the biggest band in the world. He was much smarter and media savvy than people think, and he cultivated their image perfectly. I think the media just lapped up what he gave them, and again, that goes to show that he was one of those rare stars like Morrison, Bowie, who could successfully do that, and was a walking contradiction like all of them were/are, too.
agree 100% first part & w/the 2nd & the 3rd
the 2nd is a valid point to make & interesting to scrutinise - should they have been as embarrassed by Ten as they were, were they swayed by the fanbase & why does it mean they can't second guess all their records?
but that's another topic altogether.
you're correct on the 3rd also.
