Originally posted by Bollocks:And maybe a video of the show too!
Originally posted by sonickteam2:And record the gigs so you can buy what you just heard instead of the over-produced studio stuff.
Originally posted by grotty:I'm fine with that.
all ANY band should ever do is play gigs.
Pumpkins vs. Nirvana
Originally posted by grotty: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.
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]
Ireland.
Originally posted by Bollocks:No wonder you're moving to IREland, mankie.
Ireland.
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.
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:In 20 years, only 2% of the world will know who Franz is, kinda like now.
Will in 20 years Franz Ferndinad get the same blame as Nirvana and the Sex Pistols?
Originally posted by sonickteam2:Wait a minute, didnt Def Leppard blame Warrant for killing heavy metal?
Originally posted by grotty:thats the real reason i dont like Nirvana..
the death of Warrant.
:D
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?
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:Between those two turds I'd have to say the Pumpkins smell the least bad.
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?
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).
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:I'd have to say no. IMO, Gish (their first album) was by far the best and far from dull.
Did Smashing pumpkins make some pretty dull rock before they were influenced by grunge?