Pumpkins vs. Nirvana

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..

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?

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…