Pumpkins Vs Nirvana

itsevobaby

(yes another pumpkins thread, what can i say, i'm going through a phase)

two bands that led a very similar path for a while: the underrated but foundation-setting debut, the MASSIVE follow-up album, the b-sides/rarities release, the slightly more challenging but possible more rewarding third studio effort. how do you think the albums stack up against each other? for me....

Gish Vs Bleach

***GISH***

Siamese Dream Vs Nevermind

***SIAMESE DREAM***

Pisces Iscariot Vs Incesticide

***PISCES ISCARIOT***

Mellon Collie Vs In Utero

***MELLON COLLIE***


not easy choices by any means. nirvana, for me, was alot more about the timing & the impact they made, but as far as quality goes, pumpkins all the way baby!!

Indian Summer

I'll take anybody over Nirvana or as I like to call them "THE SINGLE MOST OVER RATED BAND IN THE HISTORY OF MUSIC"

thecrackedjack

Indian Summer wrote:

I'll take anybody over Nirvana or as I like to call them "THE SINGLE MOST OVER RATED BAND IN THE HISTORY OF MUSIC"

I agree. Nirvanas not bad, but I'd even take bands like Live (Throwing Copper is better than Nevermind IMO) and Collective Soul over them.

Ledbetterman10

I much prefer Nirvana

sigh eternally

thecrackedjack wrote:

I agree. Nirvanas not bad, but I'd even take bands like Live (Throwing Copper is better than Nevermind IMO) and Collective Soul over them.

are you being serious or is this a joke?

thecrackedjack

sigh eternally wrote:

are you being serious or is this a joke?

Serious. Nirvana has never appealed to me, except for a few songs. And Cobain sounds like dying dog compared to Layne, Vedder, Cornell, Weiland, ect.

Todd76

thecrackedjack wrote:

I agree. Nirvanas not bad, but I'd even take bands like Live (Throwing Copper is better than Nevermind IMO) and Collective Soul over them.

quite possibly the most insane thing I have ever read on this board!!!!!!

Gary Carter

thecrackedjack wrote:

Nirvana has never appealed to me, except for a few songs. And Cobain sounds like dying dog compared to Layne, Vedder, Cornell, Weiland, ect.

agreed, the only piece of nirvana music i own is nirvana unplugged. i think there majorly over-rated and are only big cause of kurts death and cause they were the face of a music called grunge

MLC2006

Their careers didn't take similar paths. Nirvana and the other "grunge" bands were famous and in the mainstream well before SP hit it. in fact, I believe Corgan had a nervous breakdown because "Gish" didn't hit it big like "Nevermind", "Ten", and "Badmotorfinger". so that depression led to the Siamese Dream songs.

further, I see little to no similarities in their music. Nirvana was punk band, SP was an arena rock band with very little "grunge" elements.

if you talk about musicianship, I'll say that SP were better musicians (though Grohl is still a better drummer than Chamberlain). but if you're talking about impact and the huge impression that was left on rock and popular culture, there's no denying that Nirvana were way more influential. you can call Nirvana "overrated" all you want, but they were a punk band. you can take it or leave it, they were music in it's rawest form, if that's over your head, sorry. if it was so easy to write songs with nothing but power cords and nonsensicle lyrics and sell tons of albums like Nirvana did, don't you think everybody would be doing it??

I really like Siamese Dream, but I still say Nevermind is more of a classic album. I also liked Mellon Collie, but it could've been trimmed down to one great album rather than 2 cds of overkill, so I give In Utero the nod. Gish may have been better than Bleach, but you have to remember that Bleach was pretty much a diy album that was recorded in a few days on no budget. as far as the b-side albums, who the fuck cares? additionally, Corgan has shown time and again that he could be a pretentious prick whereas Cobain was pretty much an average joe schmo.

Gary Carter

MLC2006 wrote:

Their careers didn't take similar paths. Nirvana and the other "grunge" bands were famous and in the mainstream well before SP hit it. in fact, I believe Corgan had a nervous breakdown because "Gish" didn't hit it big like "Nevermind", "Ten", and "Badmotorfinger". so that depression led to the Siamese Dream songs.

further, I see little to no similarities in their music. Nirvana was punk band, SP was an arena rock band with very little "grunge" elements.

if you talk about musicianship, I'll say that SP were better musicians (though Grohl is still a better drummer than Chamberlain). but if you're talking about impact and the huge impression that was left on rock and popular culture, there's no denying that Nirvana were way more influential. you can call Nirvana "overrated" all you want, but they were a punk band. you can take it or leave it, they were music in it's rawest form, if that's over your head, sorry. if it was so easy to write songs with nothing but power cords and nonsensicle lyrics and sell tons of albums like Nirvana did, don't you think everybody would be doing it??

I really like Siamese Dream, but I still say Nevermind is more of a classic album. I also liked Mellon Collie, but it could've been trimmed down to one great album rather than 2 cds of overkill, so I give In Utero the nod. Gish may have been better than Bleach, but you have to remember that Bleach was pretty much a diy album that was recorded in a few days on no budget. as far as the b-side albums, who the fuck cares? additionally, Corgan has shown time and again that he could be a pretentious prick whereas Cobain was pretty much an average joe schmo.

nirvana was a pop-punk band not a punk band huge difference. real punk bands dont sell out

catefrances

as no one else's opinion about music means anything to me and is never a determining factor on the music i like, then i say without reservationNIRVANA for me it's always been nirvana and it will always be nirvana.

DocChicago

metsfan531941 wrote:

nirvana was a pop-punk band not a punk band huge difference. real punk bands dont sell out

quite an accusation. you want to expand on that in reference to Nirvana?

catefrances

metsfan531941 wrote:

nirvana was a pop-punk band not a punk band huge difference. real punk bands dont sell out

LMFAO!!!!! this from a blink 182 fan.

DocChicago

itsevobaby wrote:

Siamese Dream Vs Nevermind

***SIAMESE DREAM***

This made me have a seizure.

Gary Carter

catefrances wrote:

LMFAO!!!!! this from a blink 182 fan.

and your point is what. yes i like blink-182 alot, i think there a nofx cover band just without being political. real punk bands, are bands like fugazi, bad brains, minor threat, dead kennedys.bands that had a message and didnt want the limelight and all the famous bs.

catefrances

metsfan531941 wrote:

and your point is what. yes i like blink-182 alot, i think there a nofx cover band just without being political. real punk bands, are bands like fugazi, bad brains, minor threat, dead kennedys.bands that had a message and didnt want the limelight and all the famous bs.

my point is that what you said was semi-idiotic.
i am sure you are familiar with the sex pistols, yeah? would you class them as sellouts? actually i'd be interested to know how you see the sex pistols generally.

markymark550

catefrances wrote:

as no one else's opinion about music means anything to me and is never a determining factor on the music i like

exactly

and I prefer Nirvana, although I do like the Smashing Pumpkins

itsevobaby

MLC2006 wrote:

Their careers didn't take similar paths. Nirvana and the other "grunge" bands were famous and in the mainstream well before SP hit it. in fact, I believe Corgan had a nervous breakdown because "Gish" didn't hit it big like "Nevermind", "Ten", and "Badmotorfinger". so that depression led to the Siamese Dream songs.

further, I see little to no similarities in their music. Nirvana was punk band, SP was an arena rock band with very little "grunge" elements.

if you talk about musicianship, I'll say that SP were better musicians (though Grohl is still a better drummer than Chamberlain). but if you're talking about impact and the huge impression that was left on rock and popular culture, there's no denying that Nirvana were way more influential. you can call Nirvana "overrated" all you want, but they were a punk band. you can take it or leave it, they were music in it's rawest form, if that's over your head, sorry. if it was so easy to write songs with nothing but power cords and nonsensicle lyrics and sell tons of albums like Nirvana did, don't you think everybody would be doing it??

I really like Siamese Dream, but I still say Nevermind is more of a classic album. I also liked Mellon Collie, but it could've been trimmed down to one great album rather than 2 cds of overkill, so I give In Utero the nod. Gish may have been better than Bleach, but you have to remember that Bleach was pretty much a diy album that was recorded in a few days on no budget. as far as the b-side albums, who the fuck cares? additionally, Corgan has shown time and again that he could be a pretentious prick whereas Cobain was pretty much an average joe schmo.

i wasn't comparing their musical stylings or their impact on music. nor was i comparing corgan to cobain. only that each of their albums received a similar status with respect to the rest of their catalogue. the bands careers seem to parallel each other in that way. that was all. i wasn't attempting to draw any other links between the two groups. perhaps i didn't explain myself that well.

intodeep

itsevobaby wrote:

(yes another pumpkins thread, what can i say, i'm going through a phase)

two bands that led a very similar path for a while: the underrated but foundation-setting debut, the MASSIVE follow-up album, the b-sides/rarities release, the slightly more challenging but possible more rewarding third studio effort. how do you think the albums stack up against each other? for me....

Gish Vs Bleach

***GISH***

Siamese Dream Vs Nevermind

***SIAMESE DREAM***

Pisces Iscariot Vs Incesticide

***PISCES ISCARIOT***

Mellon Collie Vs In Utero

***MELLON COLLIE***


not easy choices by any means. nirvana, for me, was alot more about the timing & the impact they made, but as far as quality goes, pumpkins all the way baby!!

I agree with all of your picks the pumpkins slay nirvana

Gary Carter

catefrances wrote:

my point is that what you said was semi-idiotic.
i am sure you are familiar with the sex pistols, yeah? would you class them as sellouts? actually i'd be interested to know how you see the sex pistols generally.

its not semi-idiotic, i named 4 bands that are punk and would never have done what kurt did, i can name you more if ya liked. yes i would classify them as sell-outs, they were put together by the record label to make money on a new fad that would be later called "punk".

catefrances

you can't compare one band's albums against another band's albums, when one of those bands ceased to exist and didn't have the chance to evolve as they may have. we don't know what direction nirvana would have taken had kurt lived. or even if nirvana would have continued to exist much past 1994. i would never, for example, compare bleach with ten cause they are two different animals despite both being debut albums. they were released at different times and by two different types of bands.

itsevobaby

catefrances wrote:

you can't compare one band's albums against another band's albums, when one of those bands ceased to exist and didn't have the chance to evolve as they may have. we don't know what direction nirvana would have taken had kurt lived. or even if nirvana would have continued to exist much past 1994. i would never, for example, compare bleach with ten cause they are two different animals despite both being debut albums. they were released at different times and by two different types of bands.

i would have loved to have seen what direction nirvana had taken their music, it's a fascinating thought

FreshTendrils

catefrances wrote:

you can't compare one band's albums against another band's albums, when one of those bands ceased to exist and didn't have the chance to evolve as they may have. we don't know what direction nirvana would have taken had kurt lived. or even if nirvana would have continued to exist much past 1994. i would never, for example, compare bleach with ten cause they are two different animals despite both being debut albums. they were released at different times and by two different types of bands.

Why can't you compare? Different styles might make it harder, but certainly not impossible and the time period really shouldn't play that big of a role either. Thats like saying you can't compare Radiohead to The Beatles. I mean, I fully understand if you don't want to or don't like to compare bands, but its not an abnormal thing to do.

catefrances

FreshTendrils wrote:

Why can't you compare? Different styles might make it harder, but certainly not impossible and the time period really shouldn't play that big of a role either. Thats like saying you can't compare Radiohead to The Beatles. I mean, I fully understand if you don't want to or don't like to compare bands, but its not an abnormal thing to do.

but why do it? why? why? why? that's my point.

and of course the time period makes a difference. everything has to be taken into account. someone mentioned siamese dreams was the result of corgan's reaction to the public's nonlove of gish. therefore had the public lovingly embraced gish then we probably wouldn't have siamese dreams as we know it.

itsevobaby wrote:

i would have loved to have seen what direction nirvana had taken their music, it's a fascinating thought

ive been thinking about this a lot lately. but not nirvana, more what kurt could have done. and not just with music.

MLC2006

metsfan, your comments show your age. you were 6 when Nevermind hit, so there's no way you could know first hand the impact that Nirvana had. I was in high school at the time and remember it well. they weren't a "pop punk" band because there was no such term at the time. this was before Green Day, Blink 182, Offspring, and probably about every other band that you like.

Mtv showed Poison, Warrant, Cinderella, and all the other pointless hairspray "metal" bands. then comes Nirvana, like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and suddenly, the entire landscape of music changed. this was before even Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, and probably every other band you like. yeah, Nirvana was influenced by other bands just like every band is, but for you to dismiss them as a "pop punk" band truly IS idiotic.

also, as for calling them "sellouts" shows you don't know much about them. one of the very motives for Cobain killing himself was that he could not take being famous. he was riddled by guilt that he had achieved success while other punk bands remained in the shadows. they purposely didn't "produce" In Utero rather than just record it raw because they didn't want to be thought of as a mainstream band.

I can certainly see someone not liking Nirvana. but failing to at least acknowledge the credit that is due them is fucking ignorant.

Gary Carter

MLC2006 wrote:

metsfan, your comments show your age. you were 6 when Nevermind hit, so there's no way you could know first hand the impact that Nirvana had. I was in high school at the time and remember it well. they weren't a "pop punk" band because there was no such term at the time. this was before Green Day, Blink 182, Offspring, and probably about every other band that you like.

Mtv showed Poison, Warrant, Cinderella, and all the other pointless hairspray "metal" bands. then comes Nirvana, like the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs and suddenly, the entire landscape of music changed. this was before even Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, and probably every other band you like. yeah, Nirvana was influenced by other bands just like every band is, but for you to dismiss them as a "pop punk" band truly IS idiotic.

also, as for calling them "sellouts" shows you don't know much about them. one of the very motives for Cobain killing himself was that he could not take being famous. he was riddled by guilt that he had achieved success while other punk bands remained in the shadows. they purposely didn't "produce" In Utero rather than just record it raw because they didn't want to be thought of as a mainstream band.

I can certainly see someone not liking Nirvana. but failing to at least acknowledge the credit that is due them is fucking ignorant.

thanks for the history lesson asshat i already knew that. what are ya gonna do tell me bout woodstock and montrey(sp) :rolleyes:.i was 4 or 5 when ten came and yet im a huge fan of pearl jam so your post is worng there.i dont like green day nor do i like the offspring, so again your post is wrong.and why did cobain kill himself for, gee cause he was to popular hence the term sell out.acknowledge what, acknowledge that kurt fucking killed himself and all of a sudden became a legend. face it if kurt didnt kill himself, nirvana would be like everyother band from the 90s. and get it through your ignorant skull that nirvana never was a punk band, they were pop-punk


fyi-i dont like any bands from the last 10-15 years so again your post is wrong

catefrances

metsfan531941 wrote:

thanks for the history lesson asshat i already knew that. what are ya gonna do tell me bout woodstock and montrey(sp) :roolleyes:.i was 4 or 5 when ten came and yet im a huge fan of pearl jam so your post is worng there.i dont like green day nor do i like the offspring, so again your post is wrong.and why did cobain kill himself for, gee cause he was to popular hence the term sell out.acknowledge what, acknowledge that kurt fucking killed himself and all of a sudden became a legend. face it if kurt didnt kill himself, nirvana would be like everyother band from the 90s

you're popular so you're a sellout. WHAT?!! that doesn't make sense.
pearl jam are not nirvana. pearl jam didn't shit all over hair metal. nirvana did. pearl jam quite possibly wouldn't have got a look in if it weren't for nirvana. and how old you were when ten came out doesn't really mean anything. unless of course you were rocking out to it at 4. which i know from experience is entirely plausible.
kurt had a whole lot of shit going on when he killed himself. i don't profess to know what was in his mind, but people don't just kill themselves cause people love their music. this much i do know.
you say the only nirvana music you own is unplugged[./I]. that album isn't really even indicative of nirvana, aside form them doing all those covers because of a personal love for them. if kurt was a sellout he would not have got cris and curt kurtwood to help out. i imagine he would have gone for someone a little more high profile if anything.

MLC2006

metsfan531941 wrote:

thanks for the history lesson asshat i already knew that. what are ya gonna do tell me bout woodstock and montrey(sp) :roolleyes:.i was 4 or 5 when ten came and yet im a huge fan of pearl jam so your post is worng there.i dont like green day nor do i like the offspring, so again your post is wrong.and why did cobain kill himself for, gee cause he was to popular hence the term sell out.acknowledge what, acknowledge that kurt fucking killed himself and all of a sudden became a legend. face it if kurt didnt kill himself, nirvana would be like everyother band from the 90s. and get it through your ignorant skull that nirvana never was a punk band, they were pop-punk

again, you're showing your age and your stupidity. Kurt Cobain was a legend BEFORE he died. he had TWO major label studio releases and his death made the cover of every major magazine, including the likes of Time, etc. you think the reaction would have been the same if the singer from Creed or 7 Mary 3 had killed themself? if so, you're an idiot (well actually, we've already established that).

let's see, the punk bands you talk of.....you can't say what the Sex Pistols would have done because they were too incoherent to even stay together and be a band. NOFX, hmmm, aren't they in EVERY Warped Tour which is nothing but a sponser fest for supposed punk bands that don't want to be labeled and sponsered?? then, Fugazi. yeah, Fugazi is a true punk band, I'll give you that. but so what?? that means Nirvana wasn't? you're an idiot who doesn't know shit that you're talking about. Nirvana had a MAJOR influence on the world. they paved the way for PJ and every other band that's come since. and if not for Nirvana, you'd probably be listening to Poison right now. but hey, you were watching Barney at the time, so you don't know. so your opinion as far as I'm concerned, is shit.

Gary Carter

MLC2006 wrote:

again, you're showing your age and your stupidity. Kurt Cobain was a legend BEFORE he died. he had TWO major label studio releases and his death made the cover of every major magazine, including the likes of Time, etc. you think the reaction would have been the same if the singer from Creed or 7 Mary 3 had killed themself? if so, you're an idiot (well actually, we've already established that).

let's see, the punk bands you talk of.....you can't say what the Sex Pistols would have done because they were too incoherent to even stay together and be a band. NOFX, hmmm, aren't they in EVERY Warped Tour which is nothing but a sponser fest for supposed punk bands that don't want to be labeled and sponsered?? then, Fugazi. yeah, Fugazi is a true punk band, I'll give you that. but so what?? that means Nirvana wasn't? you're an idiot who doesn't know shit that you're talking about. Nirvana had a MAJOR influence on the world. they paved the way for PJ and every other band that's come since. and if not for Nirvana, you'd probably be listening to Poison right now. but hey, you were watching Barney at the time, so you don't know. so your opinion as far as I'm concerned, is shit.

i love people pissing off, its fun to get under peoples skin and watch them call me names and act like a 5 year old.

MLC2006

metsfan531941 wrote:

i love people pissing off, its fun to get under peoples skin and watch them call me names and act like a 5 year old.

Lol, you ARE an idiot. that's not a name, that's what you are. I competely missed the part where you said you liked Blink 182. lmao. you want to talk shit about NIRVANA, and have the balls to say you like Blink 182. there would be no Blink 182 if not for Nirvana. called Nirvana a sellout pop-punk in the same breath as saying you like Blink 182 completely negates any point that you could've made.

Gary Carter

MLC2006 wrote:

Lol, you ARE an idiot. that's not a name, that's what you are. I competely missed the part where you said you liked Blink 182. lmao. you want to talk shit about NIRVANA, and have the balls to say you like Blink 182. there would be no Blink 182 if not for Nirvana. called Nirvana a sellout pop-punk in the same breath as saying you like Blink 182 completely negates any point that you could've made.

nice keep up with the name calling, and in that same post i realize the fact that blink-182 are sell-outs.


btw-blink-182 were around in the early 90s, they just werent popular cause of "grunge"