Im saying they are overrated today.. and they have always been overrated... why is it april 5th... its all about kurt all over the music channels?? HELLOOO LAYNE STALEY??? I just dont think Nirvana are as good as the other ''grunge'' bands i.e. AIC,SG,MLB,PJ yet they still soo talked about and heard.
okay.. educate me.. how did Nirvana make SP big then? or was it the fact SP just made some totally killer albums ?
Jimmy is way faster and overall way more technically skilled. IM STILL WAITING FOR THE DAY TO SEE DAVE GROHL PLAY JELLYBELLY.
"Chamberlin is widely considered to be a world-class drummer due to his ability to combine complex technical virtuosity with high emotional communication."
again, you weren't old enough at the time to understand it now. at the time, all that was played on rock radio and mtv was the hairspray bands. Nirvana comes in and everything changed. their coming into the spotlight allowed for all the other bands, PJ and Smashing Pumpkins included, to make it big. you're trying to judge what happened then by today's standards, and that's not how it was. without Nirvana opening the door, SP would've NEVER made it into the mainstream. that is why Cobain is still celebrated to this day, because rock music and popular culture haven't been the same since. if you don't or can't understand that, I can't make you understand. I was there, I saw it all go down. I like SP, PJ, and Alice in Chains and a lot of those other bands, but their relevance to rock history pales to what Cobain and Nirvana did. you trying to argue with me about who was more important to rock in the early 90s is like me trying to argue with a 60 year old about who was more important between the Beatles and Stones.
you can like them or dislike them all you want, but there has not been a more important band to change the face of music in the past 2+ decades than Nirvana.
why I'm taking up so much for Nirvana, I don't know. personally, I like PJ, AIC, SP, and even Soundgarden better than Nirvana. but I think that you are missing the point of how important they were to the landscape of music. I don't think you can fully understand what rock music was BEFORE and then AFTER Nirvana. and for that, no one can really back up the "overrated" argument.
again, you weren't old enough at the time to understand it now. at the time, all that was played on rock radio and mtv was the hairspray bands. Nirvana comes in and everything changed. their coming into the spotlight allowed for all the other bands, PJ and Smashing Pumpkins included, to make it big. you're trying to judge what happened then by today's standards, and that's not how it was. without Nirvana opening the door, SP would've NEVER made it into the mainstream. that is why Cobain is still celebrated to this day, because rock music and popular culture haven't been the same since. if you don't or can't understand that, I can't make you understand. I was there, I saw it all go down. I like SP, PJ, and Alice in Chains and a lot of those other bands, but their relevance to rock history pales to what Cobain and Nirvana did. you trying to argue with me about who was more important to rock in the early 90s is like me trying to argue with a 60 year old about who was more important between the Beatles and Stones.
you can like them or dislike them all you want, but there has not been a more important band to change the face of music in the past 2+ decades than Nirvana.
why I'm taking up so much for Nirvana, I don't know. personally, I like PJ, AIC, SP, and even Soundgarden better than Nirvana. but I think that you are missing the point of how important they were to the landscape of music. I don't think you can fully understand what rock music was BEFORE and then AFTER Nirvana. and for that, no one can really back up the "overrated" argument.
no i think your missing the point that people are allowed to express there views on a band. so i cant express my views on nirvana or any other band cause i wasnt around for them, thats what your basically saying, isnt it. so what your saying is that i cant say the doors or the dead are somewhat over-rated cause i wasnt around for them.
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
no i think your missing the point that people are allowed to express there views on a band. so i cant express my views on nirvana or any other band cause i wasnt around for them, thats what your basically saying, isnt it. so what your saying is that i cant say the doors or the dead are somewhat over-rated cause i wasnt around for them.
no, what I"m saying is that without Nirvana, no one here would have even heard of Smashing Pumpkins and this conversation would not even be taking place. when the doors and the dead were big, that kind of psychodelic music was already well into the mainstream, so it's not the same. when Nirvana broke out, there was NO kind of "alternative" music in the mainstream. that is what you are failing to understand, Nirvana CHANGED music. the Smashing Pumpkins didn't. so for anybody to say Nirvana was "overrated" shows their ignorance to how important they were. Nirvana wasn't one of many "alternative" bands, they were THE alternative band.
no, what I"m saying is that without Nirvana, no one here would have even heard of Smashing Pumpkins and this conversation would not even be taking place. when the doors and the dead were big, that kind of psychodelic music was already well into the mainstream, so it's not the same. when Nirvana broke out, there was NO kind of "alternative" music in the mainstream. that is what you are failing to understand, Nirvana CHANGED music. the Smashing Pumpkins didn't. so for anybody to say Nirvana was "overrated" shows their ignorance to how important they were. Nirvana wasn't one of many "alternative" bands, they were THE alternative band.
no dude i do understand what nirvana did, i just dont think there music is all that special as I BrisK I feels that way and alot of other people, thats what your not understanding. just like i dont think the dead are anything speical yet i grew up with them and have over 40 boots of there through dicks picks
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
no dude i do understand what nirvana did, i just dont think there music is all that special as I BrisK I feels that way and alot of other people, thats what your not understanding. just like i dont think the dead are anything speical yet i grew up with them and have over 40 boots of there through dicks picks
I've said well back in this thread I can completely understand someone not liking them. "not liking" them is completely different than calling them "overrated". calling Nirvana overrated is like the chicken calling the egg overrated. as far as the "alternative" era and mainstream goes, they came first, they set the standard. so it's kind of hard to try to justify calling them overrated.
no, what I"m saying is that without Nirvana, no one here would have even heard of Smashing Pumpkins and this conversation would not even be taking place. when the doors and the dead were big, that kind of psychodelic music was already well into the mainstream, so it's not the same. when Nirvana broke out, there was NO kind of "alternative" music in the mainstream. that is what you are failing to understand, Nirvana CHANGED music. the Smashing Pumpkins didn't. so for anybody to say Nirvana was "overrated" shows their ignorance to how important they were. Nirvana wasn't one of many "alternative" bands, they were THE alternative band.
Thats a bit of a stretch. Nirvana certainly helped bring alternative music to the mainstream, but to say we would have never heard of the pumpkins if not for Nirvana is ludicrous. IMO the pumpkins were every bit as talented and original as Nirvana and I think would have had every bit the impact. Nirvana just happened to be first.
I've said well back in this thread I can completely understand someone not liking them. "not liking" them is completely different than calling them "overrated". calling Nirvana overrated is like the chicken calling the egg overrated. as far as the "alternative" era and mainstream goes, they came first, they set the standard. so it's kind of hard to try to justify calling them overrated.
i do think there over-rated somewhat, just i think alot of bands from the 70s are over-rated, yet i love them to death.and to say all these bands from the 90s wouldnt have made without nirvana is pretty stupid, bands like soundgarden and the pumpkins were already making music before nirvana made it big and were very popular in the underground scene
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
Thats a bit of a stretch. Nirvana certainly helped bring alternative music to the mainstream, but to say we would have never heard of the pumpkins if not for Nirvana is ludicrous. IMO the pumpkins were every bit as talented and original as Nirvana and I think would have had every bit the impact. Nirvana just happened to be first.
I don't agree. Nirvana was more of a stark contrast to the rock music that was being played at the time. the Smashing Pumpkins weren't, and at best would've remained an indie band that didn't evolve into what they became since. "Gist" was a commercial failure and pretty much sent Corgan into a breakdown. Nirvana's success is probably what kept him going.
Metallica were just coming into the mainstream at the time of Nirvana. if not for Nirvana, I DO think hairspray would've eventually died. but the whole "grunge/alternative" thing would've never happen. I think what would've happened was that instead of every band trying to copy Nirvana, every band would have been trying to copy Metallica and it would have been thrash metal, rather than grunge, that became the huge rock subgenre of the 90s. but because Nirvana was there and became so big, it opened the door for all the other underground type bands to come in and achieve success. but I stand by my claim about SP not making it big without Nirvana. without Nirvana, I fully believe that "Gist" would've been the end.
i do think there over-rated somewhat, just i think alot of bands from the 70s are over-rated, yet i love them to death.and to say all these bands from the 90s wouldnt have made without nirvana is pretty stupid, bands like soundgarden and the pumpkins were already making music before nirvana made it big and were very popular in the underground scene
soundgarden, at least the version of soundgarden that became famous, was more metal than anything else. if they had made it big without Nirvana doing so, it would've been as a metal band, not as a band of some "new" form of music. hell, they gained their first national audience by opening up for Metallica and GnR. same goes for Alice in Chains, they had slight success before Nirvana, and they were considered a METAL band and they went around the country opened for the likes of Megadeth and Anthrax.
like I said in my above post, I fully believe that SP would've fizzled and died without Nirvana making it. "Gist" was a failure. so to say that they would've probably become famous anyway is just silly, imo.
so no, it wasn't a case of Nirvana just happening to be first in the "alternative" thing, they pioneered and opened the door for everybody else.
I don't agree. Nirvana was more of a stark contrast to the rock music that was being played at the time. the Smashing Pumpkins weren't, and at best would've remained an indie band that didn't evolve into what they became since. "Gist" was a commercial failure and pretty much sent Corgan into a breakdown. Nirvana's success is probably what kept him going.
Metallica were just coming into the mainstream at the time of Nirvana. if not for Nirvana, I DO think hairspray would've eventually died. but the whole "grunge/alternative" thing would've never happen. I think what would've happened was that instead of every band trying to copy Nirvana, every band would have been trying to copy Metallica and it would have been thrash metal, rather than grunge, that became the huge rock subgenre of the 90s. but because Nirvana was there and became so big, it opened the door for all the other underground type bands to come in and achieve success. but I stand by my claim about SP not making it big without Nirvana. without Nirvana, I fully believe that "Gist" would've been the end.
Well, obviously neither of us can prove our theories, but I think there were way to many talented bands for them all to live in obscurity. Gish might have been a commercial failure (which being a debut album on an indie label, it really wasnt a failure), but Nirvana didnt exactly blow up with their first album either. And in fact, Gish was easily more successful than Bleach.
Also keep in mind, that though Nirvana made alternative music more mainstream, there were already plenty of bands like the Pixies, Jane's Addiction, etc, that had made and were making a name for themselves. I dont think alternative music's existance was solely based around Nirvana at all, and I do think the Pumpkins would have ended up with their success no matter whether Nirvana existed or not.
As previously mentioned, Alice in Chains had success before Nirvana got big, and Soundgarden would've eventually become successful but would've been labeled as a metal band. Pearl Jam became huge through word of mouth and their MTV unplugged performance helped out even more. Nirvana just happened to be the first band to get big, and at the time critics even predicted Soundgarden's "Badmotorfinger" to be the groundbreaking album of 1991. Smashing Pumpkins may have hit it big with "Gish," they may have not. Either way, Nirvana only popularized grunge. PEARL JAM are THE FOREFATHERS of GRUNGE.
Bleach < Gish
Nevermind = Siamese Dream (they are both fantastic, but for different reasons)
In Utero = Mellon Collie (both very good follow ups, but again in their own respects)
So Pumpkins by a little for me.
And also to add my two cents....I don't think Siamese Dream would exist without Nirvana. Billy pushed himself to do something big because of Nevermind. Had it not been for Nirvana he wouldn't have created the same songs. Thank God for Nirvana in my opinion.
As previously mentioned, Alice in Chains had success before Nirvana got big, and Soundgarden would've eventually become successful but would've been labeled as a metal band. Pearl Jam became huge through word of mouth and their MTV unplugged performance helped out even more. Nirvana just happened to be the first band to get big, and at the time critics even predicted Soundgarden's "Badmotorfinger" to be the groundbreaking album of 1991. Smashing Pumpkins may have hit it big with "Gish," they may have not. Either way, Nirvana only popularized grunge. PEARL JAM are THE FOREFATHERS of GRUNGE.
sorry, I love Pearl Jam (hell, this is a PJ site afterall), but they aren't the "forefathers" of anything. they were the last of the 4 "big" Seattle bands to get together and they definitely wouldn't have made it without the other bands coming before them.
Soundgarden was predicted by many to be the first band in that "scene" that would break out and do big things. but when they finally did break out, they were seen by the mainstream as a metal band. only when Nirvana broke out were Soundgarden seen as something different than metal.
the Pixies and Janes Addiction were good bands, college bands. and that's what SP would've remained if not for Nirvana's success....a college radio band. now you can make a living being a college band, you just don't get the huge mainstream success. it's very unlikely that they would have. like you said, neither of our theories can be proven. but the proof supports my theory more.....before Nirvana, none of these "alternative" bands were making it big. after Nirvana, every band that could play a power chord were getting record deals.
Bleach < Gish
Nevermind = Siamese Dream (they are both fantastic, but for different reasons)
In Utero = Mellon Collie (both very good follow ups, but again in their own respects)
So Pumpkins by a little for me.
And also to add my two cents....I don't think Siamese Dream would exist without Nirvana. Billy pushed himself to do something big because of Nevermind. Had it not been for Nirvana he wouldn't have created the same songs. Thank God for Nirvana in my opinion.
thank you, that's what I've been trying to say. to say that SP is better than Nirvana is perfectly fine. it's just crazy imo to try to claim that SP would've attained their success without Nirvana opening the door. hell, Billy Corgan himself would probably say the same thing.
sorry, I love Pearl Jam (hell, this is a PJ site afterall), but they aren't the "forefathers" of anything. they were the last of the 4 "big" Seattle bands to get together and they definitely wouldn't have made it without the other bands coming before them.
Soundgarden was predicted by many to be the first band in that "scene" that would break out and do big things. but when they finally did break out, they were seen by the mainstream as a metal band. only when Nirvana broke out were Soundgarden seen as something different than metal.
the Pixies and Janes Addiction were good bands, college bands. and that's what SP would've remained if not for Nirvana's success....a college radio band. now you can make a living being a college band, you just don't get the huge mainstream success. it's very unlikely that they would have. like you said, neither of our theories can be proven. but the proof supports my theory more.....before Nirvana, none of these "alternative" bands were making it big. after Nirvana, every band that could play a power chord were getting record deals.
It doesnt matter if those bands were making it big or not. There was obviously something bubbling beneath the mainstream surface, and the idea that only one band was capable of bringing that bubble into the mainstream is ridiculous.
And the idea that The Pumpkins would have remained a college band is equally absurd IMO. Corgan was always on record saying the Pumpkins were going to be a big band, or no band at all. Corgan was extremely ambitious before Nevermind came out. In fact, Gish was purposely made to sound like an indie-college band simply to give the Pumpkins credibility with that audience, before making the next album which was always intended to be a big album. Im not saying Nevermind didnt inspire him in one way or the other, but Billy was not going to be content, or ever intended to simply make college radio music.
It doesnt matter if those bands were making it big or not. There was obviously something bubbling beneath the mainstream surface, and the idea that only one band was capable of bringing that bubble into the mainstream is ridiculous.
And the idea that The Pumpkins would have remained a college band is equally absurd IMO. Corgan was always on record saying the Pumpkins were going to be a big band, or no band at all. Corgan was extremely ambitious before Nevermind came out. In fact, Gish was purposely made to sound like an indie-college band simply to give the Pumpkins credibility with that audience, before making the next album which was always intended to be a big album. Im not saying Nevermind didnt inspire him in one way or the other, but Billy was not going to be content, or ever intended to simply make college radio music.
well, as 'absurd' and 'ridiculous' as you want to believe it, here's the cold hard facts......
1. there was ONE band- Nirvana - that made it before all the other bands and put that particular brand of music on the map, thus opening the door for the others to follow.
2. you can say SP would've made big with or without Nirvana, but the fact remains that they DIDN'T.
Haven't read through the whole thread so I don't know if this has been mentioned already.....but I think Billy said it best himself in an interview a couple of years back when he says that 'Nevermind is the pinnacle or peak of that genre of music.'
Based on Billy's own assessment Nirvana wins!
Van 92.07.21 / Van 98.07.19 / Sea 98.07.22 / Tor 98.08.22 / Sea 00.11.06 / Van 03.05.30/ Van 05.09.02/ Gorge 06.07.22 & 23 / EV Van 08.04.02 / Tor 09.08.21 / Sea 09.09.21 & 22 / Van 09.09.25 / Van 11.09.25 / Van 13.12.04 / Pem 16.07.17 / Sea 18.08.10
well, as 'absurd' and 'ridiculous' as you want to believe it, here's the cold hard facts......
1. there was ONE band- Nirvana - that made it before all the other bands and put that particular brand of music on the map, thus opening the door for the others to follow.
2. you can say SP would've made big with or without Nirvana, but the fact remains that they DIDN'T.
Thats a logical fallacy. Nirvana released their second record, at the time the Pumpkins released their first, so of course the odds were with Nirvana to breakthrough first. But the idea they were the only band of the era capable of kicking down doors is ridiculous IMO. Sorry, but I think that is ridiculous.
But the idea they were the only band of the era capable of kicking down doors is ridiculous IMO. Sorry, but I think that is ridiculous.
but, no one actually did, did they? all you can go on is what DID and DIDN'T happen. like the poster before you said, Corgan himself was obsessed with Nirvana. Hell, he fucked that skank Courtney Love and wrote an album for her band just like Cobain did before him. hell, now that I think of it, Corgan really DID ride Cobain's coattails in pretty much every respect....he broke into the mainstream after Cobain, he banged Courtney Love after Cobain, he wrote an album for Hole after Cobain. now if he gets hooked and heroin and kills himself, he'll have pretty much BECOME Cobain.
but, no one actually did, did they? all you can go on is what DID and DIDN'T happen. like the poster before you said, Corgan himself was obsessed with Nirvana. Hell, he fucked that skank Courtney Love and wrote an album for her band just like Cobain did before him. hell, now that I think of it, Corgan really DID ride Cobain's coattails in pretty much every respect....he broke into the mainstream after Cobain, he banged Courtney Love after Cobain, he wrote an album for Hole after Cobain. now if he gets hooked and heroin and kills himself, he'll have pretty much BECOME Cobain.
Billy dated Courtney before she dated Kurt. That had nothing to do with an obsession with Nirvana. But regardless you are still arguing a logical fallacy. Your argument is basically since Nirvana broke through first, that the Pumpkins were not capable of breaking through if not for Nirvana. Sorry, dont buy it.
Not that this has anything to do with the topic, but Kurt Cobain was very jealous of Billy Corgan...he HATED the fact that Courtney Love hung out with Corgan even after they married.
Back to the topic, the only thing most people remember about Nirvana nowdays are "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Kurt's death, that's it.
Smashing Pumpkins: Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie. The Pumpkins always found a way to prove ppl wrong during the early to mid 90's.
Are you kidding me with this thread????
What is Smashing Pumpkins???
The voice of Billy Corgan Sucks!!!!
Kurt Cobain change the History of the Rock.
Viva Nirvana!!!!
Vocals dont determine everything..i think the sp music is far better than the music produced by Nirvana.
I think we are loosing the plot here.. this isn't a battle about who is more important but whos music is better... i believe the smashing pumpkin's totally kick nirvana's ass but Nirvana totally own anything that has come out recently thats for sure!.
I just would like to see more world appreciation for the bands like AIC,SG, Stone temple pilots, PJ even Blind Melon - not on the forum but around the world in general. I know they all had their times in the 90s.. but Nirvana have been talked about for ages and always will be. It just seems to be that these other great bands dont get the appreciation they deserve.
well, as 'absurd' and 'ridiculous' as you want to believe it, here's the cold hard facts......
1. there was ONE band- Nirvana - that made it before all the other bands and put that particular brand of music on the map, thus opening the door for the others to follow.
all these bands would of made it with or without nirvana thats what your failing to see. ten would of sold millions with or without nirvana as all the other bands would of. yes nirvana was the first but that doesnt make them good. the sex pistols were the first punk to make it big and yet there the most piece of shit band i've ever heard.
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
all these bands would of made it with or without nirvana thats what your failing to see. ten would of sold millions with or without nirvana as all the other bands would of. yes nirvana was the first but that doesnt make them good. the sex pistols were the first punk to make it big and yet there the most piece of shit band i've ever heard.
I don't believe any of those bands would have ever made it big without Nirvana. you can disagree, but you don't have any proof to back it up. I don't care if you feel they're a "shit band" or not. yeah, Cobain wasn't exactly Hendrix on guitar. but it was good enough to change the entire face of music. SP didn't do that, and I still say they never would have.
I don't believe any of those bands would have ever made it big without Nirvana. you can disagree, but you don't have any proof to back it up. I don't care if you feel they're a "shit band" or not. yeah, Cobain wasn't exactly Hendrix on guitar. but it was good enough to change the entire face of music. SP didn't do that, and I still say they never would have.
i dont need any proof dude, its called an opinon and thats all it is.there is no wrong right or wrong with a opinon and again thats what your FAILING to see. i could give a fuck if my opinon bothers you so much that your taking this so seriously. im only acting like a dick to you, cause its fucking funny to see you get so worked up bout this.
Ron: I just don't feel like going out tonight
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
i dont need any proof dude, its called an opinon and thats all it is.there is no wrong right or wrong with a opinon and again thats what your FAILING to see. i could give a fuck if my opinon bothers you so much that your taking this so seriously. im only acting like a dick to you, cause its fucking funny to see you get so worked up bout this.
trust me, I'm not "worked up" about this. in 2007, I really couldn't care less about either one of these bands anymore, though I liked both of them through the 90s. but, as far as music history, Nirvana is far more important than SP ever will be. and if you take a poll of a million people, I can pretty much guarantee you that Nirvana would get 75% of the votes. does this mean Nirvana were better musicians? no, I think it's fairly safe to say that SP were better musicians than Nirvana. does it mean Nirvana was a better band? again, no, because that's all opinion. so it pretty much comes down to who had the biggest impact and who's had the lasting impact, and that was Nirvana and that's something that can't even be disputed.
Comments
again, you weren't old enough at the time to understand it now. at the time, all that was played on rock radio and mtv was the hairspray bands. Nirvana comes in and everything changed. their coming into the spotlight allowed for all the other bands, PJ and Smashing Pumpkins included, to make it big. you're trying to judge what happened then by today's standards, and that's not how it was. without Nirvana opening the door, SP would've NEVER made it into the mainstream. that is why Cobain is still celebrated to this day, because rock music and popular culture haven't been the same since. if you don't or can't understand that, I can't make you understand. I was there, I saw it all go down. I like SP, PJ, and Alice in Chains and a lot of those other bands, but their relevance to rock history pales to what Cobain and Nirvana did. you trying to argue with me about who was more important to rock in the early 90s is like me trying to argue with a 60 year old about who was more important between the Beatles and Stones.
you can like them or dislike them all you want, but there has not been a more important band to change the face of music in the past 2+ decades than Nirvana.
why I'm taking up so much for Nirvana, I don't know. personally, I like PJ, AIC, SP, and even Soundgarden better than Nirvana. but I think that you are missing the point of how important they were to the landscape of music. I don't think you can fully understand what rock music was BEFORE and then AFTER Nirvana. and for that, no one can really back up the "overrated" argument.
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
no, what I"m saying is that without Nirvana, no one here would have even heard of Smashing Pumpkins and this conversation would not even be taking place. when the doors and the dead were big, that kind of psychodelic music was already well into the mainstream, so it's not the same. when Nirvana broke out, there was NO kind of "alternative" music in the mainstream. that is what you are failing to understand, Nirvana CHANGED music. the Smashing Pumpkins didn't. so for anybody to say Nirvana was "overrated" shows their ignorance to how important they were. Nirvana wasn't one of many "alternative" bands, they were THE alternative band.
♪♫♪♫♫
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
I've said well back in this thread I can completely understand someone not liking them. "not liking" them is completely different than calling them "overrated". calling Nirvana overrated is like the chicken calling the egg overrated. as far as the "alternative" era and mainstream goes, they came first, they set the standard. so it's kind of hard to try to justify calling them overrated.
Thats a bit of a stretch. Nirvana certainly helped bring alternative music to the mainstream, but to say we would have never heard of the pumpkins if not for Nirvana is ludicrous. IMO the pumpkins were every bit as talented and original as Nirvana and I think would have had every bit the impact. Nirvana just happened to be first.
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
I don't agree. Nirvana was more of a stark contrast to the rock music that was being played at the time. the Smashing Pumpkins weren't, and at best would've remained an indie band that didn't evolve into what they became since. "Gist" was a commercial failure and pretty much sent Corgan into a breakdown. Nirvana's success is probably what kept him going.
Metallica were just coming into the mainstream at the time of Nirvana. if not for Nirvana, I DO think hairspray would've eventually died. but the whole "grunge/alternative" thing would've never happen. I think what would've happened was that instead of every band trying to copy Nirvana, every band would have been trying to copy Metallica and it would have been thrash metal, rather than grunge, that became the huge rock subgenre of the 90s. but because Nirvana was there and became so big, it opened the door for all the other underground type bands to come in and achieve success. but I stand by my claim about SP not making it big without Nirvana. without Nirvana, I fully believe that "Gist" would've been the end.
soundgarden, at least the version of soundgarden that became famous, was more metal than anything else. if they had made it big without Nirvana doing so, it would've been as a metal band, not as a band of some "new" form of music. hell, they gained their first national audience by opening up for Metallica and GnR. same goes for Alice in Chains, they had slight success before Nirvana, and they were considered a METAL band and they went around the country opened for the likes of Megadeth and Anthrax.
like I said in my above post, I fully believe that SP would've fizzled and died without Nirvana making it. "Gist" was a failure. so to say that they would've probably become famous anyway is just silly, imo.
so no, it wasn't a case of Nirvana just happening to be first in the "alternative" thing, they pioneered and opened the door for everybody else.
Well, obviously neither of us can prove our theories, but I think there were way to many talented bands for them all to live in obscurity. Gish might have been a commercial failure (which being a debut album on an indie label, it really wasnt a failure), but Nirvana didnt exactly blow up with their first album either. And in fact, Gish was easily more successful than Bleach.
Also keep in mind, that though Nirvana made alternative music more mainstream, there were already plenty of bands like the Pixies, Jane's Addiction, etc, that had made and were making a name for themselves. I dont think alternative music's existance was solely based around Nirvana at all, and I do think the Pumpkins would have ended up with their success no matter whether Nirvana existed or not.
-Eddie Vedder
6/24/06 Cincinatti, Ohio
6/14/08 Manchester, Tennessee
Nevermind = Siamese Dream (they are both fantastic, but for different reasons)
In Utero = Mellon Collie (both very good follow ups, but again in their own respects)
So Pumpkins by a little for me.
And also to add my two cents....I don't think Siamese Dream would exist without Nirvana. Billy pushed himself to do something big because of Nevermind. Had it not been for Nirvana he wouldn't have created the same songs. Thank God for Nirvana in my opinion.
sorry, I love Pearl Jam (hell, this is a PJ site afterall), but they aren't the "forefathers" of anything. they were the last of the 4 "big" Seattle bands to get together and they definitely wouldn't have made it without the other bands coming before them.
Soundgarden was predicted by many to be the first band in that "scene" that would break out and do big things. but when they finally did break out, they were seen by the mainstream as a metal band. only when Nirvana broke out were Soundgarden seen as something different than metal.
the Pixies and Janes Addiction were good bands, college bands. and that's what SP would've remained if not for Nirvana's success....a college radio band. now you can make a living being a college band, you just don't get the huge mainstream success. it's very unlikely that they would have. like you said, neither of our theories can be proven. but the proof supports my theory more.....before Nirvana, none of these "alternative" bands were making it big. after Nirvana, every band that could play a power chord were getting record deals.
thank you, that's what I've been trying to say. to say that SP is better than Nirvana is perfectly fine. it's just crazy imo to try to claim that SP would've attained their success without Nirvana opening the door. hell, Billy Corgan himself would probably say the same thing.
It doesnt matter if those bands were making it big or not. There was obviously something bubbling beneath the mainstream surface, and the idea that only one band was capable of bringing that bubble into the mainstream is ridiculous.
And the idea that The Pumpkins would have remained a college band is equally absurd IMO. Corgan was always on record saying the Pumpkins were going to be a big band, or no band at all. Corgan was extremely ambitious before Nevermind came out. In fact, Gish was purposely made to sound like an indie-college band simply to give the Pumpkins credibility with that audience, before making the next album which was always intended to be a big album. Im not saying Nevermind didnt inspire him in one way or the other, but Billy was not going to be content, or ever intended to simply make college radio music.
well, as 'absurd' and 'ridiculous' as you want to believe it, here's the cold hard facts......
1. there was ONE band- Nirvana - that made it before all the other bands and put that particular brand of music on the map, thus opening the door for the others to follow.
2. you can say SP would've made big with or without Nirvana, but the fact remains that they DIDN'T.
Based on Billy's own assessment Nirvana wins!
Thats a logical fallacy. Nirvana released their second record, at the time the Pumpkins released their first, so of course the odds were with Nirvana to breakthrough first. But the idea they were the only band of the era capable of kicking down doors is ridiculous IMO. Sorry, but I think that is ridiculous.
but, no one actually did, did they? all you can go on is what DID and DIDN'T happen. like the poster before you said, Corgan himself was obsessed with Nirvana. Hell, he fucked that skank Courtney Love and wrote an album for her band just like Cobain did before him. hell, now that I think of it, Corgan really DID ride Cobain's coattails in pretty much every respect....he broke into the mainstream after Cobain, he banged Courtney Love after Cobain, he wrote an album for Hole after Cobain. now if he gets hooked and heroin and kills himself, he'll have pretty much BECOME Cobain.
Billy dated Courtney before she dated Kurt. That had nothing to do with an obsession with Nirvana. But regardless you are still arguing a logical fallacy. Your argument is basically since Nirvana broke through first, that the Pumpkins were not capable of breaking through if not for Nirvana. Sorry, dont buy it.
Back to the topic, the only thing most people remember about Nirvana nowdays are "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and Kurt's death, that's it.
Smashing Pumpkins: Siamese Dream and Mellon Collie. The Pumpkins always found a way to prove ppl wrong during the early to mid 90's.
-Eddie Vedder
6/24/06 Cincinatti, Ohio
6/14/08 Manchester, Tennessee
What is Smashing Pumpkins???
The voice of Billy Corgan Sucks!!!!
Kurt Cobain change the History of the Rock.
Viva Nirvana!!!!
23 nov. Santiago
25 nov. Buenos Aires
26 nov. Buenos Aires
http://www.myspace.com/delonelyman
Vocals dont determine everything..i think the sp music is far better than the music produced by Nirvana.
I think we are loosing the plot here.. this isn't a battle about who is more important but whos music is better... i believe the smashing pumpkin's totally kick nirvana's ass but Nirvana totally own anything that has come out recently thats for sure!.
I just would like to see more world appreciation for the bands like AIC,SG, Stone temple pilots, PJ even Blind Melon - not on the forum but around the world in general. I know they all had their times in the 90s.. but Nirvana have been talked about for ages and always will be. It just seems to be that these other great bands dont get the appreciation they deserve.
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
I don't believe any of those bands would have ever made it big without Nirvana. you can disagree, but you don't have any proof to back it up. I don't care if you feel they're a "shit band" or not. yeah, Cobain wasn't exactly Hendrix on guitar. but it was good enough to change the entire face of music. SP didn't do that, and I still say they never would have.
Sammi: Wanna just break up?
-Eddie Vedder
6/24/06 Cincinatti, Ohio
6/14/08 Manchester, Tennessee
trust me, I'm not "worked up" about this. in 2007, I really couldn't care less about either one of these bands anymore, though I liked both of them through the 90s. but, as far as music history, Nirvana is far more important than SP ever will be. and if you take a poll of a million people, I can pretty much guarantee you that Nirvana would get 75% of the votes. does this mean Nirvana were better musicians? no, I think it's fairly safe to say that SP were better musicians than Nirvana. does it mean Nirvana was a better band? again, no, because that's all opinion. so it pretty much comes down to who had the biggest impact and who's had the lasting impact, and that was Nirvana and that's something that can't even be disputed.