Pumpkins Vs Nirvana

itsevobaby · July 2007

(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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

I much prefer Nirvana

sigh eternally · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

itsevobaby wrote:

Siamese Dream Vs Nevermind

***SIAMESE DREAM***

This made me have a seizure.

Gary Carter · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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 · July 2007

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.

Pumpkins Vs Nirvana

Comments

Categories