Pumpkins Vs Nirvana

dg1979us · July 2007

MLC2006 wrote:

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.

darthvedder88 · July 2007

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.

Neruda25 · July 2007

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!!!!

Brisk. · July 2007

Neruda25 wrote:

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.

righteousbabe · July 2007

I like nirvana more. Both good bands though.

Gary Carter · July 2007

MLC2006 wrote:

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.

MLC2006 · July 2007

metsfan531941 wrote:

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.

Gary Carter · July 2007

MLC2006 wrote:

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.

darthvedder88 · July 2007

pjoasisrules it's not your turn to comment freely my friend

MLC2006 · July 2007

metsfan531941 wrote:

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.

Gary Carter · July 2007

MLC2006 wrote:

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 safe 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.

and thats all i've been saying to you for 5 pages. i agree nirvana is the most important band since the ramones or the clash and i respect them for that, does it make them good i think not, but hey thats my opinon take it or leave it. i dont have any hate towards you and hopefully you dont towards me, i bet your a really cool guy. i would of have loved to been a teen in the early 90s, but im not so i live with it. im so glad at least one band from the early 90s is still around.to me without pearljam and more so yield, i wouldnt have found all these bands like sg, aic, the pumpkins and stp

dg1979us · July 2007

MLC2006 wrote:

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.

You can disagree as well, but you have no proof to back up your claims either. Like I mentioned earlier, this whole thread is based around improvable ideas. But, IMO the pumpkins made the pumpkins. And the pumpkins would have been the pumpkins regardless of Kurt. But again, just an opinion.

Brisk. · July 2007

dg1979us wrote:

You can disagree as well, but you have no proof to back up your claims either. Like I mentioned earlier, this whole thread is based around improvable ideas. But, IMO the pumpkins made the pumpkins. And the pumpkins would have been the pumpkins regardless of Kurt. But again, just an opinion.

yeh

i doubt Nirvana made the pumpkins big becuase of the awesome albums they made. Also were pumpkins considered part of the "grunge" thing? becuase would the pumpkins and nirvana play with each other that much?

MLC2006 · July 2007

I BrisK I wrote:

yeh

i doubt Nirvana made the pumpkins big becuase of the awesome albums they made. Also were pumpkins considered part of the "grunge" thing? becuase would the pumpkins and nirvana play with each other that much?

they weren't considered "grunge" but they WERE considered part of the movement that put indie/college bands into the mainstream spotlight, a movement that wasn't around until Nirvana blew up.

metsfan, perhaps we've been misunderstanding each other the whole thread. my problem is not with anyone saying they like SP better or think SP is a better band. my problem is when people dismiss Nirvana as just another band and fail to recognize the crucial role they played in music.

tonadax · July 2007

Nirvana all the way, they did more for music in 5 years than SP have done in 10+ years

Siamese dream was an masterpiece and, mellon collie have so many fillers in. Get out siamese dream, incesticide ´b sides album´ can beat any album of smashing pumpkins...

PearlJamaholic · July 2007

i sat with a sp fan on the bus back in school. i heard alot of their non-radio stuff. some kid brought in utero to music class and played milk it. so i heard one non-radio nirvana song to almost the everything sp did up to that point.

to this day i own 0sp and like 10nirvana releases, not counting bootlegs.

reeferchief · July 2007

metsfan531941 wrote:

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

Thats hillarious one minute you say you're a huge Pearl Jam fan and admit to liking BLink 182, then you say you dont like any bands from the last ten to fifteen years? HELLO.:)

Nirvana was the biggest thing in music since the Beatles BEFORE Kurt killed himself not because Kurt killed himself, that is a fact, Kurt did not sell Nirvana out, Nirvana became huge and the music press jumped all over it turning it into a circus. All Kurt did was be himself.

darthvedder88 · July 2007

I'll agree that Nirvava helped popularize the grunge movement, but they didn't really influence a lot of bands. Though most of them suck, Smashing Pumpkins have influenced a lot of bands.

MLC2006 · July 2007

darthvedder88 wrote:

I'll agree that Nirvava helped popularize the grunge movement, but they didn't really influence a lot of bands. Though most of them suck, Smashing Pumpkins have influenced a lot of bands.

whoa, you are WAY off on that one. geez, Nirvana was ripped off by pretty much every new band to hit the radio at least up to the mid to late 90s. the only band that I can really say were heavily influenced by SP is Our Lady Peace.

Ved in the Head91 · July 2007

I think I should defend Nirvana for the simple fact that many people here agree that The Smashing Pumpkins are far better musicians than Nirvana.

Let's examine this for a second.

1. Kurt, while not exactly Eddie Vedder, did have a voice with something unique at the time - the ability to scream on pitch (Listen to the end of "Lounge Act" from Nevermind). Singers before him who screamed just screamed. Yes, he was questionable live sometimes, but Billy REALLY struggles to get a handle on his songs live pitch-wise to this day. While Billy has a distinctive voice, it's really just kind a whine.

2. Yes, Billy is a far superior guitarist. No argument there. Plus SP had 2 guitarists, so it's almost an unfair comparison.

3. While Krist Novoselic is no virtuoso on the bass, he IS melodic and no one, NO ONE could ever say D'Arcy was better. Billy re-tracked all of her parts for her for God's sake...ugh.

4. Now, the big one. Dave and Jimmy. Two of the best ever, really. Jimmy is flashy, technical, and soooo talented, but...I think I'll have to go with Dave on this one, simply because he is more powerful. Perhaps its a matter of preference, but I love it when a drummer brings the thunder like Dave always has. Plus Dave is just as technically sound as Jimmy, and maybe even a bit more creative (I know some people are starting to get really upset) - think of how Dave has been able to adapt his style to all the different bands he's played with over the last 15 years. I mean, the Queens of the Stone Age album was a revelation unto itself, but did anyone hear the Killing Joke album he did???? Unbelievable!!! It's hard to knock Jimmy in any way because he trully is terrific, but Dave is simply the best.

So that was my attempt to defend the oft-knocked musicianship of Nirvana. Peace.

Pumpkins Vs Nirvana

Comments

Categories