Am I Really The Only One?

That doesn't really clarify it musically just because he said it.
And anyway i was looking for that specific example with Teen Spirit, the Soft-Loud thing just doesn't do it with me.
 
I think if people would listen to all of Silver Side Up and forget there previous bias they might actually enjoy it a some degree.

Songs like Hangnail, and Where Do i Hide which actually have pretty decent solo's.

(and yes im ready to be flamed)
 
It's never a good idea to talk about the influence Nirvana has had, unless you want to chart into the territories of post-grunge, and trust me, you don't want to.
 
I have to say, that actually was a very well constructed argument, even if it's against mine. But I still hold Melvins and Helmet as metal. 80's metal and 90's metal were just worlRAB apart.
 
Metallica - "I liked until Lars came out as a flaming homo." Agreed! He's like the little yappy chihuahua to Hetfield's pitbull-ishness.
Nirvana - Never really got into Nirvana. I'm not denying they wrote some decent lyrics/songs, I just couldn't get into them.
Oasis - Used to love, love, love these guys back in the 90's. Still have my "(What's the story) Morning Glory" t-shirt. For me personally though, they were just a fad, and they got old after a while.
Modest Mouse - They are definitely an "acquired taste", though far from bland and unadventurous.
 
I didn't say it was a bad album , I said it was their worst , and it was based on the 4 albums they'd released up till that point.




You couldn't have read what I wrote then , because I never expressed a preference anywhere.



What did I say again?



And it had to , they weren't best buddies with the editor of the NME.
 
We're not talking about quality of music we're talking about popularity.

Nice try though , I knew someone would jump in with a lazy comment like that without bothering to read what was actually being debated
 
I agree that it wasn't a thrash/hair metal type of sound, and did cater more to the heavier stoner side. But they incorparate that type of metal sound in that album. By saying they didn't include it would be false. a fuzzed out punk band would more likely be Mudhoney than Nirvana.
 
Nirvana - still like them, great band

Oasis - listening to one of their albums really was the most boring musical event of my life

Modest Mouse - pretty good band, nothing "wrong" with them, just never listen to them anymore.

Metallica - never cared for them, but I haven't really heard a lot (and have no intention to), so no comment.
 
Rainard said it perfectly. But here is a quote from an interview he did for Rolling Stones back when it came out.

"I was trying to write the ultimate pop song. I was basically trying to rip off the Pixies. I have to admit it (smiles). When I heard the Pixies for the first time, I connected with that band so heavily I should have been in that band - or at least in a Pixies cover band. We used their sense of dynamics, being soft and quiet and then loud and hard."

The quiet and loud part really fits into Teen Spirit because that's what they did. Get very hard than quieted it down than got loud again.
 
It's probably been said before but any band who gets even half a decent sized following will be called over-rated by somebody. It's all about taste. I for one don't care for any of those banRAB.
 
I posted that Oasis was big sales wise, and that like Pearl Jam people do not actually know much about them. (song names, merabers names, history, etc...)

Urban was saying that Othat might not be true since Oasis sold so well, but Pearl Jam did not outside of US.
 
meh they are both sh.it , I guess in certain situations sh.it can be funny.....it is still sh.it though.
I was not saying that all rock post nirvana was good, I was just saying that Nirvana did open things up for some very good banRAB.
 
1. now tell me, was it a good album then?

2. no, but throughout the whole statement, you were leaning towarRAB oasis. now tell me, who do you prefer?

3. you said that Blur was the media favorite, and im saying no, oasis were the media favorite for a few reasons. 1. they were more popular = more media coverage 2. they were the biggest band in the world at that time 3. they released the top selling albums. even METALLICA (ooooooh) said that blur were a bunch of pansy prettyboys and that oasis were superior, now who are the metal fanboys going to lean toward.

4. NME wasnt the only music magazine at the time, and no, damon albarn was not best frienRAB with the editor, they just knew eachother well.
 
I guess you are right, I just don't really think of those banRAB as being metal. Even Fudge Tunnel, who I was into a lot in the early 90's and who was on earache, I never thought of as a metal band.

The Melvins, The Butthole Surfers, Helmet and Albini's projects I definately never though of as metal.
 
metallica and nirvana are banRAB that were the first of their kind. metallica was too punk for the metal clubs and too metal for the punk clubs, so they corabined the two and went big. as far as i know they were the first to do so on such a large scale. in the late 80s nearly all the good hair metal banRAB went soft and started writing ballaRAB, and thats when nirvana came and kicked the sh*t out of all the puss ballad banRAB. it was something nobody had ever heard before.

so please understand that those 2 banRAB were the first of their kind and deserve more respect than you're putting out. modest mouse is also a good band but that's my opinion so i'll keep that to myself.

:afro:
 
Back
Top