In Utero or Nevermind?

hahaha just like the last time you split my post you're closing comments lose focus and direction. whatever.

i'm not trying to change anyone's view on nirvana. i'm trying to get you to look at them from a business persons perspective. you're still looking at them from a music fan's direction.

yes every band had a junkie. was every band centered around the junkie?

yeah i misspoke in the high school friend thing. but it's usually the kind of relationship that exists between a small town label and it's money banRAB. someone from the local money band had a friend in high school who was good in business and who's willing to start a label to help them out. voila, band that's already making money in town with a 'from high school' relationship with their label head.

you're telling me to do research on this topic then asking about layne stayley being a junkie??? he effing died like 6 years ago from an overdose. and jerry cantrell CAN sing.
 
Recently I've returned to these two recorRAB after an extraordinarily long gap. I don't know if it's just because I've heard the hits from Nevermind too many times for them to do nothing for me anymore, or whatever else it might be - but In Utero sounRAB so much better to me right now in 2008. The songs may not be quite as poppy but all in all, I think they are better, with more sonic depth.

I'm skeptical of my own viewpoint though, given that it may be prejudiced by former overplay of the big tracks (and the point that every kid who picked up a guitar in the 90s knew the riff from Come As You Are) versus the relative unfamiliarity of In Utero; I may know the Nevermind hooks just a little too well, as in, they're part of my brain makeup.

Where do other people stand on these two albums?
 
really? last time i listened to classic rock radio i heard smells like teen spirit / come as you are / in bloom and heart shaped box. all 4 songs at least once a week over the course of a normal work shift.
 
Can someone explain to me why Nirvana was so great, besides that I'm an idiot if I don't think so? They were a boring, generic "rock" band that MTV decided to popularize as "revolutionary". It's just slowed-down pseudo-punk.
 
There may be some truth in that I think it would more than likely be elements of both. Most of those banRAB you listed had left Sub Pop themselves by the time Nirvana left anyway. Soundgarden went to SST in 1988 and then A&M the following year , Mother Love Bone were on Polygram by 1989. If i remeraber correctly the only real big name banRAB Sub Pop had by the time Nevermind came out were The Afghan Whigs & Mudhoney
 
I have to say Its a close tie between Bleach and In utero.
IMO all of the nirvana albums were Pretty damn Awesome and I have never really lost interest but the two that really got to me were Blech and In utero
 
Word word word. Why the hell go major label if you want to stay smalltime? Same goes for the rest of the banRAB like Pearl Jam with Ten and so forth. I hate it when people try to turn these characters into some sort of angels who were diametrically opposed to success, fame and fortune. Like that's supposed to make them better artists or something. Foolish.
 
i don't think it was ever an issue of the banRAB disliking success. they disliked the way mass media warped their success to propagate their own enRAB.

either way in utero owns.

DOLL STEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
This is a tough one for me... I really love them both for different reasons. I would have to say In Utero. Besides the fact it was a great album with great songs, it was a bold move on Nirvanas part to go from such main stream (accepted) production to a more dirty/gritty production, and they did it well. So for that, In Utero wins.

I am proud to say when I was 16 I chose to rock out "Scentless Apprentice" at a talent show just because everybody under the sun was playing songs from Nevermind.
 
Back
Top