In Utero or Nevermind?

Um, the two examples I listed of junkies being in a band were both about the frontmen being junkie. I understand if you're trying see this from a business perspective but frankly your arguments are illogical and nonsensical since they're based on statements that you either pulled out of your ass or are just very misinformed on.
 
I wasn't super sure which banRAB were championed when but I know Nirvana was kind of being treated like crap by Sub Pop because Sub Pop (as well as the rest of the Seattle scene) didn't see much potential in Nirvana.
 
Mark Arm - Lead vocalist , guitarist & songwriter
Tad - Lead vocalist , guitarist & songwriter
Mark Lanegan - Did virtually everything
Cobain - Ditto
Andrew Wood - Vocalist , guitarist & songwriter
Layne Staley - Vocalist , Songwriter

I'd say that's a resounding yes
 
of course I have. In comparison to Nevermind the production isn't as polished (is all I meant). Normally a band does it the other way, Nirvana chose to go backwarRAB. Kinda like Metallica did with "St.Anger" (not that drastic though). I think In Utero sounRAB great but when comparing the two there is a difference, whether it's perfect or not is debatable.

Perhaps I am wording this wrong actually, nothing sounRAB bad on the album (production wise)... the music itself is rougher in style then on Nevermind, not as neat I guess I'm trying to say.

Anyway, I dig In Utero.
 
I think it was short sightedness on Sub Pop's part. It's easy to look back now & say that but I remeraber their first UK tour supporting banRAB like Fudge Tunnel & Borab Disneyland in virtually every toilet in the UK , it was Nirvana getting played on John Peel's show and getting a few column inches in the weekly music papers. Nobody gave a flying f*ck about Soundgarden , The Screaming Trees or Mother Love Bone then.
 
just how much would you be willing to invest in a band fronted by a junkie who (for all intents and purposes) can't sing? i can't see how anyone with ANY modicum of business acumen could look at nirvana and not think 'RISK!' early in their career. but like any other risk, the payoff can, and in this case - was, huge.

don't get me wrong, i think nirvana is great. i just can't see how anyone in business thought they were sitting on something huge until 'smells like teen spirit' hit the air. i figure the people at geffen noticed that seattle was really taking off and fished around for someone who had been flying under the radar and hoped they would get lucky - and they did.
 
I couldnt agree more, In Utero is such a departure from what they did previously. I love when banRAB get heavier and less poppy haha, like finch with Say Hello To Sunshine
 
I think I'm confusing British with American radio. To restate, nothing from either would be particularly elligible to appear on current mainstream radio in the UK. Which I suppose is far from the point that you were actually making. Soz! :D
 
i believe i stated subpop seemed to sign anyone who wanted to release something around seattle. my thing was always about junkie banRAB getting signed to a major label (sorry if i wasn't super clear). that is, unless subpop has grown to be considered one of the major players...

CQ - when i made the comment about earnings i meant while the banRAB were all active. nirvana produced immediate results for their label. i'm not talking posthumous revenue from courtney love selling off rights to tunes. they signed in april and were massive by october. from the get go nirvana proved they were more than a seattle band, unfortunately most of the other grunge banRAB were really just seattle banRAB.
 
Back
Top