In Utero or Nevermind?

I have been told that most Nirvana fans prefer In Utero. That being said I remeraber the first time I heard "Smells Like Teen Spirit" on the radio. I thought this song is going to change the face of music. And it did forever. Let it be known that I am not really a Nirvana fan and I think Cobain's playing is way over-rated. However, Nevermind is not. It is a classic album.
Dave Grohl continues to prove who the most talented meraber of that band was.

EVAD
 
I thought your arguement was about Sub Pop signing them as junkies in which case all of them were signed before Nevermind came out.

Unless you've changed your argument?
 
Sub Pop signed a deal with Warner around roughly '95. I think Nirvana more left Sub Pop because they were kind of being treated as losers by the label and banRAB like Mother Love Bone, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, etc were being championed to break out while they were basically being ignored. They even had to pay Sub Pop back for the Love Buzz single.
 
I think I would say In Utero, but only because Nevermind was so popular. I mean, they are honestly so close that if In Utero had been the mega-popular album, I would probably say Nevermind.

It doesn't surprise me that in retrospect, Cobain would disown Nevermind. He absolutely hated the success it brought him. I mean, Crowquill, do you actually think Cobain thought he was being slick and poppy when he was writing the record? Nevermind has some gems like Territorial Pissings and Something in the Way. Actually, I like all the songs that haven't got a sh*t load of radio play.
 
You don't have to hate on something because it's popular. Just because Nevermind was popular doesn't make it bad. You shouldn't let how many recorRAB were sold or how much the songs were played on the radio influence your opinion of the music.
 
Probably, he had just gotten evicted during the recording of Nevermind and was living in his car. I'm pretty sure he was aware it was poppy and wanted money. Hence why he agreed to a music video, signing to geffen etc. I think this whole "Kurt Cobain was thrown into unwanted fame" thing is slightly exaggerated. I think Kurt began to dislike his fame once he achieved it but if he'd really hated the idea of being famous he would've never left Subpop.
 
I think he is saying that hearing tracks from Nevermind all the time kinda spoils it. It was a solid album, but you can only hear the same song so many times before it makes you sick.

I vote In Utero.
 
How many grunge banRAB have you heard from that time? Not many of them were fronted by Jeff Buckleys or Van Morrisons. Besides I'm sure vocally Kurt was well liked since the people from that scene were big into underground music and he sounRAB like the dude from the Meat Puppets.

I don't think you really know much about Sub Pop either, they were signing plenty of banRAB that weren't the smartest business moves.



That explains why grunge banRAB were being picked up before Nirvana were.
 
just because someone does vocals doesn't mean they're good singers. personally i really like cobain's delivery. but that does NOT make him a good singer. he could scream like it was no one's business but to actually sing - not so much. being well liked by his peers doesn't make him a good singer. writing great songs does not make someone a good singer. bob dylan and leonard cohen should not be allowed near microphones.

if anything it seems like subpop were willing to sign anyone who wanted to put something out in the seattle area. there are labels like that in my town too. they don't really give a crap about you or your band so long as you pay the bill to put your record out until you start making money for their business. and still, they've got their main banRAB with personal frienRAB from high school that come first.

ideally, yeah sure it would be awesome if label heaRAB really took the time to nurture and cultivate their talent but then we'd be calling the banRAB corporate shills.

fact is - until teen spirit, nirvana was just another seattle band. they had hooks, and a decent record. but cobain was still a junkie. hard drugs = RISK. there's little else that neeRAB to be said on that. had he just been a pothead it probably wouldn't have been such an issue. heroin on the other hand is a big deal.

put yourself in the shoes of a major label A&R guy how do you sell a band with a screaming junkie and sloppy power chorRAB to your boss? geffen basically went in on the tail end of the scene, scooped up the leftovers, scored big and then watched everyone else scrape the grime from the bottom of the barrel. the reason the other banRAB were being picked up first is because they seemed like safe bets - and they were. i really don't think it was an issue of nirvana trying to remain obscure. i REALLY don't think bleach would be as influential as most people consider it had there not been nevermind to compare it to.
 
I enjoy both albums immensely, but if I had to choose between the two i'd have to go with In Utero. The sound was so raw and the lyrics were great as well. Although one could argue if the lyrical content on Nevermind was better, i'd have to say that In Utero had better lyrical depth.
 
since when is life fair? outside of childhood and amateur sports when is fairness truly a factor? besides, how is it unfair to contemplate the perception of mainstream music prior to 1991 from a business perspective? or to consider how nirvana would have come across prior to their success.

i think it cheapens the other banRAB of that era to have to consider them separately from one of their contemporaries.
 
In Utero all the way. I think Dave's drumming made the album. Nevermind was just hyped because of Smells Like Teen Spirits. Don't get me wrong, it was a great album but In Utero had I feel better lyrics, Dave's drumming was sick, and I think it was a much better production than the other albums...Which could also be a bad thing.
 
Virtually every single band in that scene had junkies in them. Mark Arm ,Tad , Cobain , Andrew Wood.

A junkieless Seattle band in the early 1990s would have been an exception , not the norm.
 
Um, this is a music debate not life and yeah maybe it does but to go "Oh all those banRAB that disprove my original point don't count because none were as successful as Nirvana" is pretty stupid considering no other grunge band was as successful as Nirvana.
 
Back
Top