Profile
Search
Register
Log in
'Is a Nirvana-style breakthrough looming w/90's revival?'
View previous topic | View next topic >

Post new topic Reply to topic
Strange Famous Forum > The General Forum

Author Message
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7733
 Reply with quote  

and uh you are forgetting a very important album , Incesticide



which i believe was also after nevermind
Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:40 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8501
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

No, I do remember that album. It was released after Nevermind, but it's not a proper album per se. It's a compilation of b-sides and what-have-yous. The quality of each song is all over the place since they were recorded at different times and places throughout Nirvana's career. You can't count that one.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:00 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP


Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7733
 Reply with quote  

it definitely counts, its still put together as an album , flows great as a whole piece from track 1 til the end
Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:26 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2577
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  



So good
Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 1:42 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

Bleach, Nevermind, and In Utero are their only studio albums. Incesticide is a compilation album. So I think it's fair to exclude it if you are making a point only about the studio albums.

It has a few good songs on it, but it's not very consistent. I think that's the thing that also puts Nevermind over In Utero. I like the songwriting in In Utero more in parts--but there's a few clunky parts of that album--and I think the production got a little out of control in parts. It doesn't seem as focused and cohesive as Nevermind and Bleach. Though I do like it more than Bleach.

Unplugged is the one other thing that actually rivals Nevermind I think. It's so well done, and captures Kurt better than any of the studio albums ever managed to.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 8:59 pm
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
corporateslave



Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 1110
Location: Lawrence, KS
 Reply with quote  

Chuck Klosterman wrote an interesting bit about In Utero in "Eating the Dinosaur." He explains how the album was an attempt at intentionally making bad music, or at least something that would put off a majority of listeners. Apparently there were specific instructions in the cd booklet that the album was made to be heard with the bass at +2 and the treble at +5, and it was (as Klosterman says) the first time that something was promoted based on how much he would hate it. He outlines how it was made in reaction to creating Nevermind and the trouble with creating a follow-up to such a huge hit, and also out of Cobain's struggle to balance his desire to "be genuine" with his success.

Definitely worth a read if you come across it. I thought it was fascinating because it revealed a context for the album, which I had at the time, that I was completely unaware of. Being in jr. high I wasn't aware of the music scene at large, much less the idea that anyone would put out a record that was intended to be disliked. Yet that explains why I never liked it as much as Nevermind and why some of the tracks are so sloppy sounding and crazy.

And for the original question, as far as anyone being able to achieve Nirvana-type fame again, I don't think it's possible. Audiences are fragmented into much smaller portions today. Obviously it's possible to have a successful music career still, but as far as reaching that legendary status I don't see how it can be done, which I'm not sure that Nirvana did anyway because they really didn't put out enough material to reach the rock pantheon. You can only listen to their 4 or 5 albums so many times, I reached that limit a long, long time ago, and I'd be willing to wager that most people born since 1990 probably don't know much or care about them.
Post Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:38 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2577
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  

I remember reading Cobain hated the way In Utero was mixed. Not sure it was intentional on the band's part. I think he even wanted it either re-recorded or remixed. Didn't they record the entire thing in a record amount of time too?
Post Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:13 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8501
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

anomaly wrote:
Didn't they record the entire thing in a record amount of time too?


I see what you did there.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:43 am
 View user's profile Send private message
futuristxen



Joined: 01 Jul 2002
Posts: 19356
Location: Tighten Your Bible Belt
 Reply with quote  

anomaly wrote:
I remember reading Cobain hated the way In Utero was mixed. Not sure it was intentional on the band's part. I think he even wanted it either re-recorded or remixed. Didn't they record the entire thing in a record amount of time too?

Gah. Captiv 8 beat me to it
Post Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:39 am
 View user's profile Send private message AIM Address MSN Messenger
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2577
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  

haha, so much record in that post....

Post Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:46 am
 View user's profile Send private message
corporateslave



Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 1110
Location: Lawrence, KS
 Reply with quote  

anomaly wrote:
I remember reading Cobain hated the way In Utero was mixed. Not sure it was intentional on the band's part. I think he even wanted it either re-recorded or remixed. Didn't they record the entire thing in a record amount of time too?


Klosterman has a few quotes from Cobain and the producer that they were quite aware that the record would not sell as well as Nevermind, and that they were intentionally trying to make a record that a " normal" audience wouldn't like. Like I said, I wasn't aware at the time of the larger scope of the music industry, but it makes sense if you look at where Nirvana came from.

Cobain auditioned for the Melvins early on and was friends with those guys, and I think the Melvins are more emblematic of the typical Seattle grunge band than Nirvana. They can rock hard, and they could easily make songs that appeal to the masses of suburban youth that (back then) drove record sales through the roof. But they chose to incorporate so many weird, unconventional elements into their music that it isn't really fit for mass consumption, yet they still have a solid core audience that their music appeals to. They started in about 1985, and I just saw them last week at a club in Boston playing to a crowd of a couple hundred. They're never going to achieve megastar status as a band, and I don't think they incorporate the weird elements into their music just for the sake of being weird or to repel people, but more to explore and take risks and make music that is more exciting for the audience and themselves, even if the audience that can appreciate their efforts is much smaller.

With Nirvana, I think they kind of accidentally found themselves on the mainstream side of the fence with Nevermind, and In Utero was likely an attempt to realign or re-establish themselves as being part of the experimental noise rock scene that they came out of.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2012 9:49 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Captiv8



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8501
Location: Third Coast
 Reply with quote  

That may have been the intention with In Utero, but I think the bulk of the album would sound good to anyone that hopped on the fanwagon with Nevermind. "Heart-shaped Box", "Dumb", "Pennyroyal Tea", and "All Apologies"? These are all fairly conventional songs that still sound fantastic. The only real difference I can hear that lends itself to this "making a bad album" thing is that the production value is not as high, deliberate or not. It's grittier and more riddled with feedback. I also think the record is more aggressive. It's still weird for me to (finally) realize that this album came out after Nevermind. Because of its lower quality I guess I always assumed it was a predecessor.
Post Tue Oct 09, 2012 10:28 am
 View user's profile Send private message
Jesse Custer



Joined: 01 Dec 2006
Posts: 1257
Location: London
 Reply with quote  

futuristxen wrote:


Unplugged is the one other thing that actually rivals Nevermind I think. It's so well done, and captures Kurt better than any of the studio albums ever managed to.


It really does; I think it's their best work. Also the Alice in Chains Unplugged is by far their best work.... MTV were on to something, yo..
Post Tue Oct 09, 2012 11:38 am
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
anomaly
Loserface


Joined: 22 May 2008
Posts: 2577
Location: DFW, TX
 Reply with quote  

STP Unplugged made me happy
Post Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:44 pm
 View user's profile Send private message
T-Wrex
p00ny tang


Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 6376
Location: Detroit, Michigan
 Reply with quote  

Unplugged and Muddy Banks Of Wishkaw are both great albums...

Nirvana Unplugged is what a good live album should be...
Reinterpretations and reworkings of originals, extended bridges and solos, crowd banter, encores, emotion, excitement, etc..
Nobody wants to go to a concert and listen to a CD quality song when paying a performer to see them perform...

I kinda compare 'em to Dead Poet, Live Album and Road Tested..
To me, some songs on those are better than the originals..

And they're some of the few live hip-hop albums that I own.. with Jay-Z unplugged, Roots Come Alive and BDP's Live Hardcore Worldwide... and they're all good. I don't know why more emcees don't have live shit...

the Eminem Live From New York isn't that good, though...
Post Tue Oct 09, 2012 4:48 pm
 View user's profile Send private message

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
All times are GMT - 6 Hours.
The time now is Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:09 pm
  Display posts from previous:      


Powered by phpBB: © 2001 phpBB Group
Template created by The Fathom
Based on template of Nick Mahon