In Utero

[skunkboy69]

they changed the face of the way rock music was marketed. Not their fault, but there ya go

Yeah,I see where you're coming from.It must have drove Kurt mad to see how they were being marketed at the pop audience.

 

[rekil]

It's an ok album.I think they were an ok group.I listen to them quite often but just don't understand the hero worship they seem to get.Musically they seem pretty amateur (apart from Grohl on sticks).I'm a guitar beginner and can play their stuff easily without even thinking too much about it.I'm probably going to be shot down in flames for what I've said but I honestly don't see how they changed the face of rock music

Playing simple hook laden tunes is one thing, creating them is another. See Surfer Rosa for simple but brilliantly effective musicianship.

I don't like In Utero at all. It's too self referential, too self conscious and doesn't rock. I much prefer the Jesus Lizard and Killdozer stuff from that time.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Errr, except they didn't.

Bleach is the best Nirvana record by a mile.

Bleach is certainly my fave Nirvana album in terms of good tunes to not-so-good tunes.

I rate In Utero as a good album, but it's on the strength of 3 or 4 tracks that I REALLY rate and the rest which I'm pretty "so what?" about.

They were brilliant live, though. I remember seeing Nirvana, Buffalo Tom, Tad and the Lemonheads all in the space of about 6 months in 90-91 and thinking "hey, the yanks have got their finger out at last".

 

[ViolentPanda]

i think that's overstating the case a tad.

(Homer Simpson impersonation) Mmmmm, Tad.

 

[twistedAM]

...playing Icky Mettle
Next up No Pocky For Kitty

Both more timeless than anything Cobain.

 

[kained&able]

who were they by???

To be a timeless classic not only does it have to be a danm fine album but a hell of a lot of people need to know the album.

Janus stark in my opinion released the best pop punk album of all time, but it can't be called a classic in the same way as smash or dookie say as no one owns it and probbaley wont have heard a song off it.


dave

 

[selamlar]

Originally Posted by Cheesypoof:
Phenomenol. I really love this album, its very raw and uncompromising. Very clear that Nirvana had creative freedom to do exactly what they wanted with this record....geffen wouldnt have touched it if Nirvana had accepted a $1 million creative control waiver, rather than a paltry $250,000 deal protecting all creative freedom. Exactly the right way.....I saw Nirvana live a few weeks before Kurt died, on the In Utero tour, in Feb 1994. It was sublime...

Originally Posted by Cheesypoof:I was absolutely, fully and completely commited and devoted to the cause of NIRVANA from the second i heard Nevermind, to the golddust moment of seeing them in the point depot in dublin, as a nipper of 14, a few months before he killed himself, in 1994!!

Know what I've just realised. Nirvana didn't play Dublin in 1994. They played Dublin in 1992, sure, but that was the 'Nevermind' tour, not In Utero. Was going to see them in Birmingham myself. Bollocks

 

[ViolentPanda]

bleach is indeed brilliant, i love everything by nirvana and my fav song overall by them is on bleach - cant remember the name of it though..

You. Don't. Remember. The. Title. Of. Your. FAVOURITE. Nirvana. Song. Overall?

Bloody hell.

 

[Dubversion]

Yeah,I see where you're coming from.It must have drove Kurt mad to see how they were being marketed at the pop audience.

not what i meant, really. more that Nirvana - through no fault of their own - legimitised hoary old metal bands who dumped the spandex and bought some plaid shirts....

'grunge' was initially a fusion of garage, punk and decent metal (sabbath etc). Somehow it soon turned into awful sludgy metal by miserable bastards.

 

[May Kasahara]

To be a timeless classic not only does it have to be a danm fine album but a hell of a lot of people need to know the album.

Why?

There are lots of reasons for judging something a timeless classic, all entirely subjective. That's the wonderful world of music for you

 

[kained&able]

I would have though a major criteria would be recored sales though.(NOT SAYING ANYTHING THAT SELLS WELL IS A CLASSIC!!!)

You simply cant have a classic album that flopped. can you?? Then it becomes a cult album or something? surely?

dub you thinking of anyone in paticular with " Somehow it soon turned into awful sludgy metal by miserable bastards. "

You'd better leave alice in chains and soundgarden out of that statement or i'll... i'lll. umm disagree with you as usual.


dave

 

[Dubversion]

dub you thinking of anyone in paticular with " Somehow it soon turned into awful sludgy metal by miserable bastards. "

You'd better leave alice in chains and soundgarden out of that statement or i'll... i'lll. umm disagree with you as usual.

funnily enough, it was precisely them - plus Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots etc - that i did mean

 

[rekil]

dub you thinking of anyone in paticular with " Somehow it soon turned into awful sludgy metal by miserable bastards. "

Bush? And perhaps coat tail riding MOR porridge like Pearl Jam and Stone Temple Pilots.

Beaten to it. Meh.

 

[kained&able]

funnily enough, it was precisely them - plus Pearl Jam, Stone Temple Pilots etc - that i did mean

i knew it was. I hate you pearl jam fair enough other then 10 and stone temple poilets entirely fair enough although they had some decnt tunes.

I love soundgarden and alice in chains. Listen to them two more then nirvana these days.

Oh and bush were fairly decent as well. First two albums were a bit grunge by numbers but they were definatly colouring within the lines. The last two were a lot more atmopsheric and good.


dave

 

[May Kasahara]

I would have though a major criteria would be recored sales though.(NOT SAYING ANYTHING THAT SELLS WELL IS A CLASSIC!!!)

You simply cant have a classic album that flopped. can you?? Then it becomes a cult album or something? surely?

Why's that then?

 

[Iam]

Sorry, are we suggesting that Nirvana is *not* awful sludgey metal played by miserable bastards, then?

*snicker*

 

[kained&able]

I dunno i guess to be a clasic it has to be ingrained on the general populations ears as well as just mine.

Theres plenty of albums i love that i don't consider classics and unfortunatly a fair few albums that are classics that i dont actully rate.

Classic just doesn't mean really really good album to me a lot of people have to agree and remember it for long time afterwards.

Like cold 13 ways to bleed on satge or vex red start with a stong and persistent desire. Two of the best albums i have ever listend to but so few people even know the bands so can't be a classic.

Travis- the man who. sold shit loads but no one admits to ever owning it these days so not a classic.

Clash london calling- everyone loves it thinks it changed music, sold well everyone still rates it. I can't be asred with it in the slightest. Classic.

I dunno its just what it means to me i guess but something that doesn't sell well just can't be a classic for my money.

dave

 

[rekil]

You simply cant have a classic album that flopped. can you?? Then it becomes a cult album or something? surely?

Velvet Underground, Big Star and Husker Du would be three examples off the top of my head of bands releasing classic albums which were commercial flops. Albums can flop through failure to get distributed adequately.

 

[kained&able]

iam nirvana rarely had anything metal in thier tunes. They were great pop songs with shit loads of fuzz played by a joker of a drummer and two miserable bastards.


dave

 

[kained&able]

Velvet Underground, Big Star and Husker Du would be three examples off the top of my head of bands releasing classic albums which were commercial flops. Albums can flop through failure to get distributed adequately.

Have they all sold well since? Although shite initial sales? Then i don't have to dig a hole. But epople have to know the names of classic albums really. Presuing they know the genre of course.

I wouldn't expect someone who only listen to rock to necesserily think nas illmatic was a classic. Or even who the fuck he was.

dave

 

[lights.out.london]

Sorry, are we suggesting that Nirvana is *not* awful sludgey metal played by miserable bastards, then?

*snicker*

Nirvana were sludgy metal of a kind; a band who couldn't manage the level of skill and virtuosity demanded by metal genres. After plundering the catalogues of bands such as the Ramones, the best they could manage was a three chord slow, slow, quick bit, slow. Very dull but essential, perhaps, if you're 13.

Neither metal nor punk. Shite.

**BOOM!**

 

[twistedAM]

who were they by???

To be a timeless classic not only does it have to be a danm fine album but a hell of a lot of people need to know the album.

Janus stark in my opinion released the best pop punk album of all time, but it can't be called a classic in the same way as smash or dookie say as no one owns it and probbaley wont have heard a song off it.


dave

archers of loaf and superchunk...i think the latter would fit the criteria of a classic on your grounds (which i disagree with)

 

[May Kasahara]

I wouldn't expect someone who only listen to rock to necesserily think nas illmatic was a classic. Or even who the fuck he was.

Thus proving my point that pretty much all definitions of a classic album are entirely subjective

 

[Iam]

They were great pop songs with shit loads of fuzz

Again, that's open to debate.

played by a joker of a drummer and two miserable bastards.

Ok, I'll give you that.

 

[bluestreak]

Nirvana were sludgy metal of a kind; a band who couldn't manage the level of skill and virtuosity demanded by metal genres. After plundering the catalogues of bands such as the Ramones, the best they could manage was a three chord slow, slow, quick bit, slow. Very dull but essential, perhaps, if you're 13.

Neither metal nor punk. Shite.

**BOOM!**

heh, have you liked any bands that have started out since 1984?

 

[kained&able]

ahh will give it a download then. I don't know it.


dave

 

[kained&able]

Thus proving my point that pretty much all definitions of a classic album are entirely subjective

All my opinions despite being presented as fact are entirely subjective. Tis my truth so im ALWAYS right.

I say a classic has to sell well. I also think it can't contain a single bad track on it, it has to be near perferct and blah blah blah but we aint disgareeing with that.

Is your definition of a classic simply any album you love then? You've knocked my definition but i dont think you've offered one up of your own.


dave

 

[Iam]

That suggests sales are indicative of quality, which we all know is complete bollocks... opinion or not...

 

[bluestreak]

yes, even people who think nirvana are no good and therefore have basically forfeited the right to post on any music thread IMO are right when they say that sales = quality is a fool's argument.

 

[Iam]

yes, even people who think nirvana are no good and therefore have basically forfeited the right to post on any music thread IMO are right when they say that sales = quality is a fool's argument.

I'm glad we managed to reach some agreement.

Even though you're a Kurt-sniffing, plaid-wearing ind-o-matic.