Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Nirvana Album Poll Thread

Vote


  • Total voters
    55
Correct me if I'm wrong.

But I've always thought (and its been reinforced by people I've met) but the people who've really got into Nirvana and listened to them loads and let it crawl into their head and shit - they're the ones who'll say that In Utereo is their best album.

Everyone else is just a fucking tourist and doesn't know what they're talking about.

IMO etc.
 
Bleach for me - it's just dirty fuzz punk

I listened to Bleach, then bought Superfuzz Bigmuff :cool:
 
I liked Nevermind at the time. But I haven't played it for more than 10 years. It was very much of its time.

The unplugged album, however, has a couple of good covers. One of the Vascelines' song. And I was a fan of them long before I heard Nirvana. And most impressively, of Leadbelly's Black Girl/ In the Pines/ Where Did You Sleep? (Leadbelly called it the former two, Nirvana the last name). I'm a great admirer of Leadbelly, and I think this cover is a remarkable reading of the song. I also hope it introduced Leadbelly to a wider audience. For those reasons Unplugged gets my vote.
 
akirajoel said:
Correct me if I'm wrong.

But I've always thought (and its been reinforced by people I've met) but the people who've really got into Nirvana and listened to them loads and let it crawl into their head and shit - they're the ones who'll say that In Utereo is their best album.
mmm, you're wrong. Sounds like you're talking about you and your mates.

As well as the other merits of Bleach previously mentined, it also doesn't ahve any 'trials of life in the rock biz' bullshit.
 
belboid said:
Sounds like you're talking about you and your mates.

Yeah. I am... But thats all I've got to go on - innit?

belboid said:
As well as the other merits of Bleach previously mentined, it also doesn't ahve any 'trials of life in the rock biz' bullshit.

Thats nowhere near as full-on as loadsa people make it seem.....
 
akirajoel said:
Yeah. I am... But thats all I've got to go on - innit?
or you could accept that you and your mates might be a sub-section of the wide fanbase Nirvana had?
 
J77 said:
Don't know who that is but google tells me he makes films...

Did he do one called, "Where were you..."

No, but he did one called "Kurt & Courtney", which largely consisted of him following the recently widowed Mrs Cobain from public event to public event while asking similar questions, on the basis of the "testimony" of just about every washed up junky loser in Seattle.

We all got to pay the rent, I guess.
 
Should the question be judged on how the albums are viewed now - or how they were viewed back in the day...?

Kurt300.jpg
 
belboid said:
or you could accept that you and your mates might be a sub-section of the wide fanbase Nirvana had?

Well.... Yeah. I could agree with you and obviously iits all just opinions and shit. And when I first read what you just said I thought - yeah. thats true.

But then - "wide fanbase."

Lots of people who are into Nirvana (and this applies to every band) are just "causal fans" - they like Nirvana but they don't love em. My point was - that members of the "narrow fanbase" pretty much always opt for In Utereo. You know what I mean?

Oh well. Whatever. Nevermind.

Heh.
 
J77 said:
Should the question be judged on how the albums are viewed now - or how they were viewed back in the day...?

Now.

And since you asked - I'm part of the second generation. One of those that only heard of them after they - erm - spilt up.

In 1991 i was 7.
 
Bleach - the anger, the energy - a work of genius.

Blew
Love Buzz
About a Girl
Negative Creep
School

That came back with In Utereo, but as much as I love that album I find it a bit too, I don't know, self-concious...

As good as Nevermind is, the production ruins it. Live the songs are something else becauee they strip the shite sound Butch Vig put on. I think most Nirvana fan polls (at least the 3 i've seen) have put Neagtive Creep in either first or 2nd place for best track.
 
akirajoel said:
In 1991 i was 7.
See, that's what I can't quite understand. As we staggered out of the 80s, I was impressed by a band like Nirvana getting into the mainstream. And introducing the underground to a wider audience who were still having their ears assaulted by SAW.

I had been into hardcore (in the old sense) and indie music throughout the 80s, and by 1991 had liked the Pixies for some time. But here was a band with far more reach than the Pixies then had. That I liked.

Now, however, looking back, Nirvana really sound dated and pastiche. Whereas the bands they introduced to the mainstream audiences: Husker Du, Pixies, Dinosaur Jr, etc still sound fresh, and are far more widely known. So - here's the point - why do young people need Nirvana? The wide world of music is available to you more than ever before. In 1991, I had to get my indie records from backstreet shops, often waiting weeks for orders. Now I can click my mouse and download whatever I want. The landscape of music has changed beyond recognition. The "heritage" sales in the high street shops outstrips the latest releases. You have at your fingertips music since the dawn of recording.

Why bother with Nirvana now?
 
RenegadeDog said:
Come As You Are is one of my favourite songs ever.
It has to be smells like teen spirit - that song was the tits when you were 14, jacked up on cider, moshing for england.

And getting home to watch The Word :)
 
nevermind is by far my favorite album, something in the way, come as you are, lithium and smells like teen spirit(if im not bored of it at the time) make it a world class album.

Inutero has some well good songs but just can't compete with nevermind in terms of tunage, bleach and incesticide had thier wonderful moments but not good albums.

Unplugged was obviously the shit but its a live album and i refuse to count them same with greatest hits type jobs.


dave
 
pilchardman said:
Why bother with Nirvana now?

Nirvana is pop music with loud harsh guitars. Simple as.

Their music is fun, loud, beautiful, angry, happy and destructive all at once at the same time.

Personally - I never listened to "proper" music when i was young. For one whole misguided summer all I had was Whats The Story Morning Glory on my headphones. Then I mate lent me Nevermind on tape. I thought "cool cover" and then spent the next couple of months wearing it out through extended replaying...

Then I got Bleach. The Incesticide. Then In Utereo.

I don't think that the sound old or pastiche-like or whatever. In fact - I'm surprised by how really really fresh they still sound. Unlike the other bands you mentioned (who I've never really got into) Nirvana don't strike me as "heritage" music.

Why bother with Nirvana? Why bother with anything else?
 
akirajoel said:
Now.

And since you asked - I'm part of the second generation. One of those that only heard of them after they - erm - spilt up.

In 1991 i was 7.

there you go, you arrogant little whelp :D

i saw them, i dunno, 7 times?

i bought their stuff as it came out. I loved every record as it happened, very much indeed, and was gladdened that a band like that did so well. i don't blame them for the tide of shite that followed in their wake either.

but if i listen to a Nirvana album now, guess which one it is?

all your bleating about how it moves you is just teen-poetry, sounds like YOU'RE the one who listens to Killing In The Name.
 
Total aside, but one of my mates wtrote "fuck you I won;t do what you tell me" on his bedroom wall and then got grounded for a month :D :o Oh to be an angsty teenager again...

Now he likes James Blunt :eek:
 
Dubversion said:
all your bleating about how it moves you is just teen-poetry

Thats a fair point. But - hey - its hard writing about music. I just write whatever and click "submit reply."

I'd love to read some of your old music reviews.......... :)

Dubversion said:
i bought their stuff as it came out. I loved every record as it happened, very much indeed, and was gladdened that a band like that did so well. i don't blame them for the tide of shite that followed in their wake either.

Does that mean that you like then more? That you have a bigger claim to them? That you understand them better? That no-one could possibly be as good as liking Nirvana as you are? That you have a Nirvana Boy Scout badge?

I would love to hear what you think.
 
akirajoel said:
Does that mean that you like then more? That you have a bigger claim to them? That you understand them better? That no-one could possibly be as good as liking Nirvana as you are? That you have a Nirvana Boy Scout badge?

no, you muppet, it was a rejoinder to your posts which almost claim that only people who love Nirvana in the exact same way you do can REALLY love them. :p
 
Dubversion said:
no, you muppet, it was a rejoinder to your posts which almost claim that only people who love Nirvana in the exact same way you do can REALLY love them. :p

So what - are you saying that you love them more?

Do you think its not possible to love a band without seeing them live? To not even be aware of them while they were still together... Come on, you must admit that I sorta have a point.

I'm sure you must have a few bands in your collection that you love without ever having seen live.

J77 said:

I was young. Foolish. It was a birthday present. I had no idea and have since repented. And I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
 
akirajoel said:
So what - are you saying that you love them more?

Do you think its not possible to love a band without seeing them live? To not even be aware of them while they were still together... Come on, you must admit that I sorta have a point.

I'm sure you must have a few bands in your collection that you love without ever having seen live.
bloody hell! you having a problem with basic english? that's clearly not what he's saying at all, quite the opposite.
 
Back
Top Bottom