Poll: Bandwagonesque v. Nevermind v. Loveless

it makes me sad. and sometimes it feels triumphant to me. i like that it's about the sadness of history. the production is a little wonky at times, but it doesn't bother me.

Scott, you should try Grant Hart's solo stuff. His 1999 disc -- Good News for Modern Man -- is great. (xp)

Haven't heard Nova Mob.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfx7tvGisbA

it's not for everybody. the pompeii one. i think you either feel it or you don't.

o_0 at that Rolling Stone review of Bandwagonesque.

Tempted to vote Bandwagonesque cuz that's what I actually listen to the most and has the most sentimental value, but really its not a patch on the impenetrability of Loveless. Nevermind way way way far behind the other two.

scott that roxette album is not better than nevermind or bandwagonesque. loveless maybe, but only maybe

1991 was just the most musically disillusioning year for me in my entire life. And that had to do with exactly two factors: I was eighteen, and indie bands were streamlining their sound and signing to majors.

And in both instances, you grew up and realized you were wrong.

Yes and no. Certainly I'm the first to admit that at 18, I didn't like seeing bands groom themselves for success. But then, at 36, I still don't. I just understand the whole process better now.

Anyone who disagrees with the following is a moron: Bleach > Nevermind. Justice > Black Album. Mind is a Terrible Thing > Psalm 69. Nothingface > Angel Rat.

Also, I saw Nirvana live pre and post Nevermind and I can personally attest to the fact that their live show suffered immediately.

DRAIN YOU

I would signing with a big label is usually a big idea unless that label requires you to change your style. Usually it means nothing else than bigger budgets and bigger budgets=better music.

bigger budgets=better music

They can mean that, but I'm sure that's not always true.

impenetrability of Loveless.

why is impenetrability a virtue on its own?

I was 18 and I think all of these came out during my first term at university.

Loveless - this is the album I was eagerly waiting for and easily my favourite of these three, but at the time I felt a bit underwhelmed by it (not because it was bad, it just seemed a bit *less* experimental than the Glider & Tremelo EPs that had come out before it).

Bandwagonesque - I couldn't really understand why people were raving about this. It's very bland. I didn't dislike the group and I loved 'Everything Flows', but this just seemed a bit dull and polished. Worst of the three, haven't heard anything off it for years and years.

Nevermind - Again, I didn't actually think Nirvana were bad, but I was mystified by how massive they became, and (much like Oasis a few years later) I grew to dislike them because they were so hyped and omnipresent. They didn't seem to be doing anything special or significantly different from what was already around, but somehow took over the world for a year or two.

i know what you mean about nirvana and the hype but at least they made decent melodic indie rock whereas oasis just made totally forgettable retro-rock without any interest at all. me too i thought bandwagonesque was bland and boring but it isn't. it is absolutely wonderful. behind all that polish and blandness there are wonderful melodies and a lot of noise. whereas loveless is a noise record with the tunes hidden behidn the noise, bandwagonesque is a pop record with the noise hidden within the beautiful harmonies and melodies.

why is impenetrability a virtue on its own?

mm I guess because no matter how many times you listen to it, there is always more to hear

more what, go-nowhere fuzzy guitar strumming and marble mouthed moaning?

its just one of those records where its endlessly absorbing trying to figure out exactly what is going on, how the sounds are being made (even tho I know Shields' guitar set-up was not especially complicated). its the same with Phil Spector's 60s singles - everything is so smashed into this mono mess, things blur together in a unique way.

I am aware these are not particularly profound or novel observations about MBVs sound but whatevs

spectors 60s singles had hooks and shit tho.

"more what, go-nowhere fuzzy guitar strumming and marble mouthed moaning?"

you tell 'em, chuck! hey, wait...

spectors 60s singles had hooks and shit tho.

eh, there are hooks in the MBV stuff. I think the bigger difference is that Spector loved a) really, propulsive, strong rhythm sections and percussion and b) singers and Kevin Shields wasn't interested in either of those things, really.

some folks here in need of a raggetting

i think a lot of my loveless hate comes down to two things. a) the drum sound (and to a lesser degree the production in general) and b) that everyone had built it up for me so much that when i finally heard it, age fourteen or fifteen i guess, i just couldn't hear anything revelatory or mindblowing in it at all. and i was into other other guitar-noise-rock bands at the time!--the sonic youths were my favorite band, and i was getting really into stuff like flying saucer attack & bardo pond. my first listen to the Dead C's "Trapdoor Fucking Exit" was a lot more impressive and memorable than the pile of thin pink goo that is the loveless experience.

"the sonic youths" - I must have missed them

dude come on over and listen to my u.k. pressing of loveless really loud. sounds great! and it's not thin at all. the bass is totally in yer face.

isn't anything, that album always sounded bad to me. i had a u.s. pressing and a cd of it and it always just sounded like a rehearsal for loveless. the feed me with your kiss u.k. 12 inch i have sounds MASSIVE. so great. the album version is so pitiful in comparison.

"the sonic youth":
http://www.sonicyouth.com/mustang/lp/lp05a.jpg

also read "youths" as rhyming with "soothes."

i do think loveless has hooks. it's really pretty catchy. and i just like how it sounds. i might even love how it sounds. and i like those singles that go with that album. it really DOES sound great loud. i wish i had a copy here to play now, actually.

loveless has ENORMOUS hooks, and hooks within hooks, etc amen

there is one memorable loveless song and it is "Sometimes." that song i really liked, and like.

is that because "sometimes" is a lot sparser than the others? it seems to operate along more of a single melody than the other tracks, which bend and soar and dive all at once in (imo glorious) guitar-chaos

i mean, "when you sleep" for instance has hooks a mile wide but Shields piles on layer after tremeloed layer on top of them, an effect which for me strengthens the hook, but might for someone else detract from it

fwiw "loomer" is my loveless favourite, that chorus is elemental, even if (especially if) it does sound like it's being played underwater

I'm guessing the people who are listing 20+ albums they're claiming are "better than Nevermind" probably haven't listened to it since 1991.

Seriously.. Heart In Motion?? Use Your Illusion???

Also the 2nd half of Nevermind has Lounge Act, Stay Away and On A Plain which are all badass.. I'm not sure what anyone is talking about with how it's a poorly sequenced record.. Up until this thread, I've never heard a single person use this argument against Nevermind.

"Loomer" is one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard.. I wish it was longer than 2:40.

there is one memorable loveless song and it is "Sometimes." that song i really liked, and like.

the best songs on Loveless sound like they should be on Souvaki ("Sometimes" and "When you Sleep"). In my opinion, Souvlaki is a far better album, and one I return to much more than Loveless.

I can't really comment on the sequencing of Nevermind (haven't really ever ingested it as an album per se) but I do have major qualms with the thin production. They were promising a remixed "heavier" 10th anniversary edition, but that never happened. I'm still holding out for this to occur so I can enjoy it. I think the songwriting is great. But the sound is pretty lame... especially following a budget recording that is so much meatier and more satisfying.

Nevermind is thin? It sounds quite beefy to me, especially in comparison to, say, In Utero.

really love all 3 albums for different reasons ...
i was 13 years old in 1991 living in mexico, so my musical tastes have shifted with the times ....

If it wasnt for Nevermind I guess 90% of my generation would still be listening to hair metal, so Nirvana was alpha and omega for me the start of it it all, i wouldnt have listened to TFC or MBV for that matter, if i hadnt bumped into Kurt, Dave and Chris trashing everything in SNL.

I really enjoyed Bandwagonesque, know all the lyrics at heart, but lacks any life changing expiriences at least for me. I remember the trek in my bicycle to my local record shop to buy that cassete tape very fondly though.

But Loveless does it for me, i didnt hear it untill i was 19-20 years old and still come back to it at some time or another, a true classc, and aural orgasm.

Heart in Motion?!?!!?!

And no irony or anything.. just straight up "Yeah, Amy Grant is better than Nirvana.. that's how cool I am, that I contain an opinion that's just so subversive"

What, no Cooleyhighharmony? Just to round things out?

I remember my reaction to Loveless when I first heard it being "wow, I can't believe something this fuzzy and indistinct is so tuneful catchy!" Also, I was a big big fan of "Soon" before I heard the album.

"If it wasnt for Nevermind I guess 90% of my generation would still be listening to hair metal"

instead of what, nickleback? thanx a bunch, nirvana.

ALBUMS FROM 1991 THAT ARE BETTER THAN NIRVANA COS THEY IS JUST SO OVERRATED

2 LEGIT 2 QUIT
Waking Up The Neibhbors
THE "JEREMY" SINGLE I LOVE THAT "YELLOW LEDBETTER" gets to me every time i heard it
We Can't Dance by Genesis
Paula Abdul "Spellbound" FOr the vocal performance on "Hush Hush" alone
The Mo Money soundtrack
For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge (I cried the first time I saw the "Right Now" video)

instead of what, nickleback? thanx a bunch, nirvana.

True, these bands are sonically identical.

"And no irony or anything.. just straight up "Yeah, Amy Grant is better than Nirvana.. that's how cool I am, that I contain an opinion that's just so subversive"

LOTS of people prefer amy grant to nirvana!

I'm sure they do, but why discuss this on a thread comparing 3 alternative rock albums??