Nirvana C/D

I, like a lot of other curious youngsters at the time, purchased a copy of Every Good Boy Deserves Fudge shortly after getting into Nevermind.
It is not a comparable record in any way - songwriting, accessibility whathaveyou.
If Mudhoney were the ones on DGC at the time receiving the label push and Nirvana were still on Sub Pop, Nevermind wouldn't have been as big as it was obviously, but there's no way in hell EGBDF would have gotten as big as Nevermind in reality did. That kind of nonsense thinking is EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

What I'm getting at is that this "If circumstances were different, if THIS (beloved cult band) band had the big push that THIS (huge mainstream juggernaut band) things shoulda coulda woulda".....stuff is BUNK. That didn't happen, get over it. Nirvana were the ones that got huge, period. This is magic fairytale thinking stuff (god, I sound like LeBrainBoy).
Anyways, trying to justify the success or non-success of a band like this is pointless.
What happened happened. End of story. It does not change the content of these records.
Thriller, for example, is not more or less better a record than the day it was finished for selling 26 million copies or 50,000.

Nirvana only left us with a paltry THREE studio albums. Regardless of the merit of the music, there's simply no way to compare them with the Beatles. Did Nirvana make a big impact? Sure, but just not on the scale as the Beatles. And I'm not even that much of a Beatle fan. Media perceptions, it should also be remembered, have changed. Today's media operate in a totally different manner than the media of the mid-to-late 60's. It's simply a different world.

Relative to their decade, they were as big as the Beatles in the mind of the rock press.

I'm not REFUTING that. I'm merely pointing out that Nirvana are NOT PRACTICALLY COMPARABLE to the Beatles due to the fact that they don't have enough material to COMPETE with them. Nirvana's fame is based pretty exclusively on Nevermind (the other releases were nice, yeah, but had there been no Nevermind, they wouldn't have made much of a difference). The Beatles, meanwhile, re-wrote the rule book itself a couple of times and debates continue TO THIS DAY as to which of their several "important" albums is the greatest. Compared to the Beatles, Nirvana are basically just a one-hit-wonder. That's my point.

See:
In the public (read: mainstream media) perception of things, Killing Joke are a small cult thing compared to The Beatles and Nirvana.

The fact that they were no where near as original or important as the Beatles makes no difference. I'm talking about media perceptions and subjective hipster reactions to them here.

I'm not talking about REALITY. I'm talking about MEDIA.

Which can finally bring me back to my main point. The media DOES have influence in the sense that I believe a hipster Nirvana backlash would not exist if not for the constant media necrophila of Kurt Cobain and his little grunge band. They're still good records if you can truly say "Fuck the Media" and get all that nonsense about them out of your head.

Well, the media arguably fuels the imaginations of the young and impressionable (i.e. 'graveside groupies' who lap up the mythologizing), but I don't think it's solely the media's fault.

If you still believe that, what conceivable reasons for a backlash are there besides the media hype and their ensuing continued popularity?

None of this was meant as a personal attack, Aaron, I was just drunk at the wheel and thinking out loud. I do think it's disingenuous to deny that some of Nirvana's influence is based on the glamour of suicide. Same with Joy Division, The Doors, whoever. Of course that doesn't detract from their relative merits as bands, but it is a factor in the way they are treated by some people. I don't think it's patronising to say that it tends to be those who come to the band after they've stopped...a kind of distance lending enchantment to the view.

As for the canon, well, knee-jerk hipsterism is a silly game to play, but has it occurred to you that not everybody thinks, say, The Beatles or Nirvana are that interesting? And I think people tend to react exaggeratedly against things that they're told they must agree are important or good. I've seen people on ILM make strong and interesting cases for the reassessment of just about every band I've ever loved, hated or been indifferent to. It's not a question of right and wrong answers, it's a question of the skill of the argument.

The point of canons is to keep chipping away at them, isn't it?

I thought this was the point...

http://www.nps.gov/hafe/jpeg/cannon-fire.jpg

but has it occurred to you that not everybody thinks, say, The Beatles or Nirvana are that interesting?
NO

some of Nirvana's influence is based on the glamour of suicide
YES

that doesn't detract from their relative merits as bands, but it is a factor in the way they are treated by some people.
YES

knee-jerk hipsterism is a silly game to play
YES

The point of canons is to keep chipping away at them, isn't it?
NO

It's not a question of right and wrong answers, it's a question of the skill of the argument.
NO

'It's not a question of right and wrong answers, it's a question of the skill of the argument.'
Why is it not that?

:::sigh::::

On Mudhoney: "Touch Me I'm Sick" was a good song. That's all I can say about them.

Awfully big of ya.

Because it makes not a lick of difference to the history of popular music if some pudwapper on ILM makes a strong and interesting cases for the reassessment of the Beatles, Nirvana etc. NONE ZERO ZILCH NADA.

True, that.

I assume you enjoy the company of pudwappers, Aaron, else why bother coming here?

History isn't a series of established facts, it's a series of changing responses to stuff that mightn't've happened the way people want to remember it.

Also, "people just pretend to not like the same things as me cos they think it makes them cool" isn't really a strong or interesting argument about anything, is it?

If you think I'm about to have the same debate I had with Alex last night with you, you're crazy. Read that discussion again. I'm not gonna deal with this again.

but has it occurred to you that not everybody thinks, say, The Beatles or Nirvana are that interesting?

The Beatles and Nirvana changed ideas about popular music in their respective decades. If that at the very least is not interesting to you, what are you doing following pop music in the first place??????