Nirvana C/D

Another important thing that doesn't get talked about enough here it seems is the social aspect of it. A big part of what Nirvana means/t to me has to do with performing arrangements of some of their songs with friends in a music class project (laugh if you want to; even we thought it was kind of funny at the time) or in other gatherings and seeing other people playing their songs on guitars all the time in hallways or parties or on the street; hearing Unplugged repeatedly when people got together; hearing "Lithium" on the PA (they played a song every morning) and seeing people nod heads or hum along; this sense of identifying closely with the sound and emotion in somethng and sharing that with hordes of other people (which was probably really alienating for people who didn't get into their music).

What Justyn said is pretty OTM (Smells Like Teen Spirit totally changed my life too), though my problem with Nirvana isn't so much that they sound forlorn, but that if I start to think about their hype and myth the songs can sound very stick-in-the-mud. Granted, most of their Seattle peers and the modern day plodders sound stick-in-the-mud even without thinking about their aesthetic. And the songs that are coming to mind here at work I'm really enjoying.

It's funny how half of Nirvana's hype and actions was GREAT, EARNED and affected lots of people and how the other half is so reprehensible that it's thoroughly tempting to ignore the good stuff. Though Nirvana is easily more important and better, sometimes I think I prefer obvious imitators Local H, whose angst and energy is much more coherent and truly anthemic (since they don't talk in code, Local H doesn't depend on hype, nostalgia and zeitgeist to connect). The two singles the Vines put out remind of what first grabbed me about Nirvana too: Beatles getting electrocuted.

I hate so much about what they represent, but when I think about songs like "Negative Creep," "Aneurysm," "Sliver"...there's just no question they're classic.

In an alternate universe somewhere, Bob Mould actually took the production job for Nevermind and popular music history went an entirely different way...

OTM.

No, you go fuck YOURself, moppett!

Fuck Teh Hatas, anti-Nirvanaism is for wankers.

OTM = ON THE MONEY, ON THE MARK, etc.

*stomps out door to smoke cigarette*

Well, considering Killing Joke were making amazing, influential music when Kurt was only twelve years old, I'd say they're already in the fuckin' canon.

The anti-(mainstream) canon thing I'm referring to is a stupid, conformist herd-like mentality thing and it needs to stop at some point in the near future. It's a ridiculously pretentious conceit dreamed up by so-called hipsters that makes no sense. Replacing mainstream touchstones with cult "hipster" touchstones is absolutely meaningless.
It goes a little something like this:

THE BEATLES? FUCK THAT SHIT! THE VELVET UNDERGROUND!
LED ZEPPELIN? FUCK THAT SHIT! THE STOOGES!
NIRVANA? FUCK THAT SHIT! MUDHONEY!
and so on...sorry if I'm getting a little lazy with "cult" examples but you get the idea.

You can like all of the above mentioned bands, you know. I do. It's not against the law, they're not gonna revoke your fucking Wire subscription or anything. It doesn't prove anything to anybody with a mind of their own.

(Sorry, I don't usually pontificate like this, but that shit just ticks me off.)

Well, I think the problem with this equation is context. The Velvet Underground came from totally different place/environment/perspective than the Beatles. Likewise, the Stooges came from a different place/headspace/mentality than Led Zeppelelin.

Mudhoney and Nirvana, meanwhile, were so damn similar they actually shared members. Nirvana were not a reaction against Mudhoney (in the way that the Velvets were a reacion against flower power or that the Sex Pistols were a reaction against Pink Floyd, etc.)

They define the sound of Grunge.

....I'd say: POPPYCOCK! Soundgarden and the Melvins defined the sound of Grunge.

Forks, consider it done. I'll get on it as soon as I have time and post the result.

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.