Nirvana C/D

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.

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?