Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

That was exactly my point. And it came off like posturing. Age has a few things to do with it.

I was born in 1982. I don't own many (if any) albums from that year, or the years around it, and have no desire to, regardless of how solid the album is, go back a lay down a slick $20 to grab up something I can get whenever. I think at a young age you aren't open to most things that have long since past and given the way CD run up against your wallet, i'd say that dropping $20 on a nirvana cd is a little much to ask.

And despite whatever arguments may arise, the album is great and because of that those wanting to distance themselves from the unwashed masses will deny to no end their love for it. Look back through these pages to see exactly what I mean.

If you seriously are suggesting that its a watered down album, then what you're going to end up doing to save face is conclude that these are all opinions that cannot be argued. But we've been down that road and I think if we're being reasonable, Nevermind is not your cup of tea, but is, by and large, a great album. Solid at the very least.

And I can't even blame swim alone for this, the money hungry journalists who are starved for something to write about brought up the carnage-fetish, B-side of Tattoo You loving heathens to write a contrary article to fill the pages of many a shill magazine (I'm looking at you Spin). When the "Ten years since Nevermind" hype ended and they needed to blow Nirvana some more i remamber one article being titled:

"Bollacks to Nevermind, Here's In Utero"

You can imagine that how the column went after a title like that. I certainly think there are some missteps on Nevermind, and I'd never say its perfect, nor do I listen to it on any sort of a regular basis, but I don't think its fair to say its sub par and above all else, it stands to be a heavy contender for oojay's original question.