Quote:
Originally Posted by downwardspiral
In Utero is far better than Nevermind, and In Utero doesn't come ANYWHERE near anything Pixies have ever done. Bossanova takes a massive steaming shit on the face of In Utero/Nirvana in general.
|
What a load of reprehensible nonsense, on every level. It's amazing how these discussions rage on.
The two bands are not directly comparable. You might as well be comparing Led Zep and Caravan, or at least it makes about as much sense as this, which is none. Nirvana was a death rock band with mainstream pop credentials, who focused on making 'big' songs with a depressive/sombre feel. Pixies on the other hand (regardless of label affiliations) were basically indie punk. They focused on making quick songs that gave short bursts of dark though generally upbeat pop. The only thing the bands have to tie them together is the fact that Kurt Cobain was heavily influenced by Pixies, which is attested by his frequent use of the quiet-loud dichotomy (e.g. Smells Like Teen Spirit) that can be found in Pixies songs like Tame. Neither is really 'better' than the other, as there is no criteria by which to properly compare them. Better for what? If it's writing big hard-hitting rock tracks then Nirvana blow Pixies out the water.
I'll listen to Nevermind or In Utero over Surfer Rosa or Doolittle ANY day. They give me much more of a buzz. And as for In Utero being "far better" than Nevermind, then again they are not really directly comparable. Nevermind is, for one, much more mainstream. Half or more of In Utero is completely unlistenable from a masses standpoint. I think it's really down to personal preference. Nevermind is by far the better album from a pop standpoint, the opening 6 songs of which represent probably the strongest opening set of songs found anywhere in pop rock. In Utero goes other places entirely, not even aiming for that.