Kirby

I would have to vote for the Pixies, 110%.

They're just an all around better band, in my opinion.

__________________

ChrisRC

I used to be a MASSIVE nirvana fan... posters, tshirts, bootlegs, live albums, all that jazz. In the past couple of years though I've gradually got a bit bored of them, I still have real love for In Utero but in general they're not really a favourite of mine anymore.
The Pixies on the other hand I just love. It took me a while to get into them but once I got in, mainly when I stopped listening to their best of (wave of mutilation) and tried Doolittle, my mind was opened! I love how they balance such balls out rock, weirdness and pop. I'm now definitely a fan.

So yeah, my vote goes to the pixies.

Key

Nirvana were not terrible for the time they were famous. Like any band, they had a lot of faults to them, and not every song of theirs is "oh my god" great. But I still find quite a few of their songs very very catchy. I still find myself singing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" because regardless of how overplayed that song was, it was not a bad song and it stuck to me like glue on paper. I don't listen to Nirvana regularly, nor did I ever that much before. I'll go with Nirvana on this one.

Goblin Tears

Pixies are great, but Nirvana have an edge over them. Nevermind trumps any album Pixies ever put out (or Nirvana themselves, for that matter).

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.

__________________

Rainard Jalen

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.

downwardspiral

I never said they were comparable really, I was just conforming to the thread and giving my two cents, similar to what you did here:

Thus nullifying your hissy fit about them not being comparable, I don't agree that they are as I'm sure I've mentioned previously in this thread, but the thread exists and I was giving my opinion exactly like you did. Also, your point about In Utero not being comparable to Nevermind is complete and utter tosh, they're two albums by the one band, so they're 100% comparable no matter how much you want to say they're not similar cos that doesn't even come in to it. And you really don't need to tell me what it is that Pixies do, they're pretty much my favourite band so it's safe to say I understand the point of their music. Besides, you can listen to SR and Doolittle all you like, fortunately it was Bossanova I pointed out mostly being better than anything Nirvana have done, that's a fact you'll need to face.

__________________

Janszoon

I've heard a lot of funny things claimed about Nirvana but this is the strangest by far. In what possible way would you describe Nirvana as death rock? They have way more in common with the Pixies than with someone like Christian Death.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Rainard Jalen

Cobain classified himself as a death rocker. I think the notion pretty much sums up the band.

To downwardspiral:

Two pieces of work by a single artist may not be directly comparable. This occurs where the goals differ and the outcomes are substantially different. I feel that this is the case where the two albums in question are concerned.

In terms of an overall cohesive statement and the notion of conceptual unity, I'll say that In Utero certainly accomplishes a great deal more than Nevermind. But then, Nevermind was not supposed to. In terms of high hitting pop moments, Nevermind wins. But then, In Utero wasn't trying to compete. Thus, the differing aims and outcomes prevent the two records from truly being directly comparable.

Janszoon

He also said said Nevermind was his attempt to recreate Doolittle and yet you claim Nirvana and the Pixies cannot be compared.

But regardless, you didn't answer my question. How does the "notion" of death rock sum up Nirvana if they don't sound like—or really have any of the attributes of—a death rock band?

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm