The Pixies vs Nirvana

Rainard Jalen · 12-31-2010, 09:33 AM

My point is, Cobain was a death rocker. That term carries its own resonance outside the confines of any genre definitions.

He also made the biggest statement of death rock, by putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger.

lieasleep · 12-31-2010, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

My point is, Cobain was a death rocker. That term carries its own resonance outside the confines of any genre definitions.

He also made the biggest statement of death rock, by putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger.

what does the genre that nirvana is in have to do with this this thread?

**Janszoon** · 12-31-2010, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Thanks for coming along.

"Deathrock songs use simple chords, echoing guitars, a prominent bass, and drumming which emphasizes repetitive, post-punk beats within a 4/4 time signature. To create atmosphere, scratchy guitars are sometimes used. Lyrics can vary, but are typically introspective and surreal, and deal with the dark themes of isolation, disillusionment, loss, depression, life, death, etc."

"The frequently simplistic song structures, heavy atmosphere and rhythmic music place a great demand on lead vocalists to convey complex emotions, so deathrock singers typically have distinctive voices and strong stage presences."

I couldn't have described Nirvana better myself.

Again Rainard Jalen underscores his lack of familiarity with death rock.

TheCunningStunt · 12-31-2010, 05:00 PM

The Beatles made Pop songs and Psychedelic Pop, The Stones made gritty Rhythm & Blues rock & roll... they've still been compared since the dawn of man and despite having different sounds, everyone has a favourite or at least an opinion. Why do they have to sound exactly the same for there to be a comparison?
Plus if the front man of a band says he tried to rip off another band, there's cause for a comparison right there.
They did sound alike, but Nirvana appealed to the masses.
But even if they don't sound a like, why can't you compare them?

Unknown Soldier · 12-31-2010, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

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.

Despite the decent argument that you are putting out. The Pixies and Nirvana are very comparable especially since Nirvana were heavily modelled on the Pixies. The comparison between Led Zep and Caravan was not a great analogy. As brilliant as the Pixies were, I`d still sooner listen to a Nirvana album.

Unknown Soldier · 12-31-2010, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

The Beatles made Pop songs and Psychedelic Pop, The Stones made gritty Rhythm & Blues rock & roll... they've still been compared since the dawn of man and despite having different sounds, everyone has a favourite or at least an opinion. Why do they have to sound exactly the same for there to be a comparison?

They are compared, as they are the two biggest and most influential bands to have ever come out of England. They`ve nothing in common musically and if both bands weren`t so famous there would never be any comparison between the two.

The Pixies and Nirvana on the other hand, are very musically bound together, as without the Pixies, Nirvana as we know them may never have existed.

Rainard Jalen · 12-31-2010, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Despite the decent argument that you are putting out. The Pixies and Nirvana are very comparable especially since Nirvana were heavily modelled on the Pixies. The comparison between Led Zep and Caravan was not a great analogy. As brilliant as the Pixies were, I`d still sooner listen to a Nirvana album.

I'll concede that they may be compared. But I think that, as a general principle, it is better comparing bands that truly do sound alike. It makes for a fairer comparison as in that case it is clear what exactly is being compared.

My problem, I guess, is that I'm not sure exactly what is being compared in a discussion of Pixies v Nirvana - aside from pure personal preference.

If that is the case then it's Nirvana hands down for me. Even though I love Doolittle, and rather like Surfer Rosa.

lieasleep · 01-01-2011, 02:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

it's Nirvana hands down for me. Even though I love Doolittle, and rather like Surfer Rosa.

this is all you had to say. and you are wrong. pixies rule

deadpoet · 01-02-2011, 02:36 AM

I love everything by Nirvana, apart from the horrid Endless Nameless. Pixies are a really good band and they get your blood pumping and everything, but it's Nirvana for me. I absolutely loved their version of Oh Me on Unplugged, and that album is probably one of my all-time favorites.

**Janszoon** · 01-02-2011, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadpoet

I love everything by Nirvana, apart from the horrid Endless Nameless.

Horrid? That's one of the most interesting tracks on that album.

View Poll Results: Which band is better?
Pixies are way better	67	23.93%
I prefer The pixies	62	22.14%
I like them about the Same	40	14.29%
I prefer Nirvana	56	20.00%
Nirvana is way better	55	19.64%
Voters: 280. You may not vote on this poll

12-31-2010, 05:00 PM	#194 (permalink)
TheCunningStunt love will tear you apart Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Manchester, UK. Posts: 5,107	The Beatles made Pop songs and Psychedelic Pop, The Stones made gritty Rhythm & Blues rock & roll... they've still been compared since the dawn of man and despite having different sounds, everyone has a favourite or at least an opinion. Why do they have to sound exactly the same for there to be a comparison? Plus if the front man of a band says he tried to rip off another band, there's cause for a comparison right there. They did sound alike, but Nirvana appealed to the masses. But even if they don't sound a like, why can't you compare them? __________________ I don't feel and I feel great. Last FM

12-31-2010, 09:33 AM	#191 (permalink)
Rainard Jalen Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,221	My point is, Cobain was a death rocker. That term carries its own resonance outside the confines of any genre definitions. He also made the biggest statement of death rock, by putting a gun in his mouth and pulling the trigger.

01-02-2011, 02:36 AM	#199 (permalink)
deadpoet Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: In interesting times Posts: 69	I love everything by Nirvana, apart from the horrid Endless Nameless. Pixies are a really good band and they get your blood pumping and everything, but it's Nirvana for me. I absolutely loved their version of Oh Me on Unplugged, and that album is probably one of my all-time favorites.