The Pixies vs Nirvana

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 06-07-2011, 05:03 PM

I don't think Nirvana were that bad of a live band, just from what I've seen from videos and from other's first hand accounts they seemed to have put on a good show. But to each belong his own.

FRED HALE SR. · 06-07-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

I don't think Nirvana were that bad of a live band, just from what I've seen from videos and from other's first hand accounts they seemed to have put on a good show. But to each belong his own.

They were really bad. I think Kurt was on the junk for the first two times i saw them. When i saw them in Vegas they were hit and miss with bad mics and feedback that damaged their set. If i had it to do over i'd certainly go see them again. I'm a glutton for punishment. To each his own certainly, but i do prefer the Pixies.

BastardofYoung · 06-07-2011, 06:01 PM

Nirvana, like any band... had great performances, but also some not so great ones. Go back to the early days and they were just alright, some good ones here and there. But get the "Reading Festival" DVD and they were a tight band who were spot on in delivery. They ranged from really spotty to really incredible live, depending on what shows you hear as well as Kurt's mental state and drug use at the time.

FRED HALE SR. · 06-07-2011, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BastardofYoung

Nirvana, like any band... had great performances, but also some not so great ones. Go back to the early days and they were just alright, some good ones here and there. But get the "Reading Festival" DVD and they were a tight band who were spot on in delivery. They ranged from really spotty to really incredible live, depending on what shows you hear as well as Kurt's mental state and drug use at the time.

The Reading dvd was pretty solid. I know they probably enhanced the sound digitally, but that was definitely on the upper crust of their live sets. I wish I could have seen them with sound that quality, probably would have pulled them closer to the Pixies for me.

BastardofYoung · 06-07-2011, 06:22 PM

They did enhance it, but not too much, just corrected some problems from the bootleg source I believe. It was an often bootlegged show. I remember getting a bootleg copy of it sometime in the mid 90's and it was good, but needed some corrections to it.

But overall, it is a great performance. Of course at the same time, as with some live shows.. like I saw NOFX a couple years back, and the band was spot on and did a great show, but they played a horrible venue known for its lackluster sound, which ruined what was a great show otherwise. Sometimes it is just a matter of poor sound that ruins a great set and makes people think they are a poor live band.

FRED HALE SR. · 06-07-2011, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BastardofYoung

They did enhance it, but not too much, just corrected some problems from the bootleg source I believe. It was an often bootlegged show. I remember getting a bootleg copy of it sometime in the mid 90's and it was good, but needed some corrections to it.

But overall, it is a great performance. Of course at the same time, as with some live shows.. like I saw NOFX a couple years back, and the band was spot on and did a great show, but they played a horrible venue known for its lackluster sound, which ruined what was a great show otherwise. Sometimes it is just a matter of poor sound that ruins a great set and makes people think they are a poor live band.

I would agree with that assessment to a point but Nirvana was already playing stadiums by the time i caught up with them. I hear ya on the poor venue equaling bad sound, as i experience that on a weekly basis at some Los Angeles venues. I've had a few shows ruined by poor sound. I think ultimately this is one band vs band where i can say i have alot of respect for both bands and can see everybodys point of view when it comes to loving these two bands.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 06-07-2011, 06:34 PM

I usually go to shows just for the energy anyway, half the time I could care less what the sound quality is because I'm up to my neck is stranger's sweat.

~~The Virgin~~ · 06-08-2011, 05:53 PM

I voted "Nirvana is way better".
I haven't actually heard anything from Pixies but I do know 1 song from Nirvana which is "Smells Like Teen Spirit" which was sung by Casey Abrams in American Idol and I've grown to like it.
So I think they're the better band in my opinion.

**Janszoon** · 06-08-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Virgin

I voted "Nirvana is way better".
I haven't actually heard anything from Pixies but I do know 1 song from Nirvana which is "Smells Like Teen Spirit" which was sung by Casey Abrams in American Idol and I've grown to like it.
So I think they're the better band in my opinion.

What a truly informed opinion.

~~Odyshape~~ · 06-08-2011, 06:35 PM

I know :S why did he even bother

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

06-07-2011, 06:01 PM	#293 (permalink)
BastardofYoung Buzz Killjoy Join Date: May 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 2,692	Nirvana, like any band... had great performances, but also some not so great ones. Go back to the early days and they were just alright, some good ones here and there. But get the "Reading Festival" DVD and they were a tight band who were spot on in delivery. They ranged from really spotty to really incredible live, depending on what shows you hear as well as Kurt's mental state and drug use at the time. __________________ last.fm ‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

06-07-2011, 06:22 PM	#295 (permalink)
BastardofYoung Buzz Killjoy Join Date: May 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 2,692	They did enhance it, but not too much, just corrected some problems from the bootleg source I believe. It was an often bootlegged show. I remember getting a bootleg copy of it sometime in the mid 90's and it was good, but needed some corrections to it. But overall, it is a great performance. Of course at the same time, as with some live shows.. like I saw NOFX a couple years back, and the band was spot on and did a great show, but they played a horrible venue known for its lackluster sound, which ruined what was a great show otherwise. Sometimes it is just a matter of poor sound that ruins a great set and makes people think they are a poor live band. __________________ last.fm ‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

06-07-2011, 05:03 PM	#291 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	I don't think Nirvana were that bad of a live band, just from what I've seen from videos and from other's first hand accounts they seemed to have put on a good show. But to each belong his own.

06-07-2011, 06:34 PM	#297 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	I usually go to shows just for the energy anyway, half the time I could care less what the sound quality is because I'm up to my neck is stranger's sweat.

06-08-2011, 05:53 PM	#298 (permalink)
~~The Virgin~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Cebu, Philippines Posts: 677	I voted "Nirvana is way better". I haven't actually heard anything from Pixies but I do know 1 song from Nirvana which is "Smells Like Teen Spirit" which was sung by Casey Abrams in American Idol and I've grown to like it. So I think they're the better band in my opinion.

06-08-2011, 06:35 PM	#300 (permalink)
~~Odyshape~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 526	I know :S why did he even bother