In Utero or Nevermind? (singer, pop, great songs, single, Kurt Cobain) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-04-2008, 07:27 PM   #41 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

There may be some truth in that I think it would more than likely be elements of both. Most of those bands you listed had left Sub Pop themselves by the time Nirvana left anyway. Soundgarden went to SST in 1988 and then A&M the following year , Mother Love Bone were on Polygram by 1989. If i remember correctly the only real big name bands Sub Pop had by the time Nevermind came out were The Afghan Whigs & Mudhoney
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 07:33 PM   #42 (permalink)
isfckingdead
 
sleepy jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,967
Default

I wasn't super sure which bands were championed when but I know Nirvana was kind of being treated like crap by Sub Pop because Sub Pop (as well as the rest of the Seattle scene) didn't see much potential in Nirvana.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA89 View Post
Ive seen you on muiltipul forums saying Metallica and slayer are the worst **** you kid go suck your **** while you listen to your ****ing emo **** I bet you do listen to emo music
sleepy jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 07:42 PM   #43 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

I think it was short sightedness on Sub Pop's part. It's easy to look back now & say that but I remember their first UK tour supporting bands like Fudge Tunnel & Bomb Disneyland in virtually every toilet in the UK , it was Nirvana getting played on John Peel's show and getting a few column inches in the weekly music papers. Nobody gave a flying f*ck about Soundgarden , The Screaming Trees or Mother Love Bone then.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 07:56 PM   #44 (permalink)
nothing
 
mr dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: everywhere
Posts: 4,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I wasn't super sure which bands were championed when but I know Nirvana was kind of being treated like crap by Sub Pop because Sub Pop (as well as the rest of the Seattle scene) didn't see much potential in Nirvana.
just how much would you be willing to invest in a band fronted by a junkie who (for all intents and purposes) can't sing? i can't see how anyone with ANY modicum of business acumen could look at nirvana and not think 'RISK!' early in their career. but like any other risk, the payoff can, and in this case - was, huge.

don't get me wrong, i think nirvana is great. i just can't see how anyone in business thought they were sitting on something huge until 'smells like teen spirit' hit the air. i figure the people at geffen noticed that seattle was really taking off and fished around for someone who had been flying under the radar and hoped they would get lucky - and they did.
__________________
i am the universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandteacher1 View Post
I type whicked fast,
mr dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 07:58 PM   #45 (permalink)
isfckingdead
 
sleepy jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,967
Default

I think Sub Pop just didn't invest enough into their artists from a personal standpoint. It seemed like everyone jumped ship from them as soon as grunge got popular. Where as in the mid-90s you had bands like Sunny Day Real Estate who did get a fair amount of attention and after breaking up some of the artists new projects returned to Sub Pop (Jeremy Enigk) same with Carissa's Wierd with Grand Archives and Band of Horses. I don't think their was much of a sense of label loyalty amongst the bands.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA89 View Post
Ive seen you on muiltipul forums saying Metallica and slayer are the worst **** you kid go suck your **** while you listen to your ****ing emo **** I bet you do listen to emo music
sleepy jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 08:01 PM   #46 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave View Post
just how much would you be willing to invest in a band fronted by a junkie who (for all intents and purposes) can't sing? i can't see how anyone with ANY modicum of business acumen could look at nirvana and not think 'RISK!' early in their career. but like any other risk, the payoff can, and in this case - was, huge.
This is a label that signed Tad.

I just thought i'd point this out.

__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 08:06 PM   #47 (permalink)
isfckingdead
 
sleepy jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave View Post
just how much would you be willing to invest in a band fronted by a junkie who (for all intents and purposes) can't sing? i can't see how anyone with ANY modicum of business acumen could look at nirvana and not think 'RISK!' early in their career. but like any other risk, the payoff can, and in this case - was, huge.
How many grunge bands have you heard from that time? Not many of them were fronted by Jeff Buckleys or Van Morrisons. Besides I'm sure vocally Kurt was well liked since the people from that scene were big into underground music and he sounds like the dude from the Meat Puppets.

I don't think you really know much about Sub Pop either, they were signing plenty of bands that weren't the smartest business moves.

Quote:
don't get me wrong, i think nirvana is great. i just can't see how anyone in business thought they were sitting on something huge until 'smells like teen spirit' hit the air. i figure the people at geffen noticed that seattle was really taking off and fished around for someone who had been flying under the radar and hoped they would get lucky - and they did.
That explains why grunge bands were being picked up before Nirvana were.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA89 View Post
Ive seen you on muiltipul forums saying Metallica and slayer are the worst **** you kid go suck your **** while you listen to your ****ing emo **** I bet you do listen to emo music
sleepy jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 08:29 PM   #48 (permalink)
nothing
 
mr dave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: everywhere
Posts: 4,315
Default

just because someone does vocals doesn't mean they're good singers. personally i really like cobain's delivery. but that does NOT make him a good singer. he could scream like it was no one's business but to actually sing - not so much. being well liked by his peers doesn't make him a good singer. writing great songs does not make someone a good singer. bob dylan and leonard cohen should not be allowed near microphones.

if anything it seems like subpop were willing to sign anyone who wanted to put something out in the seattle area. there are labels like that in my town too. they don't really give a crap about you or your band so long as you pay the bill to put your record out until you start making money for their business. and still, they've got their main bands with personal friends from high school that come first.

ideally, yeah sure it would be awesome if label heads really took the time to nurture and cultivate their talent but then we'd be calling the bands corporate shills.

fact is - until teen spirit, nirvana was just another seattle band. they had hooks, and a decent record. but cobain was still a junkie. hard drugs = RISK. there's little else that needs to be said on that. had he just been a pothead it probably wouldn't have been such an issue. heroin on the other hand is a big deal.

put yourself in the shoes of a major label A&R guy how do you sell a band with a screaming junkie and sloppy power chords to your boss? geffen basically went in on the tail end of the scene, scooped up the leftovers, scored big and then watched everyone else scrape the grime from the bottom of the barrel. the reason the other bands were being picked up first is because they seemed like safe bets - and they were. i really don't think it was an issue of nirvana trying to remain obscure. i REALLY don't think bleach would be as influential as most people consider it had there not been nevermind to compare it to.
__________________
i am the universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandteacher1 View Post
I type whicked fast,
mr dave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 08:33 PM   #49 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Virtually every single band in that scene had junkies in them. Mark Arm ,Tad , Cobain , Andrew Wood.

A junkieless Seattle band in the early 1990s would have been an exception , not the norm.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2008, 08:39 PM   #50 (permalink)
isfckingdead
 
sleepy jack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,967
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr dave View Post
just because someone does vocals doesn't mean they're good singers. personally i really like cobain's delivery. but that does NOT make him a good singer. he could scream like it was no one's business but to actually sing - not so much. being well liked by his peers doesn't make him a good singer. writing great songs does not make someone a good singer. bob dylan and leonard cohen should not be allowed near microphones.
I repeat, most grunge bands weren't fronted by Jeff Buckley and just because someone isn't a good singer doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to make music. I like Bob Dylan's voice and think it fits his music fine. If you want to go listen to perfect pitch vocalists go turn on some overproduced Celine Dion-esque crap, some of us like vocalists with character and grit behind them.

Quote:
if anything it seems like subpop were willing to sign anyone who wanted to put something out in the seattle area. there are labels like that in my town too. they don't really give a crap about you or your band so long as you pay the bill to put your record out until you start making money for their business. and still, they've got their main bands with personal friends from high school that come first.
Um yeah, that would be a risky business move...kind of contradictory to what you were saying earlier.

Quote:
ideally, yeah sure it would be awesome if label heads really took the time to nurture and cultivate their talent but then we'd be calling the bands corporate shills.
Which is funny seeing as it seems like Sub Pop is all about side-projects nowadays from past artists. The Elected, Grand Archives, Band of Horses, The Postal Service, etc it's a surprisingly extensive list.

Quote:
fact is - until teen spirit, nirvana was just another seattle band. they had hooks, and a decent record. but cobain was still a junkie. hard drugs = RISK. there's little else that needs to be said on that. had he just been a pothead it probably wouldn't have been such an issue. heroin on the other hand is a big deal.
Kurt Cobain wasn't even a fullblown addict until after Bleach.

Quote:
put yourself in the shoes of a major label A&R guy how do you sell a band with a screaming junkie and sloppy power chords to your boss? geffen basically went in on the tail end of the scene, scooped up the leftovers, scored big and then watched everyone else scrape the grime from the bottom of the barrel. the reason the other bands were being picked up first is because they seemed like safe bets - and they were. i really don't think it was an issue of nirvana trying to remain obscure. i REALLY don't think bleach would be as influential as most people consider it had there not been nevermind to compare it to.
Are you serious? Alice in Chains was a safe bet? You're aware that their singer was a worse junkie than Cobain was right and earlier? That's not even going into the rest of the bands drug problems. Mother Love Bone's singer died of a heroin overdose. You really need to do your research before you make it off as if Cobain was the only junkie in the grunge scene, he wasn't.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by METALLICA89 View Post
Ive seen you on muiltipul forums saying Metallica and slayer are the worst **** you kid go suck your **** while you listen to your ****ing emo **** I bet you do listen to emo music
sleepy jack is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.