Controversial take: Pearl Jam became much more interesting once their record sales started to dip (also around the time that Eddie Vedder started taking on a bigger songwriting role). While later albums like Riot Act, Backspacer, and Lightning Bolt don't have the every-track-is-a-hit feel of the first couple of albums, the gems in there are reeeeeally excellent. And maybe they shine a bit more brightly from being pulled out from amongst the weeds.
The reaction to Vitalogy was pretty negative at the time -- I remember it appearing in an article about 'biggest disappointments of 1994'... In the PJ20 documentary, Stone Gossard mentions that he wasn't very happy with Vitalogy -- felt it wasn't PJ's best work.
IMHO, that's when they started to get interesting. The first two albums had some great songs, but I think if they'd continued along that route they'd have just turned into... I dunno, Bon Jovi, or something.
The Beatles and The Stones both suck. Also there are many other contemporaries of Nirvana that were just as good or better. Not that I don’t love Nirvana and especially that MTV Unplugged album, but I never listen to them now. I still listen to NIN and Soundgarden (insanely underrated), but never Nirvana.
Oh yeah and Radiohead is not just some failed Nirvana offshoot. They are a totally unique band and the only one mentioned thus far that is still relevant today imo.
Soundgarden fan who thinks the Beatles “suck.” Laughable. Reminder to any Beatles contrarian who reads this: if you’re not a musician and have never written a song anyone enjoyed, then your opinion is worthless. Have some humility, entertain the possibility that you don’t get it, and be quiet.
The Beatles were great but they could never have done what Soundgarden did. Soundgarden was an evolution of rock music beyond what the Beatles were capable of. Many other bands were too but Soundgarden is one of those bands. Nirvana less so... they were more like early Beatles in a way, just with some screaming and the knobs turned up to 11.
What a song and what a performance. Again Beatles=brilliant but the closest they got to this was maybe a couple tracks on the White Album. But they never let loose like Soundgarden would... they needed the history of metal and punk and so on to evolve beyond what was possible for the Beatles.
Appreciate the shout-out, agree more or less with the Nirvana’s-success-inspired-some-of the-most-terrible-music-ever take, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest! To be sure The Stones are beautiful, channelled their time profoundly, made a stupid amount of great music, legends forever. But the best Beatles music is at such a high spiritual frequency we'll never be through with its influence, there's a reason people keep building new worlds out of the actual harmony, experimentation, melody, peculiar modality - and not just a Boomer myth of their preeminence, I think.
ftr I'm not arguing that the greater influence necessarily makes the Stones "better" by that virtue (I prefer The Stones, but that's another matter). It's just that I think people would be surprised to realize that a band often held up for its influence has less influence than they might assume at first thought
I remember reading a Camille Paglia essay about Stones vs Beatles a long time ago - don’t remember exactly the argument but I feel like it is close to this.
Very true, Kurt Cobain's favourite records were better than his own records and music inspired by them is better than music inspired by Nirvana. Nirvana were not one of the great bands. They were one of many good bands in the seattle scene and they made the choice to pursue fame with that seattle sound, which they then got the credit for. But they weren't even in the top ten best Seattle scene bands.
The Gits were a better band, for example. But like Nirvana their singer died in horrific circumstances.
When I was learning to read I tripped over Beatkes lyrics. (How can you look THROUGH someone? And what's up with Mr. Kite?) Regarding "better than Sgt. Pepper," "2000 Light Years from Home" was a childhood favorite.
I was over the Beatles by middle school, when the only group I would listen to was the Doors. Maybe I wasn't well adjusted.
Today, when everything gets politicuzed, I can happily say that BOC is better than AOC:
I would respectfully disagree and say the influence of both the Beatles and Nirvana are broader and more abstract than the direct lineage of bands that tried to imitate their music. The genius of the Beatles was in their ability to take more experimental music and distill it down to its pop essence, therefore broadening the concept of what could fit inside the mainstream and have commercial appeal. In a sense, they are the rock versions of Kanye West, where their strengths come from curation, trend prediction, and refinement rather than innovation and experimentation. People can harp on that all they want, but it is an important skill, and in their case, one that helped advanced pop music from '50s rockabilly and '60s doo-wop into realms of all sorts of genres.
Same with Nirvana. Rock music, or at least mainstream rock music, was in a creative rut, and the success "Nevermind" prompted labels to sign and promote all sorts of oddball acts that would've never had any radio play in the '80s. They weren't the only important band of the early-'90s, but they were a major force of kickstarting the '90s alt-rock boom.
Today The Rolling Stones released a new tune called “Rough and Twisted”.
It’s got a John Lee Hooker bluesy opening riff feel that allows the guitar to settle in for 30 seconds or so before the lyrics start.. like they did with Brown Sugar.
Controversial take: Pearl Jam became much more interesting once their record sales started to dip (also around the time that Eddie Vedder started taking on a bigger songwriting role). While later albums like Riot Act, Backspacer, and Lightning Bolt don't have the every-track-is-a-hit feel of the first couple of albums, the gems in there are reeeeeally excellent. And maybe they shine a bit more brightly from being pulled out from amongst the weeds.
I stopped following them after the first three, all of which are good, but "Vitalogy" has my favorite songs
The reaction to Vitalogy was pretty negative at the time -- I remember it appearing in an article about 'biggest disappointments of 1994'... In the PJ20 documentary, Stone Gossard mentions that he wasn't very happy with Vitalogy -- felt it wasn't PJ's best work.
IMHO, that's when they started to get interesting. The first two albums had some great songs, but I think if they'd continued along that route they'd have just turned into... I dunno, Bon Jovi, or something.
The Beatles and The Stones both suck. Also there are many other contemporaries of Nirvana that were just as good or better. Not that I don’t love Nirvana and especially that MTV Unplugged album, but I never listen to them now. I still listen to NIN and Soundgarden (insanely underrated), but never Nirvana.
Oh yeah and Radiohead is not just some failed Nirvana offshoot. They are a totally unique band and the only one mentioned thus far that is still relevant today imo.
"But we're still on the payroll"
https://youtu.be/1uYWYWPc9HU?si=lHyJ9qhJZaLG2a3m
Soundgarden fan who thinks the Beatles “suck.” Laughable. Reminder to any Beatles contrarian who reads this: if you’re not a musician and have never written a song anyone enjoyed, then your opinion is worthless. Have some humility, entertain the possibility that you don’t get it, and be quiet.
The Beatles were great but they could never have done what Soundgarden did. Soundgarden was an evolution of rock music beyond what the Beatles were capable of. Many other bands were too but Soundgarden is one of those bands. Nirvana less so... they were more like early Beatles in a way, just with some screaming and the knobs turned up to 11.
"And you're staring at me like I need to be saved"
https://youtu.be/14r7y6rM6zA?si=zyZf1n3CKH4DSiPm
What a song and what a performance. Again Beatles=brilliant but the closest they got to this was maybe a couple tracks on the White Album. But they never let loose like Soundgarden would... they needed the history of metal and punk and so on to evolve beyond what was possible for the Beatles.
"...and you know that you should pray
But you don't want to"
https://open.spotify.com/track/4oUbwL6VlYmuNbhbgH5TwL?si=x7tGhf9ZTiG9O5qqJQ3TTg
"All you sitting in high places
The pieces gonna fall on you"
https://youtu.be/2LE0KpcP05I?si=sARVa7w9ttQD0Hxm
"Who shall save the human race?
https://youtu.be/5L45toPpEv0?si=l1fMhL9QoIr-zzxQ
Saying they both suck is crazy
This post is like a psyop to reveal who amongst our audience is unc.
Signed, the most unc man on our masthead
That picture makes me hate Paul McCartney
Appreciate the shout-out, agree more or less with the Nirvana’s-success-inspired-some-of the-most-terrible-music-ever take, but we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest! To be sure The Stones are beautiful, channelled their time profoundly, made a stupid amount of great music, legends forever. But the best Beatles music is at such a high spiritual frequency we'll never be through with its influence, there's a reason people keep building new worlds out of the actual harmony, experimentation, melody, peculiar modality - and not just a Boomer myth of their preeminence, I think.
"More important" is a point of contention, but the Stones' influence is absolutely greater.
"who did rock music sound more like following 1970?"
Yeah and more movies look like Michael Bay's than like Lars von Trier's. So what?
ftr I'm not arguing that the greater influence necessarily makes the Stones "better" by that virtue (I prefer The Stones, but that's another matter). It's just that I think people would be surprised to realize that a band often held up for its influence has less influence than they might assume at first thought
Clickbait?
I remember reading a Camille Paglia essay about Stones vs Beatles a long time ago - don’t remember exactly the argument but I feel like it is close to this.
Ha! Says you. And said well may I add!
If you must choose between The Beatles or The Stones, there’s only one option: The Kinks!
Very true, Kurt Cobain's favourite records were better than his own records and music inspired by them is better than music inspired by Nirvana. Nirvana were not one of the great bands. They were one of many good bands in the seattle scene and they made the choice to pursue fame with that seattle sound, which they then got the credit for. But they weren't even in the top ten best Seattle scene bands.
The Gits were a better band, for example. But like Nirvana their singer died in horrific circumstances.
The Gits fucking rule!!! RIP Mia.
"Fame is a form of incomprehension, perhaps the worst," Borges was referring to the Quixote, but it applies to a band like Nirvana, too.
When I was learning to read I tripped over Beatkes lyrics. (How can you look THROUGH someone? And what's up with Mr. Kite?) Regarding "better than Sgt. Pepper," "2000 Light Years from Home" was a childhood favorite.
I was over the Beatles by middle school, when the only group I would listen to was the Doors. Maybe I wasn't well adjusted.
Today, when everything gets politicuzed, I can happily say that BOC is better than AOC:
"Coverups and blacked-out lines
Ev'rything is classified..."
https://youtu.be/vWbFFUlCnlc?si=_eG59zeUUy3BXvji
I do have a favorite Beatles moment, sort of: the Thompson Twins did a solid cover of "Revolution"
https://youtu.be/1ZtNRJNxffc?si=yKI3pyG11MJRRQ2I
"Phony beatlemania has bitten the dust"
https://youtu.be/EfK-WX2pa8c?si=IlKtnSX5CYDqlDB_
I would respectfully disagree and say the influence of both the Beatles and Nirvana are broader and more abstract than the direct lineage of bands that tried to imitate their music. The genius of the Beatles was in their ability to take more experimental music and distill it down to its pop essence, therefore broadening the concept of what could fit inside the mainstream and have commercial appeal. In a sense, they are the rock versions of Kanye West, where their strengths come from curation, trend prediction, and refinement rather than innovation and experimentation. People can harp on that all they want, but it is an important skill, and in their case, one that helped advanced pop music from '50s rockabilly and '60s doo-wop into realms of all sorts of genres.
Same with Nirvana. Rock music, or at least mainstream rock music, was in a creative rut, and the success "Nevermind" prompted labels to sign and promote all sorts of oddball acts that would've never had any radio play in the '80s. They weren't the only important band of the early-'90s, but they were a major force of kickstarting the '90s alt-rock boom.
Today The Rolling Stones released a new tune called “Rough and Twisted”.
It’s got a John Lee Hooker bluesy opening riff feel that allows the guitar to settle in for 30 seconds or so before the lyrics start.. like they did with Brown Sugar.
Hear it here:
https://substack.com/@johncharleslewis/note/c-241817718?r=cp5a8&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action