ITT: Stip doesn't respect Bleach and people get upset

[stip]

Yeah, Blew was pretty good. Certainly not great.

I never liked school.

Love Buzz is good, but that's a cover, isn't it?

Yeah Love Buzz is a cover.

School and Blew > Breed, Lounge Act, etc, although maybe I overplayed those tracks as a kid.

That is absolutely not true

This is now venturing into personal taste, but I would take Blew and School over Territorial Pissings, too, and Serve the Servants, Frances Farmer, Very Ape, and maaayybe Scentless Apprentice.

I fear I'll lose the crowd here.

Scentless Apprentice is horrible. Those other songs are aces. Frances Farmer may be my favorite song on In Utero

[stip]

Ok not Scentless Apprentice.

THAT'S the one you retract. what the hell is the matter with you?

[DeLima]

Ok not Scentless Apprentice.

THAT'S the one you retract. what the hell is the matter with you?

Scentless Apprentice is awesome.

I like the other songs I mentioned too, but something about those Bleach tunes...there's a reason they closed shows with Blew over the full span of their career.

[DeLima]

And that reason wasn't to let Mike McCready say goodbye.

[Birds in Hell]

the musical merit or lack thereof is basically what my post was about. Kurt Cobain as a songwriter worth taking seriously is based on two albums.

I don't think anyone objects to you thinking that's the case; it's the implication that your idiosyncratic opinion reflects some level of objective reality that people are reacting to.

[zeb]

Bleach, on its own, is a decent record. Fun for what it is. Lots of artists are capable of releasing fairly decent records. Absolutely no one ever mentions it as an example of excellent song writing. If it was the only album kurt cobain ever put out no one would talk about his untapped genius.

Well Zeb, maybe.

This was rather unexpectedly complimentary. Thanks stip!

[Jorge]

Where's Sarge to enforce some thread integrity here

[matt reeder]

Matt Reeder was reluctant to count Jeff Buckley because he only had two albums. I'm assuming he means two significant albums.

That strikes me as quite a bizarre assumption.

Jeff Buckley released two albums of original material, Nirvana released four: to everyone else, I would presume these are just statements of objective fact.

Bleach is a novelty record.

Again, thoroughly bizarre.

In a conversation about someone being THE BEST I'd think that the actual quality of writing matters. MR basically took Cornell out of the running by saying that some of his earlier records shouldn't count because they're not of sufficient quality, and that he therefore didn't have enough A material to really count. My initial comment was basically directed at him, about the criteria he set up for his own internal thought process, saying that he probably should think about eliminating Cobain based on his output.

If the rest of you think that Bleach is a brilliant piece of writing then there's nothing I can do for you. Standards aren't for everyone.

I took Cornell out because he really doesn't distinguish himself as a songwriter until Louder Than Love, and he's not capable of sustained brilliance (on his own) until Superunknown. There's also the tricky issue of everything that followed Euphoria Morning. If you took Chris Cornell's 20 best songs it would stand up to almost anyone in rock history - but he's produced a lot more than that, and you have to remember that too. I mean, I'm one his biggest fans on the planet and even I have to acknowledge (as I gladly will for any other band I love, other than Sleater-Kinney, who I think are utterly perfect) that the man has his faults musically.

And the other reason why I discount Chris Cornell, despite my love for him:

AS I'M RAPED
BY ANOTHER MONKEY CIRCUSSSSSS FREAK

Matt Reeder was reluctant to count Jeff Buckley because he only had two albums. I'm assuming he means two significant albums. Kurt Cobain had other records, and they're both fun for what they are, but they're not the records that made his mark as a songwriter, nor would they be records anyone would have even heard of if not for those other two. Bleach is a novelty record. If you need to have X number of albums to be considered for this conversation, they probably need to be albums that demanded you be taken seriously as a songwriter.

So the following songs are not to be taken seriously?

Blew
About a Girl
School
Sliver
Dive
Aneurysm
Been a Son
Sappy
Even In His Youth
You Know You're Right

That's 10 songs right there that demand to be taken seriously. I didn't even touch some of my favorite Nirvana songs (such as the immortal "Negative Creep"), but those are 10 songs that completely refute the idea that people only remember Nirvana because of their 2 big albums. To most of the world, MTV Unplugged is like their last album, even if 6 of the songs are covers.

Furthermore, the same band that did MTV Unplugged also did this:



And this:



And this:



Stip, I see where you're coming from - but you're just wrong.

[stip]

Matt Reeder was reluctant to count Jeff Buckley because he only had two albums. I'm assuming he means two significant albums.

That strikes me as quite a bizarre assumption.

Jeff Buckley released two albums of original material, Nirvana released four: to everyone else, I would presume these are just statements of objective fact.

Bleach is a novelty record.

Again, thoroughly bizarre.

In a conversation about someone being THE BEST I'd think that the actual quality of writing matters. MR basically took Cornell out of the running by saying that some of his earlier records shouldn't count because they're not of sufficient quality, and that he therefore didn't have enough A material to really count. My initial comment was basically directed at him, about the criteria he set up for his own internal thought process, saying that he probably should think about eliminating Cobain based on his output.

If the rest of you think that Bleach is a brilliant piece of writing then there's nothing I can do for you. Standards aren't for everyone.

I took Cornell out because he really doesn't distinguish himself as a songwriter until Louder Than Love, and he's not capable of sustained brilliance (on his own) until Superunknown. There's also the tricky issue of everything that followed Euphoria Morning. If you took Chris Cornell's 20 best songs it would stand up to almost anyone in rock history - but he's produced a lot more than that, and you have to remember that too. I mean, I'm one his biggest fans on the planet and even I have to acknowledge (as I gladly will for any other band I love, other than Sleater-Kinney, who I think are utterly perfect) that the man has his faults musically.

And the other reason why I discount Chris Cornell, despite my love for him:

AS I'M RAPED
BY ANOTHER MONKEY CIRCUSSSSSS FREAK

Matt Reeder was reluctant to count Jeff Buckley because he only had two albums. I'm assuming he means two significant albums. Kurt Cobain had other records, and they're both fun for what they are, but they're not the records that made his mark as a songwriter, nor would they be records anyone would have even heard of if not for those other two. Bleach is a novelty record. If you need to have X number of albums to be considered for this conversation, they probably need to be albums that demanded you be taken seriously as a songwriter.

So the following songs are not to be taken seriously?

Blew
About a Girl
School
Sliver
Dive
Aneurysm
Been a Son
Sappy
Even In His Youth
You Know You're Right

That's 10 songs right there that demand to be taken seriously. I didn't even touch some of my favorite Nirvana songs (such as the immortal "Negative Creep"), but those are 10 songs that completely refute the idea that people only remember Nirvana because of their 2 big albums. To most of the world, MTV Unplugged is like their last album, even if 6 of the songs are covers.

MTV unplugged is a live album. It's part of Nirvana's legacy as a band for sure, but not as songwriters.

Sappy, Even in His Youth, and You Know Your Right may be good songs. Widely known songs, probably less so (excepting You Know Your Right, probably). Cold Confession is a great song. Pearl Jam isn't going to be known for it. also, these are not on bleach or incesticide

I hate school but those other 6 songs you mention are all good. So that's a total of 6 (I'll give you school, so 7) songs. Bleach and Incesticide between them have 26 songs, I think. An under 33% success rate for high quality songs is not exactly a mark of consistency (your word regarding Chris Cornell) or sustained brilliance (also your phrase). Plus only 3 of them were from Bleach, so that's an even lower rate. And how many of them are sterling examples of the finest songwriting of the decade in question?

[bada]

Not sure why Cornell gets points deducted for not dying young and releasing more material. The more stuff you put out the more chances you'll put out stinkers. Imagine Jimi Hendrix or Jim Morrison 80's albums. Just because Cornell put out some crap in the 00's doesn't mean every good song he wrote in the 90's must have been because the guys in Soundgarden were polishing his turds. Keith Moon didn't secretly write all the great Who songs because the albums after he died sucked. Bad songs shouldn't mean the good songs get points taken away especially if one artist has a dozen albums and the other has one and some demos.

[stip]

And that reason wasn't to let Mike McCready say goodbye.

well that makes sense. He probably wasn't there most nights

[stip]

the musical merit or lack thereof is basically what my post was about. Kurt Cobain as a songwriter worth taking seriously is based on two albums.

I don't think anyone objects to you thinking that's the case; it's the implication that your idiosyncratic opinion reflects some level of objective reality that people are reacting to.

blah blah blah there is no objective reality for opinions blah blah blah these are just opinions blah blah blah maybe if someone says this for the 500th time this point will magically become insightful blah blah blah


there is no objective reality. There is, however, an aggregation of people's subjective opinions that does form something of a consensus about the way music is perceived, and is why, when we say an album is a classic, we usually mean that it is an album that is widely perceived as high quality, important, relevant, etc. We don't just mean 'oh, this is an album that I personally really like.'

Maybe I'm wrong about Bleach's importance or quality in that aggregate perception. That's different

[darth_vedder]

This sir is no novelty, it's straight up bad ass:

[stip]

yeah, its a fun song. but if you dont hear a difference between that and



i dont know what to tell you

[darth_vedder]

I'll take Mr. Moustache over Heart Shaped Box. Does that surprise you though? I think the only thing we have ever agreed on is our preference for the RVM remix of Alive.

[stip]

well we'll always have that

[darth_vedder]

well we'll always have that

[VinylGuy]

I agree with Stip...Bleach is not a masterpiece. Its a good album with what, 4 really good songs? Kurt Cobain always seemed over hyped as a songwriter to me...if you hear what Billy was doing at the same time...

[digster]

It's a pretty popular and acclaimed record, and has sold a shit ton of records. I'd agree with stip that it's not as well known as Nevermind, but what is?

[stip]

It's a pretty popular and acclaimed record, and has sold a shit ton of records. I'd agree with stip that it's not as well known as Nevermind, but what is?

I guess I've really missed where Bleach is an acclaimed record. If it is I'm still going to be pretty convinced that it is more due to the fact that it is nirvana's first album rather than its merits, but that's on me.