Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:I didn't hate Sublime, and Joey's "yay-eee-ya" jab is funny, but no more on-the-nose than any of the Eddie singing jokes we've all endured...

tragabigzanda wrote:

Self wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:What sucked about Sublime was the jocks and other assholes who all glommed on. It really sucked to have a funny, not bad song like Date Rape come on at a high school party, and hear all the jocks go "Yaaaaa!" and high-five each other, knowing full well that at least a couple would be guilty of date rape later that night.

Rape Maaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy

Case in point. My aunt and uncle still make fun of me by singing "My pain...is self chosen..."

Ha ha ha ha

River of Deceit is a gorgeous song, but I make fun of myself when I hear that lyric.

Clearly you don't know the significance of that line. It's not Layne being emo, or at least not solely that:

http://www.fuse.tv/2013/04/mike-mccread ... ve-reissue

I think after Montage of Heck, I might be officially done with Nirvana. I've always attached myself to PJ more, even at the beginning, b/c they are life-affirming. While my teenage self would disagree, I now totally concede that between 91-94 Nirvana was the better band. But fuck them. That's 3 years, and they are ultimately about death.

PJ have developed very much their own unique legacy that is now totally separate and distinct from Nirvana. I used to be really insecure about that, that PJ was sorta short-changed since Kurt killed himself and took the legacy spotlight away from PJ and Soundgarden and AIC. But I'm more than glad to give them that era since PJ proved to live on. Living on and proving that their music means redemption from near death as opposed to giving in and giving up.

Personally, I'm disgusted by all of the exhuming of Cobain and his legacy. I think once people grow up they start to see that. When you're a nihilistic teen Nirvana might make some more sense but eventually some people want to attach themselves to affirmation and survival which is what PJ is all about.

Tuolumne wrote:I think after Montage of Heck, I might be officially done with Nirvana. I've always attached myself to PJ more, even at the beginning, b/c they are life-affirming. While my teenage self would disagree, I now totally concede that between 91-94 Nirvana was the better band. But fuck them. That's 3 years, and they are ultimately about death.

PJ have developed very much their own unique legacy that is now totally separate and distinct from Nirvana. I used to be really insecure about that, that PJ was sorta short-changed since Kurt killed himself and took the legacy spotlight away from PJ and Soundgarden and AIC. But I'm more than glad to give them that era since PJ proved to live on. Living on and proving that their music means redemption from near death as opposed to giving in and giving up.

Personally, I'm disgusted by all of the exhuming of Cobain and his legacy. I think once people grow up they start to see that. When you're a nihilistic teen Nirvana might make some more sense but eventually some people want to attach themselves to affirmation and survival which is what PJ is all about.

Agree.

And i think Nirvana´s legacy at this point isnt as important as i thought it would be.

is nirvana vs. pearl jam still a thing?

darth_vedder wrote:is nirvana vs. pearl jam still a thing?

Only for Kurt.

VinylGuy wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:I think after Montage of Heck, I might be officially done with Nirvana. I've always attached myself to PJ more, even at the beginning, b/c they are life-affirming. While my teenage self would disagree, I now totally concede that between 91-94 Nirvana was the better band. But fuck them. That's 3 years, and they are ultimately about death.

PJ have developed very much their own unique legacy that is now totally separate and distinct from Nirvana. I used to be really insecure about that, that PJ was sorta short-changed since Kurt killed himself and took the legacy spotlight away from PJ and Soundgarden and AIC. But I'm more than glad to give them that era since PJ proved to live on. Living on and proving that their music means redemption from near death as opposed to giving in and giving up.

Personally, I'm disgusted by all of the exhuming of Cobain and his legacy. I think once people grow up they start to see that. When you're a nihilistic teen Nirvana might make some more sense but eventually some people want to attach themselves to affirmation and survival which is what PJ is all about.

Agree.

And i think Nirvana´s legacy at this point isnt as important as i thought it would be.

Montage of Heck has nothing to do with Nirvana or its legacy. It has to do with telling the Kurt Cobain story one more time. It is separate from Nirvana's legacy as a band, and nobody will think about it in a couple of years. The best strategy is to ignore every post-death release and focus on how great of a band they were when they were actually around. That's how the band members themselves would wish it, as do pretty much all of Kurt's friends.

Nirvana was also a better band than PJ, AIC or SG were while they were actually around, so there's that too. PJ didn't really hit their stride as a creative band until 1994, SG released their masterpiece a month before Kurt's death and AIC is maybe the most overrated band of their entire generation. Also, Mudhoney were a better band than many of their contemporaries and their music has aged beautifully.

Did you let PJ20 shape your views on the band? It shouldn't. Letting the present reinterpretations of the past distract you from how great something used to be is a good way to drive yourself crazy.

matt reeder wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

Tuolumne wrote:I think after Montage of Heck, I might be officially done with Nirvana. I've always attached myself to PJ more, even at the beginning, b/c they are life-affirming. While my teenage self would disagree, I now totally concede that between 91-94 Nirvana was the better band. But fuck them. That's 3 years, and they are ultimately about death.

PJ have developed very much their own unique legacy that is now totally separate and distinct from Nirvana. I used to be really insecure about that, that PJ was sorta short-changed since Kurt killed himself and took the legacy spotlight away from PJ and Soundgarden and AIC. But I'm more than glad to give them that era since PJ proved to live on. Living on and proving that their music means redemption from near death as opposed to giving in and giving up.

Personally, I'm disgusted by all of the exhuming of Cobain and his legacy. I think once people grow up they start to see that. When you're a nihilistic teen Nirvana might make some more sense but eventually some people want to attach themselves to affirmation and survival which is what PJ is all about.

Agree.

And i think Nirvana´s legacy at this point isnt as important as i thought it would be.

Montage of Heck has nothing to do with Nirvana or its legacy. It has to do with telling the Kurt Cobain story one more time. It is separate from Nirvana's legacy as a band, and nobody will think about it in a couple of years. The best strategy is to ignore every post-death release and focus on how great of a band they were when they were actually around. That's how the band members themselves would wish it, as do pretty much all of Kurt's friends.

Nirvana was also a better band than PJ, AIC or SG were while they were actually around, so there's that too. PJ didn't really hit their stride as a creative band until 1994, SG released their masterpiece a month before Kurt's death and AIC is maybe the most overrated band of their entire generation. Also, Mudhoney were a better band than many of their contemporaries and their music has aged beautifully.

Did you let PJ20 shape your views on the band? It shouldn't. Letting the present reinterpretations of the past distract you from how great something used to be is a good way to drive yourself crazy.

I wasnt talking about MOH..or Kurt itself...but a feel i have with Nirvana these days. Their music dont seem to matter that much. I thought their legacy was going to be bigger.

As for which band was better or not, well thats subjective. I consider SG a better band than Nirvana or PJ, even though PJ´s music reached me on a different level.

The Replacements are better than all of them.

There's a big difference between Nirvana's legacy, and Courtney Love's legacy. One fueling the other.

VinylGuy wrote: I wasnt talking about MOH..or Kurt itself...but a feel i have with Nirvana these days. Their music dont seem to matter that much. I thought their legacy was going to be bigger.

As for which band was better or not, well thats subjective. I consider SG a better band than Nirvana or PJ, even though PJ´s music reached me on a different level.

I'm not sure if you've spent any time around teenagers lately but Nirvana's legacy dwarfs those of their respective peers, both from Seattle and elsewhere. Whether this is quality-based or hype-based (it's both, actually) isn't important, but Nirvana is hugely popular among young people in a way that no other band of their generation can match. This is matched by data from streaming audio services, which show that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is the most-streamed song from the entire decade of the 1990s. Again, hype and name recognition have a lot to do with this, but that's what a legacy is. Hype and name recognition.

As for SG being a better band than any of their peers: that's subjective. Nirvana, PJ and SG are three of my top 4/5 all-time bands and I love them equally, but in slightly different ways. Much of their music hasn't aged well, though. I remember that when I saw them in Seattle on the King Animal tour I would estimate the average age of the crowd was around 40. There were plenty of younger people but there were lots of people in their 30s and 40s. I will love them forever but they aren't making a ton of new fans these days.

tragabigzanda wrote: Their music is a lot more abrasive than PJ's music. It's fine for guys like us, but the larger population has moved on to Mumford & Sons, or whatever crap is at the top of the charts lately. PJ can still get a little traction on the radio without making your average listened reach for the dial.

Actually, in a relative sense, nobody gives a crap about Mumford and Sons. They have lots of fans but their fanbase is sort of shallow, like you often get with bands that put out 2-3 big singles off their first album and don't really do anything else. Even Mumford and Sons are tired of being Mumford and Sons, which is why they put out an album where they tried to sound like The Killers. Nobody really liked it that much, as best as I can tell.

The only music that's really huge these days is pop music, in its pop or rap forms. Beyonce, Kanye, Drake, Nicki Minaj, Taylor Swift...they are all popular on a level that kind of dwarfs everybody and everything else out there. Rock music in any form doesn't really move the dial anymore for a lot of reasons, too many to list here. The thing is though that a lot of people still love PJ, but as best I can tell there are a ton of people out there that just love EV's solo stuff. That more than anything else is ensuring the continued survival of PJ's fandom. I hear "Hard Sun" and "Society" on the radio just as much I hear "Black" or "Better Man".

But I hear Nirvana a ton, and it isn't just the abrasive stuff: it seems to me that fully 75% of Nirvana's MTV Unplugged is played on the radio on multiple stations here, and I can only imagine a lot of people are out there listening to that far more than they would listen to something like "Scentless Apprentice".

Since I mentioned AIC earlier, I also have to add that they are tremendously influential, but far more so in the metal scene. An entirely different crowd listens to them than listens to PJ and Nirvana these days. It's interesting to me even if I love them much less than their peers.

I dont know Matt.

Most of the young crowds here know Nirvana because of the Foos...and yes, they know Smell...but do they listen to the band or what they used to said back then? Dont think so.
I thought they were going to be more influential in terms of music...maybe they are i dont know.

VinylGuy wrote:I dont know Matt.

Most of the young crowds here know Nirvana because of the Foos...and yes, they know Smell...but do they listen to the band or what they used to said back then? Dont think so.
I thought they were going to be more influential in terms of music...maybe they are i dont know.

I suppose it depends on the country. I can only speak for US culture. But Nirvana's legacy is enormous here.

I spent ten years teaching teenagers (ending in 2012), and I never heard a blip about Nirvana. A few times Pearl Jam was mentioned, a few times Alice, but I cant remember a single Nirvana/Pumpkins/Soundgarden reference. They'd request ACDC at a dance (sigh), but look bored and wander off to buy stuff from the student store if Teen Spirit came on.

I even had two different students who liked Bad Religion, but no one claiming Nirvana. And not much rock in general to be honest. It's a relic.

McParadigm wrote:I spent ten years teaching teenagers (ending in 2012), and I never heard a blip about Nirvana. A few times Pearl Jam was mentioned, a few times Alice, but I cant remember a single Nirvana/Pumpkins/Soundgarden reference. They'd request ACDC at a dance (sigh), but look bored and wander off to buy stuff from the student store if Teen Spirit came on.

I even had two different students who liked Bad Religion, but no one claiming Nirvana. And not much rock in general to be honest. It's a relic.

I teach at the college level (but have a lot of high school students) and I hear about Nirvana a lot. But I also live in the Pacific NW, where this stuff is still huge. I've never had anybody under the age of 25 tell me they love PJ.