*Runs in yelling and screaming, with SP flag in hand and Billy Corgan bald cap on*
Genevieve wrote:How many bands were people turned onto because Billy Corgan was all over their dick? Hell, he may been publically a lot more hot for My Bloody Valentine than Cobain was, but I bet Cobain got a lot more people into them through a passing mention than Corgan could if he'd plastered every American highway with a billboards professing his love for 'Loveless'.
What does this have to do with anything? Skrillex mentioning he likes, say, Burzum, will get more kids listening to Burzum than Burial, Distance, and Mala combined mentioning they like Burzum, does that make Skrillex better than Burial, Distance, and Mala?
----
When it comes down to Nirvana vs Pumpkins, can you guys honestly say that Nirvana would be anywhere near as big had they not written Smells Like Teen Spirit? "Ok well if Nirvana doesn't get SLTS, Pumpkins don't get Tonight, Tonight!", ok, they still have Today, Cherub Rock, Disarm, 1979, and Bullet with the Butterfly Wings. I'm guessing mostly anybody older than 14 will know atleast 1 of those songs.
A lot of people I know who claim to be "die hard" Nirvana fans can't even name 5 tracks, anyone claiming to be a "die hard" Pumpkins fan most likely can.
Just my experience obviously, not saying this is how everyone is because I know there are some real "die hard" Nirvana fans. Just seems like Nirvana is one of those "cool" bands to like as there are so many people repping their T-Shirts who hardly know anything about their music, and resort to talking about how they love Cobain rather than actually loving Nirvana's music.
PS: I'm in no way saying SLTS was Nirvana's only good track, my personal favorite is 'Something in the Way', but SLTS led to their success, you can't argue that.
----
Here are the band's first 3 album sales in the US as according to Wikipedia. (I went with the US as not all the articles had Worldwide info. Also, it's all a bit rounded but you'll get the point.)
Nirvana's album sales:
Bleach (1989): 1.7 million units in the US.
Nevermind (1991): 10+ million units in the US. <<Breakthrough album
In Utero (1993): 3.58 million in the US.
Pumpkin's (first 3, to be fair to Nirvana)
album sales:
Gish (1991): 1 million units in the US.
Siamese Dream (1993): 4 million units in the US. <<Breakthrough album
MCIS (1995): 5+ million units in the US (Although a double album, so considered 10+ million units in the US)
My point being, Pumpkins still got even
MORE record sales after their breakthrough record, while Nirvana's 3rd record sold nearly one third of Nevermind. (Also.. MCIS is a double album. 28 songs. It's also the band's 3rd album. Look how well it charted. Yeah, The Beatle's 'The White Album' is huge too but that wasn't their 3rd record, they were WELL established before that. MCIS also spawned the
limited edition Aeroplane Flies High Boxset, which was 5 EPs, which also sold it's initial 200k copies so fast that they had to print 100k more, which then sold, meaning it sold 1.5 million discs in all. According to record sales, 2/3 the Nirvana following of Nevermind abandoned them come In Utero, after SD, SP sold 10 million discs from their 3rd album, as well as 1.5 million
MORE discs of their B-sides album to that album... Just take a second to take that all in.)
Borrowing from my "What if Nirvana never had SLTS" argument, take away Nevermind from Nirvana, would they still be as revered?
Take away Siamese Dream or MCIS from SP, your pick of which one is tossed. They would still be big.
I don't believe that album sales are any sort of real indication towards a band being talented or not, but you guys seem to be using that logic, so I may as well too. Pumpkins got into the limelight, and then made an even more influential record. I haven't heard too many people cite In Utero as being more influential than Nevermind.
----
Again, this is all extremely subjective and I hate saying who is better than who. If all I read in this topic was "I like Nirvana more than SP", I would be like "yeah cool, Nirvana is good!", but reading "Pumpkins are shit nobody even liked them when they sold millions of records!", that pisses me off a bit. I'm not a huge Nirvana fan but I'm not going to be an irrational dick and call them shit just because I like SP more.
I just remember falling in love with the Pumpkins, I still listen to their music regularly 5 years after discovering them (I got into them when I was 14, I'm 19 now).
A couple years ago, I got the Nirvana records and excitedly put them on, and was severely let down. "This is it?" I thought to myself.
Don't get me wrong, they are unarguably influential, big, etc., but to say they are more musically gifted/creative than SP? Come on.
*puts down SP flag, takes off Billy Corgan bald cap*
