quote:

Originally posted by brighteyes215:
I'm just saying don't say that Nirvana were more innovative because they merely took what had come before them, including Pixies, and made it into something really great.

Dude, i'm not saying that. What I'm saying is I think Nirvana was more original and had a more pure form of expression while the Pixies adhered more to the former contraints of musical expression.

And that's just my opinion, and I'm sure we could argue for hours about it. But i'm not gonna. I've made my point and some disagree. That's fine.

I'm not going to attempt to measure the influence of the pixies or nirvana...cause I really can't, nor can anybody really. But I can tell you that I personally think Nirvana was and is far more influential and I explained why in previous posts in this thread.

dude wtf are you talking about?

I think which group had more influence is a fair debate, but it's hard to say Nirvana was more original, when self-admittedly they ripped off the Pixies. To me, that right there makes the case that they weren't all that original.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
I think which group had more influence is a fair debate, but it's hard to say Nirvana was more original, when self-admittedly they ripped off the Pixies. To me, that right there makes the case that they weren't all that original.

I don't know. I listen to the Pixies and I hear a great band, with some serious talent, but nothing that original. I listen to Nirvana and I hear a band that sounds like no one else except for those who have tried to copy them.

But that's just me.

First off, I think we should give hudson a break. Second off, Joey Santiago was a mind-bending guitarist. It's funny that hudson mentions Hendrix because Santiago always reminded me of Hendrix. But I still say he deserves a break, so maybe some personal comments for the posters and less personal comments at the original postee. This is obviously a popular thread.

Thanks, hudson!

quote:

Mleland, I don't equate offensive with quality. But I do think true originality is offensive, especially at first.

I think this, too, needs explanation beyond the noise explosion (punk, industrial) of the 70s. Can you cite other examples? Music? Architecture? Home cabinetry?

quote:

Originally posted by m.leland:

quote:

Mleland, I don't equate offensive with quality. But I do think true originality is offensive, especially at first.

I think this, too, needs explanation beyond the noise explosion (punk, industrial) of the 70s. Can you cite other examples? Music? Architecture? Home cabinetry?

Well, um, I just think usually any form of expression that is rooted in original thought tends to be offensive because it's new, unknown, and different and that causes feelings of uneasiness of offense.

I guess the first example that comes to mind would be the philosophies of plato and socrates. Also certain religious figures that presented new belief systems were offensive such as Jesus. People who introduced new ideas for civil reform such as M.L.K. Musicians such as Elvis and Jerry Lee Lewis were offensive.

I know these aren't the best examples, I'm sure if I sat down and made a list of all the people that have introduced new thoughts and forms of expression to the world and consequently offended, I could make a very lengthy list.

Basically, anyone who shatters previous societal contraints is offensive, especially at first. That's what I meant by that comment.

quote:

Originally posted by hudson:
I don't know. I listen to the Pixies and I hear a great band, with some serious talent, but nothing that original. I listen to Nirvana and I hear a band that sounds like no one else except for those who have tried to copy them.

I always thought the Pixies were pretty original. Can you cite some examples of bands that the Pixies were copying? Keep in mind that Come on Pilgrim came out in 1987. I hear influence from bands like X and Husker Du, but I can't think of any contemporaries of the Pixies that really sounded anything like them.

I don't buy that Nirvana were revolutionary in the sense that they did something new and unique (and were therefore offensive). They were offensive because they did things like call a song "Rape Me" while being the most popular band of the early 90s. But their ethos, subject matter, muse (heroin), and musical style were not especially original. They built on the thriving alternative rock scene of the 80s and catapulted that style to the mainstream. It's OK that they fall short of being The Most Important Band Ever. They were still very important, and pretty damn good at that.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
Can you cite some examples of bands that the Pixies were copying?

I never meant to imply that the Pixies copied anybody, pretty sure I didn't say that. I think they definetly had their own flavor and style.

But to reiterate, I don't think they broke through any major musical constraints the way Nirvana did.

Hudson please name how Nirvana in any way broke musical constraints. To argue that Pixies weren't as innovative as Nirvana is to seriously shortchange when Nirvana often named their influences in interviews while Pixies were making music that was slightly revolutionary and unbelievably influential.

quote:

Originally posted by brighteyes215:
Hudson please name how Nirvana in any way broke musical constraints.

By kicking pop music directly in the nut sack and giving the unique and frustrated generation x a voice when it needed to be heard. The pixies didn't speak for a generation the way Nirvana did, but they did do a damn good job of playing their own style of music. This is all just my opinion though. Music is a very subjective thing.

By kicking pop music directly in the nut sack and giving the unique and frustrated generation x a voice when it needed to be heard. The pixies didn't speak for a generation the way Nirvana did, but they did do a damn good job of playing their own style of music.

They kicked pop music in the nuts simply because they came at a time when alternative rock was becoming big. If perhaps they had just been a bit earlier, they would have in the mainstream remained as obscure as say... Pixies were. And yes they did a damn good job playing their own style of music, one that coincedentally was extremely influential on Nirvana's own style of music.

quote:

Originally posted by brighteyes215:
They kicked pop music in the nuts simply because they came at a time when alternative rock was becoming big. If perhaps they had just been a bit earlier, they would have in the mainstream remained as obscure as say... Pixies were.

I respectfully disagree. Nirvana was quite simply a more powerful band, with more powerful vocals, guitar, drums, and melody, imo. Had they been on the scene a bit earlier as you've suggested, they would've still far overshadowed the Pixies and any other band for that matter, imo.

I would never argue that the Nirvana wasn't influenced by the Pixies, Kurt admitted it. But the similarities of the two bands hold much less weight in comparison to the differences. They were two different bands with radically different sounds.

Listen, just because you love Nirvana,Hudson which you have a perfect right to do, give credit where credit is due. Listen to a song like "I Bleed," now listen to the song "In Bloom" hmm any similiarities there, I would think so, sounds quite similar. I wouldnt call it radically different so much as Nirvana sounds ALOT like Pixies. And in terms of variety, well I mean Pixies were just brilliant at everything they did, while Nirvana were quite great at the ONE type of music that they made. So I guess I respectfully disagree.

quote:

Originally posted by brighteyes215:
Listen to a song like "I Bleed," now listen to the song "In Bloom" hmm any similiarities there, I would think so, sounds quite similar.

Forgetting the Pixies for a moment, if you want to hear a true Nirvana rip-off moment, get your hands on Killing Joke's song "Eighties", recorded in 1985, then listen to "Come as you Are". I think there's maybe one note different in that riff, and the effects on the guitar are exactly the same. I'm surprised there was no lawsuit.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by brighteyes215:
Listen to a song like "I Bleed," now listen to the song "In Bloom" hmm any similiarities there, I would think so, sounds quite similar.

Forgetting the Pixies for a moment, if you want to hear a true Nirvana rip-off moment, get your hands on Killing Joke's song "Eighties", recorded in 1985, then listen to "Come as you Are". I think there's maybe one note different in that riff, and the effects on the guitar are exactly the same. I'm surprised there was no lawsuit.

Also, the riff towards the end of "Debaser" is almost identical to the riff on "Smells Like Teen Spirit."

Honestly guys, I don't see how comparing certain similar songs, riffs and melodies proves that Nirvana wasn't vastly unique and original. I see this more as an homage to their musical influencesthan anything.

Jimmy Paige borrowed plenty of blues riffs from some of the greats, does that mean Led Zepellin wasn't vastly influential, unique and original...no, of course not.

The point is that Nirvana wasn't that groundbreaking. Anyone who was listening to Post-Punk & Alternative music in that late 80s heard Nirvana's sound in bands like the Pixies, the Melvins, Sonic Youth, and the Meat Puppets. The only thing Nirvana did differently than the aforementioned bands was make that style into something catchy and accessible that MTV could sell to the masses. It also didn't hurt that they were part of the much-hyped Seattle scene that was already becoming well known because of bands like Soundgarden and Pearl Jam predecessors Mother Love Bone.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
The point is that Nirvana wasn't that groundbreaking. Anyone who was listening to Post-Punk & Alternative music in that late 80s heard Nirvana's sound in bands like the Pixies, the Melvins, Sonic Youth, and the Meat Puppets. The only thing Nirvana did differently than the aforementioned bands was make that style into something catchy and accessible that MTV could sell to the masses. It also didn't hurt that they were part of the much-hyped Seattle scene that was already becoming well known because of bands like Soundgarden and Pearl Jam predecessors Mother Love Bone.

Well eric75, as you can see by my other posts, I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. But that's alright, what fun would it be if we all viewed music through the same eyes? Music affects each of us differently.