Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
i say nirvana WIN
what do YOU say?
let's look at it this way:
bleach vs pretty on the side - close, both quite raw and evil sounding, but i think bleach wins because it doesn't have a song that goes "WHEENNN AAHHH WUZZZ A TEEEENAGE HOOOORRRR!"
nevermind vs live through this - nevermind has great songs but completely unsuitable production. live through this roxx0rs, so wins.
in utero vs celebrity skin. in utero not only wins, but throws 80% polish vodka onto celebrity skin's battered, bloodied corpse and sets fire to it.
although i quite liked the single 'Celebrity Skin'.
bolly corgan wrote that ubergood riff
live through this is pretty good. first album is patchy. last one is dreadful.
i quite liked courtney love's solo record when it came out, although i've not listened to it since..
Nirvana though. So well done to both teams.
are about 10 times better. easily. hole have good moments. and nirvana have good everything. i love nirvana so much.
Nirvana were awesome, Hole were nothing.
every time. Easy.
every time. Easy.
This is the worst thread ever.
you are correct.
Pretty On The Inside was better than Bleach. Live Through This was better than Nevermind. In Utero was better than Celebrity Skin. (though I do love CS's Fleetwood Macness)
2-1 to Hole. And that feels right. Anyone that says other people wrote Hole songs are fucking idiots.
like billy corgan?
Love is a better frontperson than Cobain.
they both bore me shitless.
Eric whatshis face was a better guitarist than Kurt.
and live through piss are terrible.
There's just something about Hole I can't stand. Celebrity Skin is just about passable.
anyone who has expressed the opinion that Hole were better should be ashamed of themselves.
your face more offensive, frankly.
but the mere suggestion that Hole are better than Nirvana is one which I don't know whether to laugh or cry at. Then there are people that genuinely think Hole are better AND even in some cases that Nirvana were rubbish?
I guess all I can say without starting a somewhat large argument is that I strongly disagree, and you are a big silly billy.
but i don't see why i should be ashamed because i prefer Hole.
to objectively thinking that Hole are a better band than Nirvana. Which in my head is totally ridiculous, especially as you appear to be a music writer.
I really don't want to start what would basically be an argument over two opinions that can't realistically work in changing those opinions, but I'd like to see you justify from a journalistic point of view that Hole were better than Nirvana!
If you think it's pointless to do this, you're probably right, but I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
firstly to say that any band is 'objectively' better than another is entirely suspect. i'm only an amateur music journalist but i know that in these sort of discussions such terms of being 'better' lie entirely in the subjective views of whoever is writing. A journalist will say a song is good or bad as if it was objective yet as we know it relies on the reader understanding that it will be considered the viewpoint of the publication rather than the categorical truth. Just because, say, Q give the last Razorlight album five stars does not mean that you agree. That a person on a messageboard says that Nirvana are better than Hole does not mean that they are of more worth, or that it is some sort of binding law that you MUST listen to Nirvana over whatever is considered 'inferior'.
Also, saying that a music writer must feel that some bands are superior in the annals of rock history is not only quite alarming but also would undermine a great deal of my own personal belief about music criticism. i know a lot of writers even on here who have a very differing taste in music and who i disagree with regularly but their writing is shit hot and well informed. To place any artist on a pedestal or give them any sense of the untouchable makes a mockery of rock journalism. It's why 'fanboy' writing sticks out like a sore thumb and is often highly embarrassing (not that i've always resisted doing it, but that's how i feel), plus we can't all have the same opinion otherwise we'd all be living in an isue of Q magazine, we'd all be forced to attend Rolling Stones gigs by law and cultural life would generally be an unadventurous living seeting hell.
But anyway. i would PREFER Hole for a number of reasons. Firstly, i think that Courtney Love is a better frontperson, as i've said, although a lot of this does i admit come down to showmanship. All performances i've seen of Kurt have been fairly wooden and it feels like all magnetism towards him is due to the myth that the media has spun around him. i'm not saying he was a bad performer at all, but he admitted himself he'd never be as good at stirring up a crowd like Freddie Mercury did and as far as i could tell didn't put on as much of a performance as Courtney. Maybe, in essence, she had more to lose, but she is definitely more mesmerising.
There is the argument that MEGAtron put up there about who is the better guitarist etc. but frankly i hate those sort of arguments. Musicianship means little when it comes to a good band. Dire Straits were all great musicians yet they were also one of the shittiest most overrated bands of all time. There is no direct proportion to it.
There is also the matter of lyrical concerns. While Kurt was a great lyricist i often feel like too much of it is inverted, introspective and frankly self-indulgent: people do claim to connect with him and i don't dispute that, but he rarely wrote about much beyond his own internal pain and suffering. A lot of Hole lyrics are like that too ("When I was a teenage whore" indeed) but they also deal with more pressing issues i think, as Courtney's inclusion in the film you can see in wishpig's blog at the moment exemplifies. Kurt was a better wordsmith yes but too often at the expense of the music.
But ultimately i realise that i'm only talking about Kurt and Courtney here, which is part of the problem of why Hole aren't held in the same regard (imagine if Heather Mills was in a band) and i know that many of the reasons i think Hole are better rely a lot in hindsight. Death was, you've got to admit, was a big boost for Kurt's 'career', whether it be before (although i don't think people were as perversely intrigued as to when he was going to snuff it as they are Mr. Doherty) or after his suicide, and it means he will be the posterboy of rock martyrdom forever. If the argument of being 'better' is about being more influential, then why aren't the Pixies considered 'better' than Nirvana? Plus being influential isn't all it's cracked up to be. For every Mclusky that Nirvana influenced there at least a few dozen Puddle of Mudds moping about feeling sorry for themsleves writing painfully bad dirges celebrating their own hopelessness. Hole probably inspired thousands of girls to pick up guitars in a musical climate that desperately needed it.
Plus Hole is a better name. Definitely.
because you don't seem to have mentioned the tunes once.
I mean Nirvana have clearly cornered the market in both awesomely accessible and brilliantly catchy tunes...but then at the same time they have noise-fests and rhythm based tracks that manage to be just as catchy inspite of their style.
I've never heard anything by Hole to rival the sheer brilliance of the structure, rhythms and ideas contained in tracks like:
Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through the Strip
Plus, your 'front person' basis is a bit dubious given you apparently never saw Kurt Cobain live. I think it's pretty fucking cool that he started his Reading set from a wheelchair spouting gibberish, though. And the crowds certainly got mad for it.
Of course music writing is mainly subjective. But I think there is definitely room for objectivity. You might not have connected with Nirvana yourself like many have, but you should at least acknowledge the fact that most of the greatest musicians, and most widely respected journalists, artists, whatever all believe Nirvana to be the truly great band they were. Of course there is ridiculous journalism too, like the Q Razorlight piece you mention. But Q is hardly the pinnacle of great journalism is it? We have major press, to small publications, to DIY fanzines worldwide who all love Nirvana. You can't say the same is true for Razorlight, or indeed probably ANYONE on the same scale as Nirvana.
Hole were essentially Billy Corgan's girlfriend's band. Then Kurt Cobain's girlfriend's band. They did some decent enough rock songs, and Courtney Love was a strong icon for women in rock, for which she should be saluted. But I don't even think I need to try and analyse why I think Nirvana's songs were miles better. I think it is quite clear. Kurt Cobain is probably one of the cleverest lyricists of all time. At the same time as this, he somehow managed to create both the best pop band AND the best rock band of all time (now this is up for debate, I suppose!) by fusing fantastic melodies with uncompromising, groundbreaking noise, all this while being a pretty sub-standard guitarist. Incredible.
I don't agree with your front-person argument at all. Freddie Mercury was in Queen, the big glam rock band. Kurt Cobain was in Nirvana, the three-piece grunge band. Courtney Love was a charismatic performer on occasion (and on other occasions she really wasn't) but had to put on a performance because her songs weren't as good. Nirvana played live as a band. It was a three way performance. That said, I think Kurt Cobain was the perfect frontman, both enigmatic and unpredictable. Have you not seen the "Live! Tonight! Sold Out!" video? I recommend watching it if not. Most of it is on youtube. It is confusing, as it seems from the Freddie Mercury comparision, what you'd prefer Cobain to be like is the intensely annoying Dave Grohl in the modern festival-headlining Foo Fighters show, constantly shouting "COME OOOON!" and "LET'S ROCK!" which is basically what it would translate to.
Your Puddle Of Mudd argument is silly as well. It doesn't matter how many of them they are, you can ignore that tosh. These bands actually go towards showing just how great Nirvana were from a musical point of view, as similar lyrical subject matter with similar delivery brings such shoddy results time after time, none have come close to capturing the genius of Nirvana. The amount of great bands that Nirvana have influenced are countless. And besides, I reckon more girls have got in to music through Nirvana than Hole anyway.
As to Hole being a better name... Well I'm sure Beavis and Butthead would agree.
And I'll leave it at that.
I say that Hole wins.
possibly think Hole are the better band?! Fools.
all the way.