Were Nirvana really bigger than Guns N' Roses?

No, not "eww". They played good stuff. I stopped listening to KIIS around mid-1991, though, but still kept up with pop by watching MTV and VH-1.

 

My point stands. Metallica were popular. Nirvana were mostly unknown. Whether you like it it not, they EARNED their success 100%.

 

The popularity if Nirvana is in no way related to Metallica IMO. Totally different sound, totally different appeal. Nirvana did not "ride on the coat-tails of Metallica".

Anything else you'd like to discuss?

 

What you say here isn't a problem. It's a problem when people retroactively for 1991 want to shuffle Nirvana off to the "alternative" or "grunge" table and shuffle Metallica off to the "mainstream" or "metal" table as if MTV or the average rock fan cared about such labels. People dug both bands in droves on "prime time" MTV not mainly because the musical style was actually a dramatically new form of alternative, indie, or metal. Nirvana's sounds encompassed blends of different pop styles that people were already familiar with. People knew that Metallica was an established band and responded to their new poppier material, producer, and writing style. In both cases, people liked seeing slickly produced music videos on MTV, and the music videos were good enough to sell the albums.

You can try putting your own music video on You Tube today, but relying upon somebody to click on a random You Tube music video is much less of a direct marketing push than a VJ commanding an audience and telling you what videos that you are going to see. MTV had niche programs like Headbangers Ball and 120 Minutes, but it was all connected to MTV and the standard "prime time" viewing audience of the most popular videos. It's not like someone couldn't conceivably watch or hear a standard "pop" MTV video right before a 120 Minutes video while keeping the TV set to the same channel. We shouldn't try to make too much of a distinction between different programs on MTV. It was still the same channel regardless of which program one watched.

The rest of the media latched onto the "grunge movement" marketing tool after Nirvana had already established themselves on mainstream MTV with a pop styled video. Metallica didn't really have that "metal movement" baggage or "spokesman of his generation" baggage to deal with in 1991 because they had already established themselves as a major selling album band in 1989 without a major pop charting single like Nirvana had. While Metallica's sales success was an improvement from 1989, they weren't as media sexy, in part because people already knew who they were, and also because Hetfield wasn't as blond as he was in high school. Sometimes we like to listen to what the media tells us we should think about this wacky new music called "grunge", when the reality is that it really isn't so much of a departure from what we have heard before as much as it is new faces and clothes with a couple good tunes or a couple good albums worth of material in them.

 

You really like to point out how we all toss around these labels and genres - but in so doing you seem even more concerned about them than those you accuse.

 

Nope, MTV played "Welcome To The Jungle" first and often before "Sweet Child O' Mine". I clearly remember "Welcome To The Jungle" hitting first on MTV and the radio, and the Wikipedia bears out this recollection:

In the U.S., "Welcome to the Jungle" was issued as the album's first single, with an accompanying music video. Initially, the album and single lingered for almost a year without performing well, but when Geffen founder David Geffen was asked to lend support to the band, he obliged by personally convincing MTV executives to play "Welcome to the Jungle" during their after-hours rotation.[22] Even though the video was initially only played once at 4 a.m. on a Sunday, heavy metal and hard rock fans took notice and soon began requesting the video and song en masse... (from G 'N' R entry)

In spite of the early morning airtime, the song's music video caught viewers' attention and quickly became MTV's most requested video. (from "Welcome To The Jungle" entry)

"Sweet Child o' Mine" was the album's second U.S. single, a love song co-written by Rose as a poem for his then-girlfriend Erin Everly, daughter of Don Everly of the Everly Brothers. Due to the growing grassroots success of the band and the cross-gender appeal of the song, "Sweet Child o' Mine" and its accompanying music video received heavy airplay on both radio and MTV, becoming a huge hit during the summer of 1988... (from G 'N' R entry)

And it strains credulity to suggest that Nirvana rode the coattails of Metallica to become popular, and that the popularity of Nevermind, which came out in 1991, and became huge in the next couple years, was a function of Cobain's 1994 suicide. Neither of those statements stand up to scrutiny.

 

You obviously weren't watching Metallica and Nirvana videos on heavy rotation on MTV in 1991.

 

Nirvana success had nothing to do with Metallica.

 

Yes, I was.

You and Driver 8 have no facts to back up your, as far as I can tell, largely made up on the fly opinions. As was pointed out earlier here, I think, Metallica came out on August 12, 1991. Nevermind came out on September 24, 1991. That's a six week difference, yet you are claiming Metallica broke open the door for Nevermind? Geffen signed Nirvana on April 30, 1991, over three months before Metallica came out.

Plus, listen to the albums, precisely played and polished metal opened the door for the rough, gritty and, compared to Metallica, less-produced sounds of Nirvana? I don't think so. You are talking about two different camps of sound. Period.

 

1991 had heavy waves of GNR's "You Could Be Mine" and Metallica's "Enter Sandman", followed later by Nirvana. You can't deny that Nirvana followed in their footsteps, as far as heavy MTV exposure is concerned.

 

No, Nirvana did not follow in their footsteps. So, other than the timeline of events, yes, I deny it.

 

I can tell you, the average fan absolutely cared about labels in 1991, it was a much more label conscious society back then. The whole "grunge" label is probably what started a backlash against all that, as the bands and their fans did not appreciate the label.

 

We were much more label conscious in 1991? What do you base that upon?

By the way, grunge speak terms:

bloated, big bag of bloatation – drunk
bound-and-hagged – staying home on Friday or Saturday night
cob nobbler – loser
dish – desirable guy
double dishing - when two desirable guys show up at the same party
fuzz – heavy wool sweaters
harsh realm – bummer
kickers – heavy boots
lamestain – uncool person
plats – platform shoes
rock on – a happy goodbye
score – great
swingin' on the flippity-flop – hanging out
tom-tom club – uncool outsiders
wack slacks – old ripped jeans
trash gash - female who is easy to sleep with

 

You know those are fake terms made up by a sub pop employee, right?

 

Other than the time-line of events that involves a chronological progression of a punk flavored GNR song recorded at the same time that they recorded their album of punk covers, a heavy riff laden Metallica video that made it to 16 on the pop charts, to a heavy riff laden Nirvana video that people claim is full of punk energy, all displayed for the world on MTV (the main purveyor of music culture) to see in a media world three years before the internet, you deny it.

Fixed.

 

Yes.

 

As far as I'm concerned, Nirvana.

 

You do now. Fixed.

 

Nope.

 

One thing's for sure, they both had bad taste in women.

 

Did you actually live through the late 1980s?

 

Burp

 

Score=PTDITP, dont let someone tell a story otherwise.

 

There's a bit difference between "followed" and "followed in their footsteps"

Nirvana followed Metallica and GnR chronologically. But they blazed their own trail.

 

Quite frankly: if you discount the importance of genre labels - particularly when you're talking about Metallica - you weren't around or paying attention, period. Metallica were metal, metal fans were very genre and image-conscious, and they weren't going to give it up for some "no talent punk fags" like Nirvana without their resistance being worn down. And there's still resistance among their kind, as any number of posts by members of this forum could tell you. Similarly, a lot of the alterna-kids who picked up on Nevermind early on didn't have a lot of time for arena metal bands.

Nirvana's success was independent of the "Black Album", because they were largely catering to different audiences at that time and it was only after "Smells Like Teen Spirit" started blowing up that the people who could get into Metallica thanks to "Enter Sandman" started paying attention and helped push the band way over the top.

Yes, although I'd say it was only the bands that objected to the "grunge" label once it stuck. Fans didn't care; heck, recall that "grunge" was an effective marketing term for a couple of years there.