Babes In Toyland -- better than Nirvana
 

To me, Babes In Toyland were/are the band that defined "grunge" music.
If Jann Wenner and MTV had any balls, they would have built BIT into the legendary slot that Nirvana now occupies. Truth be told, they felt music wasn't ready for an all-female band that kicked butt. Instead, they propped Nirvana up and killed Kurt Cobain by doing so.

Those wanting proof of the true power of Babes In Toyland need only listen to their best work "Fontanelle." Which kicks "Nevermind" into the dirt and leaves it crumpled in the dust.
"Bruise Violet" is meaner and uglier than anything on "Nevermind." Guitarist and vocalist Kat Bjelland has the voice and snarl that Kurt Cobain wished he had.

While Nirvana is long dead, Babes In Toyland are back after almost two decades. They played at the Roxy in Los Angeles on Thursday, Feb. 12, meaner and grittier than ever. If BIT decides to tour, a new generation has the chance to rectify past injustices.
I was privileged enough to see BIT a couple of times in the 90's. Few bands of that era could match them in intensity. I saw them open for Dinosaur Jr. once and blow them off the stage and into a back alley.

It just ain't doing it for me.

Nirvana >

Bold statement.



So this is the song that shames Nevermind?

It sounds like a Melvins or L7 track. it is good i'll give you that but imo is not better than Nirvana.

This is something Nirvana would've done in Bleach but outgrew in their way to In Utero.

never got into them personally, always just seemed an average band with no real depth to them other than "look girls can thrash a guitar too"

My thoughts exactly! I saw them in the early 90's and I also saw Nirvana a couple of times back then and I wouldn't rate Babes in Toyland better than a 3 out of 10. I thought they were rather awful to be honest. :laughing:

Huh? What propped Nirvana up so much that Rolling Stone and MTV had no choice but to jump on the band wagon were the great songs on Nevermind. Teen Spirit being the one that took the country by a storm.

I don't know if Nirvana deserves it, but that is how history has it. I guess because Hair Metal ran it's course and became so trite no one could bear it any more it was possible any band could be the next new thing. There were a lot of good bands in the 80s, and early 90s. But for whatever reason Nirvana was prompt up as thē band. I don't mind Nirvana, but I don't think they were not the end all be all of Alternative-Rock. I never felt the necessity to buy a Nirvana CD, even now I'm not so compelled to listen to album online for free.

is that right

If they defined grunge music, why is this the first time i've heard of them? Please don't tell me the OP thinks these guys are up to par with the likes of Nirvana, Soundgarden, etc etc.

If they defined, then why don't they sound like the essence of grunge

Mudhoney is so ****ing good.

What a lot of people don't remember is what was playing on the radio and topping the charts right before Nirvana broke. You had steady doses of MJ, Whitney Houston, Boys to Men, and lots of other artists that were far from being considered rock.

Nevermind broke big on the strength of those singles and ultimately knocked Michael Jackson out of the #1 spot on the Billboard album charts.

All of a sudden crunchy guitars and heavy drums were mainstream again once the grunge bandwagon gained full speed.

To me that is Nirvana's legacy. They were the ones that busted down the R&B, pop, and ballad dominance of the airwaves.

People talk about how "Nevermind" revolutionized the 90s. Electric Warrior had as much influence on 90s music and that was recorded two decades earlier. There were college radio bands like REM and U2 that were crossing over to household name fame, some felt they sold out by then but at least they were doing something other than what you mention (i.e. MJ, Whitney Houston, Boys to Men stuff). Whether you like them or not they were pushing what became known as Alternative Rock to the public's conscience well before Nevermind. And don't forget people like Bob Mould and Ian MacKaye with with their sweat and bare hands literally paved the way for bands like Nirvana. Smashing Pumpkins had Gish out on May 28, 1991 months ahead of Nevermind and Gish is 10 times better. Pennywise (album) and Girlfriend were also ten times better, and they only came out almost a month later.

I don't get it and I never will. I think the OP is right.

A list of a few albums release in 1991, regardless of genre, better than Nirvana's Nevermind:

• blur - Leisure
• Chapterhouse - Whirlpool
• Chris Isaak - Wicked Game
• Enya - Shepherd Moons <- :yikes:
• Kitchens Of Distinction - Strange Free World
• LFO - Frequencies
• Mr. Big - Lean into It
• Pennywise - Pennywise
• Primus - Sailing the Sea of Cheese
• School Of Fish - School Of Fish
• Screaming Trees - Uncle Anesthesia
• Soundgarden - Badmotorfinger
• Smashing Pumpkins - Gish
• Matthew Sweet - Girlfriend
• SRV (and Double Trouble) The Sky is Crying

As a Nirvana fan, i agree with this.

this is something Kurt acknowledges as well in some interviews

I'm not arguing over how great they were - I have never even owned one of their albums. I'm just explaining why they are so revered.

Oh, Nevermind.

Is it just me or is this post basically "Nirvana made white people cool again"?
:D

I liked BIT when I was a teenager. I was listening to quite a few girl bands then, mostly punk, like The Slits, the Raincoats, Free Kitten and Bratmobile. I think most people interested in grunge music around that time would've heard of BIT as they always seemed relatively well known to me. I didn't prefer them to Nirvana at the time, but perhaps I would today as my interest in Nirvana has long since worn off and never came back. However, the only BIT song I have a clear memory of is Sweet 69.

So giving someone the opportunity to become rich, famous and successful as a musician is now killing them .. And if Kurt blows his stupid head off, MTV are to be held accountable? You got some weird ideas about morals, man.

I think it's not mystical crow but the music industry that "got some weird ideas about morals, man."

Well, Kurt isn't the only one that can't handle the fame or the pressures that go along with it. But if he couldn't there could be other reasons to why (he couldn't). It could be depression or some other issue. The personal problems he had would still be there at that point in his life with or without all the fame and fortune. The circumstance wouldn't matter, he would have another set of problems, but he would still have to deal with the depression.

And it's not really known if he committed suicide or if it was murder. It could be very well that he was suffering depression and one thing lead to another... but I heard somewhere he was killed. Anyway, it can't be proven one way or the other.

I guess if MTV had accepted the responsibility mystical crow thinks they have, they should've said "Sorry Nirvana - Kurt, Dave Grohl and that other guy - we just can't play your music videos. We know you're generating a real buzz and that your shit's awesome .. but if you guys get very rich and famous, and Kurt can't handle that and kills himself, then it would actually be our fault for giving you guys this opportunity other bands would kill for."

It doesn't make sense, does it? It's like someone giving you a million dollars and then you complain to them that you don't like being rich - and hold them accountable for making you depressed. It's the ultimate douche bag first world problem joke :p:

I don't think MTV was Kurt's biggest problem, and he had possibly tried to take his own life earlier by the way, unsuccessfully (see Rome incident). At periods in his youth, he was homeless, living under a bridge. He did drugs and was generally self-destructive. Then he married the queen of manipulative bitches, Courtney Love, and had children with her. He did not have an inkling of the maturity needed to take responsibility for his life at the time. To become rich and successful and to actually get his music out there was only one "problem" in a pile of many.

Rather than blame the industry for killing him, I think they gave him and the band these chances and opportunities and people who get them should be grateful. Failing to do so or realize that is kinda douchy. People should actually have to take just a little bit of responsibility themselves for their own actions and not blame everything on their benefactors. Kurt's whine about being successful was just sad.

That whole deal with Kurt's death has become fan fiction heaven with everybody filling the blanks with their own theories.

You guys made a great point that Kurt himself was a on a downward spiral to begin with and Nirvana's fame and wealth made it worse however blaming that for his death its like making excuses for Kurt.

Just like some ppl think its ok he did he did heroin cause he had stomach pain.
I really don't know How Kurt was like as a person but i know he was the full on junkie type not a casual user and that path was gonna take him down famous or not.

Maybe he could've recovered from it or maybe it would've consumed him eventually but sadly, that's something we'll never know now.

Kurt was punk as **** regardless

What's so punk about Kurt? Sad teenager thrown out of the house by his parents, depressed junkie, gets pushed around by his abusive wife, kills himself .. Socially, he's described as a quiet guy, a listener.

Someone like Johnny Rotten I can see being punk as ****, but why Kurt?

Dude was too punk rock to live

I dunno man, I'm sure we have different definitions of what makes someone "punk", and you're a lot smarter than me so I'll just end up being argued into the ground. I just thought he had that attitude. And the fact that all he wanted to do was rock, and didn't want any of the ultra-hype he got.

What I said had to do with your comment concerning mystical crow's morals. I didn't agree with everything said in the OP. But I see the point made by mystical crow in that one part that you quoted. I was trying to point to the irony of you critiquing mystical crow's morals when we are talking about a company (MTV) that doesn't have a high standards of morals.

He was punk enough to wear that god awful sweater during their MTV unplugged gig. 100% punk.

http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/blogs/m...nplugged-2.jpg

He dressed like a bum at all times

i always thought that sweater looked itchy.

I thought it was 60's kitsch.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I dunno, if punk simply means being honest about who you are and what sort of music you make, that would make a lot of people punk rock as fuck, like Miles Davis, Kate Bush, Frank Zappa or even Andy Kaufman - really, any artist who follow their own vision rather than pander to the audience.

And if that's called being punk, then there should be a better word for it as people were doing that, take The Monks or Velvet Underground f.ex, long before punk ever existed. Punk should have no right to claim ownership of that particular artistic ideal.

In my opinion, a punk attitude should have something to do with proactive rebellion against society, or some aspect of it - and more so than daring to wear a comfy sweater.

I dunno. Kurt knowing that his band was going to have a huge worldwide spotlight on them for 60 minutes and him choosing to wear something completely uncool is a bit of a rebellion against the moment IMO.

That was the first thing I thought when I first watched that unplugged.

By those standards, LiL, Briks, and Sequoioideae are punk.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

yep

You lookin' for a spankin'?

You wouldn't dare; I'm too punk.

So is Kate Bush punk as **** then?

I just think of it as artistic integrity.

i can sing like kurt , only one that can

Babes in Toyland wasnt the worst band out there, i like the vocals of Kat with its grit.. but i dontknow, some tracks sound kinda cheesy..