The Pixies vs Nirvana
 

The Pixies are my favorite band so I must say I am totally 100% biased in this poll. There are just too many songs to count that I love from The Pixies. I love seeing the text of the song titles and knowing that each song means something to me. I have never really ever been all that interested in Nirvana, I really only like in Utero and their greatest hits. I did however find a lot of great music by looking up Kurt Cobains top 50 albums list.

Nirvana embody so many of my favorite bands (including the Pixies) into one emotionally charged package so I chose I prefer Nirvana - but be advised I'm a massive Pixies fan.

I honestly can't decide. I used to listen to Nirvana a whole bunch, but then I learned about the Pixies and started listening to them more. Both of them are great in different ways for me.

Prefer Pixies, although that's because certain aspects of the Nirvana phenomenon, in particular those horrible "Kurt Cobain 1967-1994" t-shirts have put me off their music to a degree. As well as this,I consider Pixies to have a more varied discography which rewards repeated listening better than Nirvana's work.

"I prefer Nirvana" I would have gone with Nirvana is way better but I've only heard the pixies once or twice, I grew up with Nirvana's music so it sticks with me.

It doesn't even make sense to compare these two other then because they're both 'grunge'. Pixies are miles ahead, and this is coming from a Nirvana fan.

I wouldn't call the Pixies grunge... I'd say that's a bit of a stretch.

Agreed. I just don't see why else the two would be compared.

I don't really either. Other than the fact that Kurt Cobain was supposed to be a huge Pixies fan and Nirvana drew inspiration from them. But Black Francis was a huge Beach Boys fan and the Pixies drew influence from them so...

But I see where you are coming from Odyshape - a lot of people are introduced to either band through one or the other.

It's really not all that different than all the Dinosaur Jr. vs. Pixies threads that are all about the forum, I mean I'd say all three of the bands have about the same amount in common and both were influences on Kurt Cobain.

I picked Pixies, I really like Nirvana and I've been listening to them for years but the Pixies are something else. Their music has something to it that I just don't hear in Nirvana. I'd say the Pixies catalog is more varied as well, they went through there whole straight college rock/proto metal or whatever stage on Trompe Le Monde. Both great bands though.

Having a hard time deciding as well. I like them both in different ways. In a way I feel like Nirvana are overrated by a bunch of people that normally listen to only what's popular, too many people think they were the greatest band in the world. Yeah ok I like them and love some of their songs, but that's pushing it. That doesn't make me like them any less, mind you.

So, we've had a Sonic Youth v. Dinosaur Jr. thread, a Dinosaur Jr. v. The Pixies thread, and now a Pixies v. Nirvana thread...

Can I go ahead and start the Nirvana v. Pavement thread?

Nirvana was heavily influenced by the Pixies and Surfer Ros was one of Kurt's favorite albums, but they are totally different.

Yes, I said they are totally different. Nirvana took the loud-quite technique from the pixies (along with a bunch of other things from different bands) and put it all together and came out with Nirvana.

The Pixies aren't grunge, and the only reason I could see the pixies and nirvana getting compared is because Kurt Cobain is widely thought to have ripped off the pixies, which he admitted to.

Thus, this poll is the dumbest **** ever.

Dinosaur Jr or Mudhoney would be a much better name to drop if you're looking to discuss grunge. Pixies would be a lot more relevant to the indie aspect of Nirvana.

A much better thread to start on that subject would be the Pavement vs. Guided By Voices one.

Compared to a lot of the threads on MusicBanter it's not so bad...

I'd actually say Alternative/Indie is a much better forum than "punk" for this.

Eh, calling Dinosaur Jr. Grunge is kind of pushing it, they are kind of in there own genre. You could maybe call them post-punk, although they do embody some aspects of Grunge like distorted guitars but that's about it.

Dinosaur Jr are post-hardcore if they're anything, but a lot of the groups that were most directly influenced by them were "grunge".Proto-grunge would be a good term for their sound in that it's a template that isn't quite the same thing,much the same as New York Dolls not quite being punk.

I just thought most fans were fans of both bands , I don't think its the "dumbest **** ever" but if people don't want me to keep making these threads I will stop.

oh btw i just read about how Rolling Stone changed their 3 star review of Surfer Rosa in 1992 to a 5 star in 2004, man that it is lame.
also apparently steve albini was upset during the production of Surfer Rosa, in an interview :"A patchwork pinch loaf from a band who at their top dollar best are blandly entertaining college rock. Their willingness to be "guided" by their manager, their record company and their producers is unparalleled. Never have I seen four cows more anxious to be led around by their nose rings"

Unfortunately, I had to go with liking them the same amount. I feel like I like a lot of Nirvana's songs by themselves a lot better, but The Pixie's can make a full album that flows and always keeps me satisfied.

That what I think to,

Well, I must admit I don't know much of Pixies, so I choose Nirvana.

But we can't forget that the Pixies influenced Nirvana and both are very good bands.

I care very little for either band as i did then, however i took some comfort in the fact that the grunge sensation helped bury the acid/rave sensation, so i'm going with Nirvana

Nirvana for me. I like them a whole lot better.

Maybe it's just me but I don't hear grunge in Dinosaur Jr. at all. When I think grunge I think of bands like Tad, Pearl Jam.

As for Pixies or Nirvana, I'd pick Nirvana. I like The Pixies but I invested a lot of my young listening time with Nirvana and that kind of sticks with you. I listened to those albums so much.

This is a really disturbing trend with Rolling Stone. There's a crazy amount of albums they trashed when they first came out that they later went back and reviewed much better. They raised In the Aeroplane Over the Sea from 3 stars to 4, 3 Feet High and Rising from 3 to 5, Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain from 4 to 5, and Odelay from 4 to 5, to name but a few. I guess they think their reviews need to be reconsidered a few years after the albums come out, but to me it looks a lot more like they are realizing they gave an album that became a classic a bad review so rather than accept that they disagree they go back and change their score. Really discredits their opinion to me.

Neither band is punk.

Care to elaborate? No? Okay then - you're wrong. What's grunge but punk fused with heavy metal? Besides that Nirvana had plenty of tunes I'd consider punk.

About the same, I really don't like this comparison. I like them both but for totally different reasons.

Nirvana, no doubt...

Like most of the vs. threads on here, it is a pretty unjust comparison, but I do prefer The Pixies.

I'd hardly consider this song grunge at all, in fact I'm not sure what it is if not punk. I don't think either band sounded like 70s first wave punk bands, but they both were definitely heavily influenced by punk.

I chose Nirvana, because when I was ten it sounded revolutionary. When I first heard the pixies I was much older, and having already listened to a bunch of indie/punkish stuff, they sounded kind of blase. I love nirvana, but probably for purely sentimental reasons.

Not that it really matters but I see both bands in sort of the indie/alternative area.

what makes something an unjust comparison? I don't think to styles of music are totally different, althought I will admit there some big differences.

I don't know if people are still rocking those shirts, but I certainly did in high school, because what i wore was an extension of what i felt. I had just been getting into Nirvana, and then *poof* it was gone. Someone who had been able to break into mainstream that still maintained a genuine persona. For many people, myself included, those shirts were not a gross manipulation of a dead body or capitalizing off the dead, but a coping mechanism for people who felt that they lost the only person in the visible present who had any balls to speak out against bull**** like homophobia or hatred, in a scene where that had been unprecedented. For a kid in high school, I didn't have a lot of outlets to say, "HEY! PEOPLE! THIS IS A RIDICULOUS LOSS FOR ALL OF HUMANKIND! PAY ATTENTION TO THIS!", especially being the kind of kid who would be personally affected by Cobain's lyrics. I'd like to give a bit of leeway to the new school, but by now, especially considering how things have progressed, it's probably not necessary to be wearing these shirts. People know now what we lost in Kurt Cobain, and trying to express this to audiences by wearing said shirt nowadays is presumably falling on dead ears.

No. Nirvana vs. Pavement would actually be difficult. Otherwise, the choices are easy: Sonic Youth, The Pixies, then whoever impacted your life more. Personally, Nirvana, though The Pixies had more early influence, whereas Nirvana affected thousands, if not millions, more people than the Pixies.

And this one is just silly. Well, I guess maybe a legit vs. for some people, but Guided By Voices? Really? To paraphrase something that I read from the great Bob Pollard, "I write four songs every time I go to the bathroom.. three of them are good."

As far as the websites changing their reviews after time goes on, none have been a greater offender than pitchfork. If I personally gave something a bad review when it came out, I would stand by it, whether it ultimately became a classic or not. That's part of the review process, and indicates whether or not you should really be reviewing music. Changing star ratings on albums.. really sad.