NOOOOOO.... I'm saying that just because Radiohead say they are inspired by Nirvana doesn't mean that they have to sound like them.

My bad, sometimes i always expect what people say to be something negative even when it's not, i'm a little too used to hearing nothing but negative things and very few positive things.

But of course Radiohead arent going to sound like Nirvana, thats what i have been trying to tell expletive.

radiohead is so awesome it took over the nirvana thread, heh.



can someone explain to me how nirvana was going back to their "indie roots" when the released in utero, and 4 songs get radio play? i think it's a decent album but it still sounds like the all their other listener friendly crap to me. the lyrics are a little too nihilistic and bleak for some of their poppy audience but other than that what's different?

The production for one thing, it lacks the glossy sound of Nevermind, it's much more lo-fi... Less bass, more guitar, more fuzz and feedback, and a much more agressive and noise oriented sound than Nevermind... The lyrics are better as well.

Cobain thought Nevermind came out too well produced, and that he wanted to revive a more primitive sound similar to what he achieved with Bleach.

And i would say that most of the album isn't listener friendly, at least not most of the tracks aside from the singles.

Also indie bands can get radio play too, Float On is a big mainstream radio hit.

thanks that helps

Don't mean to be rude but that isn't sarcasm is it?

People have a tendacy of being anti-courteous to me, i have trust issues.

i was being serious, it gave me a better understanding

Oh, sorry for jumping to silly conclusions. :(

Tis' been a pleasure.

I probably replied to this a year ago but oh well I'm bored:

Wow, Nirvana and best are in the same sentence, just when you thought that was impossible, whatd'ya know?

Translation: Nirvana suck and suck hard, someone tell me they don't and I'll explain why.

^ they dont , i hope a bizzare garden accident happens to you