Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Nirvana: Live At Reading
Nirvana: Live At Reading
2009-11-07, 5:58 PM #1
97 on Metacritic, though Metacritic is not infallible or anything, quite the contrary!

So anyway, this live performance was released on CD and DVD, no BR unfortunately. It indeed captures Nirvana performing at Reading Festival in England in post-Nevermind 1992. It is said that they were at their peak during this time, and that this performance reflects that perfectly.

Anyone heard/seen it, gonna get the CD/DVD, or better yet, was actually there and could share with us their memories on the event?!

By the way, if you're just gonna post and say "Nirvana sucks/sucked/are overrated"...that's ok too if you feel like saying it.
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2009-11-07, 6:10 PM #2
I'm not going to buy it, but I hear it's generally regarded as being the best performance of their career.
nope.
2009-11-07, 9:05 PM #3
Quote:
By the way, if you're just gonna post and say "Nirvana sucks/sucked/are overrated"...that's ok too if you feel like saying it.


Nirvana sucks and is overrated.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2009-11-07, 9:25 PM #4
Nirvana is overrated, but they're okay.
:master::master::master:
2009-11-08, 9:01 AM #5
I have so much great Nirvana bootleg material that it's hard to say what was their best gig. I have lots of great versions of different songs from different times/gigs/sessions. I have the reading recordings somewhere, I'd have to check.

If I remember correctly, that's the gig where he says Courtney is the greatest **** in the world.
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I
2009-11-08, 9:03 AM #6
Nice stealth marketing
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2009-11-08, 9:06 PM #7
Originally posted by stat:
Nirvana is overrated, but they're okay.


dot
My girlfriend paid a lot of money for that tv; I want to watch ALL OF IT. - JM
2009-11-09, 4:20 AM #8
I was too happy a teenager to get Nirvana at the time, so due to their being out of context for me, I've never got them.
2009-11-09, 1:42 PM #9
Nirvana was a breath of fresh air after a decade of cold, stylized disco pop and glam rock bull****. Raw, emotional rock. It sounded like nothing before. They brought the sound of the underground to the masses.

Nineties music wouldn't sound the same if they hadn't been there. They influenced the sound of so many bands. They really did change the face of rock, even if it wasn't their intention.
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I
2009-11-09, 3:53 PM #10
Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:
Nirvana was a breath of fresh air after a decade of cold, stylized disco pop and glam rock bull****. Raw, emotional rock. It sounded like nothing before. They brought the sound of the underground to the masses.

Nineties music wouldn't sound the same if they hadn't been there. They influenced the sound of so many bands. They really did change the face of rock, even if it wasn't their intention.

Err, Disco and Glam Rock were the 70s, you're thinking of New Wave and Hair Metal.
nope.
2009-11-09, 3:56 PM #11
Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:
Nirvana was [marketed as a] breath of fresh air after a decade of cold, stylized disco pop and glam rock bull****. Raw, emotional rock. It sounded like nothing [that wasn't heavily promoted] before.


fixed.

Saying that Nirvana was revolutionary isn't entirely true. They just got the right hook-ups.
2009-11-09, 4:34 PM #12
Originally posted by Baconfish:
Err, Disco and Glam Rock were the 70s, you're thinking of New Wave and Hair Metal.


Yeah well, at the time bands like Poison and Motley Crue were called glam rock in the magazines. And of course I wasn't talking about 70's disco. But yeah, new wave is what I should have said. I don't care that much for labels.

Originally posted by Vin:
fixed.

Saying that Nirvana was revolutionary isn't entirely true. They just got the right hook-ups.


I'm not saying they were revolutionary in that sense. I agree with your points, I was just trying to say that it was a breath of fresh air in mainstream rock. Like I said, they brought the sound of the underground to the masses. But face it, they did change the face of rock.

I was 16, 17 when Nirvana became big. They were huge before they even got marketed properly. Geffen really didn't do much for the release of Nevermind. It was really a record that got huge through pure street buzz. It was crazy, all of a sudden everyone was talking about it and passing tapes around. It was like nothing I'd experienced before.
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I
2009-11-09, 4:53 PM #13
Originally posted by ORJ_JoS:
Yeah well, at the time bands like Poison and Motley Crue were called glam rock in the magazines. And of course I wasn't talking about 70's disco. But yeah, new wave is what I should have said. I don't care that much for labels.

What Magazines? Glam Rock was a musical movement in 70s Britain. :P
nope.
2009-11-09, 5:56 PM #14
You know, I have personally come to enjoy In Utero over Nevermind. In part due to having listened to Nevermind too much, but also because I prefer its sound, of which I'm not sure how much is to producer Steve Albini's credit but I would guess that a lot.

I will say that I don't care for the less melodic songs on it though. My favorites are (in order of track number) Heart Shaped Box, Rape Me, Dumb, Pennyroyal Tea, and All Apologies.
Looks like we're not going down after all, so nevermind.
2009-11-10, 6:33 AM #15
Originally posted by Baconfish:
What Magazines? Glam Rock was a musical movement in 70s Britain. :P


I know it was. I'm talking about Kerrang, Bravo, Metal Hammer... Not sure if these even exist today.

Anyway, hair metal is a relatively new term and was certainly not used back in the day.

Originally posted by Krokodile:
I prefer its sound, of which I'm not sure how much is to producer Steve Albini's credit but I would guess that a lot.


Yes sir. Albini is a genius. He records audiophile, so that means he records bands the way they truly sound. (Needless to say - on superior analogue equipment) So, no spicing it up and 'producing' it. His technique involves a thorough knowledge of microphone types and placement.

The sad truth is that Geffen thought 'In Utero' sounded way too underground because of Albini's job. (which is exactly the way Cobain wanted it) So sadly, they had it remixed. This really destroyed the original sound of the recording. Albini was so displeased with this he said he wished he'd never taken on a job for a band on a major label.

Just listen to other great Albini recordings, like The Jesus Lizard's 'Down', PJ Harvey's 'Rid of Me', Shellac's 'At Action Park', The Pixies' 'Surfer Rosa', The Ex's 'Starters Alternators', etc., if you want to get an idea of the Albini sound.

I'm a number one fan of it, but it's really ruined on In Utero, unfortunately.
ORJ / My Level: ORJ Temple Tournament I

↑ Up to the top!