Most Pretentiously Hyped Of The 1990s: Smashing Pumpkins vs Oasis
 

There isn't necessarily anything wrong with these bands' music on its own, but the hype which surrounded them at their peaks was nauseating to say the least, but whose hype was the worse media monstrosity? You can always vote for a write in candidate.

oasis! My impression is that the British press tends to hype their music much much more. But perhaps that's because I read Dutch magazines, or back then anyway.

agreed, I think Oasis' hype was the worst, but Smashing Pumpkins were up there.. the music press was acting like Melon Collie and the Infinite Sadness was the most artistic record of the decade. I mean, hey, I get it, the grunge era wasn't very creatively stimulating, but lets not kid ourselves and pretend that by default this made Smashing Pumpkins brilliant art-rock ;)

Interesting topic! Oasis is hugely over hyped. Open chord shitty ballads and boring Stones-esque rock. British mainstream "alternative" fucking sucks.

In the UK Oasis achieved a greater level of popularity than any other band in my life time, calling them hyped or over hyped seems weird because (regardless of what you think of their music - I'm not a fan) they were a cultural phenomenon around 95 - 97, and no other band that I can think of has had anything like the level of success here that they did. Smashing Pumpkins on the other hand were just another fairly popular band, and didn't particularly stand out from the crowd of alt/mainstream american rock for any reason, cf Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Dandy Warhols, etc.

but they were popular because they were in the press 24/7
I recall there was this continuous Blur Vs Oasis thing going on. I don't really like any of them, but in the end Blur won it big time. Just look at where both bands are now, and what they've achieved

Oh and I completely forgotten about the Mellon Collie album. I loved the Pumpkins, but basically only Gish. I disliked them more the more popular they got.

same here...

It was kinda the other way around here in the States. But only during the Mellon Collie era. They stretched that album out for what felt like a lifetime, just cranking out single after single.

Before that they were kind of another face in the crowd, as far as I was concerned. Another non-Nirvana band. But after Nirvana split and Pearl Jam started slowing down, the Pumpkins were the biggest band in the country for about 18 months. I admit, there was a bit of a Beatlesque feel to the four-piece band with all the hit singles, but their reign was short lived. By 1998, they were basically done. Anything they've done since then has been more hated than not.

Oasis was big over here but not like they were in the UK.

I actually think I prefer Oasis. At least I can understand the Brit rock archetypal appeal of the combating brothers (Kinks) and the God complex overestimation of their own significance (Spinal Tap lol!)- they were a more fleshed out and radio friendly power chord version of the Stone Roses, who I fucking love. And yeah, they brought bit of low-grade Beatlemania to a generation that had lost its voice.
I feel nothing when I hear their songs, but that doesn't mean their songs weren't extremely well-executed pop tunes. I just kind of enjoyed that entire "Oasis V. blur" marketing campaign of NME's. Blur is a more quintessentially Brirish band, and a more artistic one at that. But Oasis introduced a lot of junior high school kids to the Beatles. The pumpkins were just a goddamn joke in the end. And they're still fucking going! My god!

I remember being excited by Siamese Dream... And yeah, Mellon Collie has some songs that still get me if they come on the radio and I'm in the right mood. For example, “Here is No Why” and “Muzzle.” They're just really classic sounding arena rock tracks.

But “Bullet w/ Butterfly Wings” was such an obvious attempt to recapture the vibe of “Smells Like Teen Spirit” that I can't believe it was as successful as it was. It was like Corgan had studied the lyrical approach of Kurt Cobain, and the post-grunge surprise breakthrough sound of the Downward Spiral, and said "hey, I've stumbled upon the formula for generation-defining alt. rock! Now let's see, I'll just put in a dabble of Cure and a pinch of Cocteau Twins, toss in some blue oyster cult, and the kids should be worshiping me as their savior within two weeks of hearing this.”

I really don't think I agree that the grunge era was necessarily lacking in creativity. Look at the main influences of the most notable bands of that period: Nirvana was this strange amalgum of Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, Pixies, Melvins & The Ramones. Soundgarden was equally indebted to the Melvins if not more-so, and they had the most convincingly authentic blend of punk and metal of all the Seattle-invasion bands.

Pearl Jam is underrated. I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I genuinely think they had some fucking great moments in their early career. Between Vs and Yield, I saw them several times and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't floored by their energy on stage during those first few years, and impressed by their willingness to be strange in the mid-late '90s. Vitalogy is a weird fucking record, for a 6xplatinum #1 album. And as much as they may have settled into middle of the road status now, it doesn't detract from the fact that they had some really great rock tunes scattered throughout their discography.

I still get chills from songs like “State of Love & Trust” and “Tremor Christ” and “Spin the Black Circle” and “Go”... I could go on.

And their influences weren't the most traditional either. Early PJ was woefully indebted to the worst elements of Jane's Addiction. But once they got their vibe going they were more reminiscent of Neil Young, and clearly they picked up a lot from Sonic Youth and REM.
I also have to hand it to them for their ethic. They were weird and reclusive and I think they genuinely cared less about success than Kurt Cobain ever did.

And Mudhoney is great, fuckin' classic butt-punk. Stoogified Sabbath disciples with a truly "fuck you" spirit.

And honestly, I hate to retread old ground but Nirvana was an extremely creative band. Look at all the influences that a complete listen to their discography yields. They're responsible for many 90s teens getting into bands like Flipper and The Germs, not to mention Leadbelly.

But Alice in Chains sucked. Candlebox sucked. But they were second stringers at best. I have nothing but respect for Nirvana, and the work done by Pearl Jam and Soundgarden (in the '90s) and Mudhoney (throughout their career).

And what about the lesser known Pacific Northwest artists that helped draw attention to the suburban goin on around Seattle and Portland and Bellingham and Eugene and Oly? What about Dead Moon? One of the most undervalued bands of that era (or the one preceding it)... The Wipers? Fucking conceptual punk of Hüsker Dü quality. A flawless discography that put Portland on the map!

The worst thing about grunge was the overexposure. Bands like Nirvana should have never been placed in front of Kurt Loder's microphone.

Oh, shit, and Tad! What about fucking Tad? That mothetfucker is still pumping out albums and projects, and they hold up.

...anyway. Unwound was on the fringes of the movement too, and they're simply one of the greatest bands ever.

Fuck I have to keep my rambling music tirades to more realistic lengths. Perhaps I should employ a stop watch, henceforth.

Dont trip this was really a 90s throwback nostalgia thread anyway. To be sure, fuck whatdead_battery says, im not necessarily stuck in the 90s.. actually I quite enjoy the 2000s. I watched a legit political analyst, older dude, last nite say "first id like to give propz to the three senators.." word! You just wouldnt see shit like that in the 90s

Babes in Toyland have always been the underrated band of the grunge phenomenon in the 90s for me. Great musicians, vocals, attitude and seemed willing to restrain from being sucked into the fame bullshit so many of these bands were so drawn in but kept on criticising to get their credibility points from fans who sometimes, luckily, had more imagination, smelled the bluff and move on. Kurt Cobain wanted his next record to sound like ''Automatic for the People'', remember? I like that record myself but is it an alternative to anything? In that respect I think someone like Courtney Love has always been more sincere than Kurt Cobain himself, and their respective bands' music doesn't sound so different to me now. She's still alive though, which doesn't work to her own advantage.

One of the most annoying traits of Nirvana is that as good as their feminism, anti-homophobia, anti-racist stance was, they created a culture where marginal people, outsiders are accepted and therefore never listened to because someone more visible than you is always saying what you can't say in a better way than yourself because of their ambitious agenda, with more privilege, access and emphasis on what's being said, rather than content based on reality. Thank you but not thank you. Even David Bowie managed better in terms of influencing mass culture. The music itself isn't even that weird or interesting anyway.

Yeah, I agree- Live Through This sounds like it could be a Nirvana album... the difference is only really in the individual styles of the players. Courtney didn't play like Kurt... she rarely actually played at all.. and nobody in Hole's history had the same frustrated delivery that Cobain put into his playing, or Grohl put into his drumming. Aside from a few fleeting moments of originality, Hole sounded polished and precious compared to Nirvana. But most of Hole's pre-Celebrity Skin material sounds like overproduced Nirvana B-sides.

Like what??? She didn't play guitar or sing?!??

It's interesting though that a band like Oasis with their cigarettes, alcohol and whatever seem like a bunch of squares waiting to marry some Masterchef celebrity compared to a bunch of idiots like Smashing Pumpkins.

That is not a fair analysis. While nirvana didnt have a singular image or message, their cultural impact and footprint is undeniable. Before nirvama people listened to guns&roses and michael jackson records, after nirvana they listened to a slightly more diverse blend of bands. Also, courtney love more sincere?? Youre totally fucking trolling us right? Listen, I honestly think live through this is one of the best records of the 90s.grunge.era but lets not kid outselves, courtney love may just be the epitome of plastic, manipulative, and outright lying people to ever walk this earth

I'm not analysing anything. Grunge never existed anyway,

I see you haven't really delved into Pretty On the Inside but its ANYTHING but polished yo ;)



I totally agree, I LOVED Babes In Toyland and I especially thought they were having actual fun which is so important. Nirvana initially were so successful because simply put, they weren't trying to be, they were just having fun. After the shit hit the fan, Nirvana looked like they stopped having fun. Popularity is a double-edged sword, you get the exposure and opportunity for gigs your band always wants, but you also start to lose the fun factor as it increasingly because a four-letter word kind of work or job.. I also enjoyed Verucca Salt

Nirvana were great for me because I discovered The Wipers through them. I love this band so much to this day.

That is true though, what was great about Nirvana is they introduced mainstream audience to all kinds of more obscure bands. I must have discovered like half of the rock bands from the 80s and 90s that I listen to from Nirvana interviews, tour mates, t-shirts the band members wore, and bands they invited to do guest slots with. Indeed I think THAT is one of the cultural changes that Nirvana brought to the table, the ability to delve into new musics without having the radio or the magazine pundits do the selecting for you.

I think the entire shift towards "independent lables" in the mid-1990s was a reaction by the fanbase away from depending on music critics and radio DJs to select what new music we should listen to, but rather to go out and do what underground music fans have always done, discover new bands and musics totally on your own initiative. The advent in the late-1990s of the internet for downloading and discovering new music was the final part of this process, the technology when enabled people to explore on their own and tell Spin magazine writers to eat a dick

For sure

As far as answering all your questions about American indie rock, these two have all the answers http://www.terminal-boredom.com/tomlax.html
I can't think of anyone else.

I don't know... Hole's music just sounded way more radio ready than Nirvana's.

And Pretty on the Inside barely counts. It's an excellent record that has fuckall to do with Hole's legacy.

I may have just drunk a straight up gallon of beer from Munich but I dare say that Pretty On The Inside is definitely Hole certified.. indeed that record was better received critically than Bleach

I'd rank it above Bleach, and I have definitely delved into it. But the band can't be judged based on that album. Sonically it's an outlier. That's all I'm saying. If Courtney love had died in 94 she'd be a hero. She chose to live and let herself become a villain.

Speaking in Dark Knight terms helps me.

Yup. Same. I think Nirvana were great for a number of reasons, but the artists they exposed me to are worth more to me in the long term.

To be sure, I didn't myself rank it higher than Bleach at all, but I was noting that in its own time, the Hole record was better received. Obviously Nevermind came out shortly thereafter that same year as Pretty On the Inside and people well, forgot about it entirely ;)


I don't think she chose that, I think she was born that way, indeed can we call it destiny?


While Nirvana certainly introduced me to a lot of other bands, mainly Sonic Youth, I still think even if its out of the sheer nostalgia that Nirvana will also be worth more to me than almost any other band. I mean, literally, Nirvana taught me how to play the guitar yo, and THAT is a huge part of my life. Nirvana was the first band to really make me passionate about listening to, writing, and performing music. In that regard they are truly the Beatles of our generation, all the bands from the mid-to-late 1960s and early 70s cite the Beatles as the major influence in starting up in music. For me Nirvana is that band, whether it was inspiring the sound of my music or just motivating me to say, "Wait, I CAN do that too!"

For me that band was Sonic Youth itself. But Nirvana is definitely one of the greats, and I don't think it's just about nostalgia. Though their music does certainly take me back to a different time and place -- namely high school, the mid '90s -- I can honestly say that my true appreciation of their music didn't even kick in until I was much older. The reissues have done a great deal to help me put into perspective an era that I was too caught up in to view with any objectivity at the time.

I get more sheer enjoyment out of listening to Nirvana now than I ever did before, and I can't say why. It just isn't about hype, or self-identifying with anything anymore. It's about listening to great music. In 1994, one couldn't separate Nirvana's music from Kurt's death. Now it's a cleaner process. I don't grieve for a lost hero... I just enjoy the music. It's less personal, but that's healthy. I don't know... I seem to have misplaced my point.. I will be sure to let someone know if I find it again.

No!!!

Hole always sounded like a more melodic Mudhoney. not Nirvana. maybe a Nirvana influenced Mudhoney that is.

You know in re-reading this conversation I realized that I don't feel strongly enough about Hole to even have an opinion about how they sound. Their first record is essential listening, especially for Sonic Youth fans, as it shows (yet again) how influential they were to the 90s alt rock scene. And Live Through This is an album that should be heard by everyone (to say nothing of its quality)

Aside from that, man I don't give a fuck.

I still love SP. No fucks given. I still keep up w/ them.

Re-reading this stuff I should add that I love Hole too. My Body The Hand Grenade is a brilliant compilation that sort of reminds me why.

Oasis = Tears For Fears
Smashing Pumpkins = Judas Priest

I would say the most overhyped of the two was Oasis. Nobody ever claimed that Smashing Pumpkins were as good as the Beatles but every single asshole would spout the line that Oasis' songs were like Beatles version 2. Fuck that shit. Champagne supernova my asss.

Only soundgarden I enjoy listening to these days is Louder than Love. I hate when Cornell sings in the low register. black hole shitfarm

BTW there was no Grunge Era. It was a made up marketing gimmick to try and sell hard guitar rock to the masses.

No one mentions how the Sub Pop people used the same recording engineers and essentially forced every band on the label to sound the same way (recording-wise), from Urge Overkill to Tad to Mudhoney to early soundgarde, early afghan whigs, tyo Babes in Toyland

Almost all of those bands wnet on to wholly different sounds (but for mudhoney cuz if it aint broke why fix it), and most of them have spoken in interviews about how they were pressured to sound a certain way. Kurt said this about Bleach.

Wasn't Oasis compared to the beatles at one point? I think they were overhyped for sure.

they were the only band in that "scene" that I was never really into. The only thing I ever owned by them was their singles collection. What was it? Down On The A-Sides or something? They were kind of a singles band to me. I liked some of their singles, but they were never a band that I wanted to listen to for the duration of an album. I don't know. I can't even really say why. Just never fully clicked. But yeah, I liked most of their singles, liked the stuff he did w/ Temple Of The Dog, liked some of his solo stuff. But not a "fan" of Soundgarden proper.

I think his voice reminded me of hair metal a bit?

yeah ! "Metal wailing" - that's a good way to put it. haha.