Quote:
|
Originally Posted by noisereductions
it's always weird to try to talk 'normally' about one of the greatest bands ever. Y'know? Like probably most people, I bought Bleach after Nevermind. So it was kind of a jarring record to hear at the time. The rough edges that had been "smoothed" for Nevermind were ever present on Bleach. Mind, this was some years before I'd be properly introduced to the Melvins etc, so Bleach sounded HEAVY for a "grunge" album. It sounded dark and kind of scary. Except "About A Girl" which was poppy as F and would a few years later become a signature tune for the band thanks to Unplugged; and "Love Buzz" which sounded way more like the Nirvana that I preferred. As a side-note, I think that there are two kinds of Nirvana people: the ones who prefer the heaviness and sludginess of Bleach (my wife) and the ones who prefer the punky/new-waviness of Incesticide (me). Many years later, I certainly have a far bigger appreciation of Bleach. I mean, "School" has 3 lines and is yet an amazing epic headbanger that says a lot of shit in just 3 lines. Y'know? But if I'm being honest, I love half of this record and I like the other half. Which... I mean it's still Nirvana. Even the songs I just 'like' are still Nirvana so their better the most things that are not Nirvana. Going back to the beginning, it's weird to try to talk about Nirvana albums like a normal person. This is my least favorite Nirvana album - which doesn't matter because it's still better than most other things. |
I would divvy up Nirvana fans differently myself. I think people are either Nevermind people or In Utero people. And while there's a lot of overlap, I think most hardcore Nirvana fans strongly prefer one to the other.
Bleach vs. Incesticde is weird because Incesticide isn't an album, and Bleach is. I think the highlights of Incesticide are pretty obviously better than the highlights of Bleach. Talkin' about "Dive," "Sliver," the Vaselines covers. But as a whole Bleach is a much sturdier and more consistent effort because it's a consistent effort, and marks a specific time in the band's history. It's a true document, while Incesticide is... not.
I think "Aneurysm" is probably my favorite Nirvana song of all time, but the version on Incesticide is horrendous. I thank God/Satan/Cthulhu for Muddy Banks because it gave us a recorded version of the song that is just positively nuclear.
Also, I'm totally an In Utero guy. And as great as Nirvana was, I don't really entertain the illusion that Bleach was a masterpiece just because it's a Nirvana record. It's a really good debut with some kickass songs, but it's still embryonic Nirvana. I'm not sure if it's even as good as Superfuzz Bigmuff. And I know it's not as good as, say, Doolittle or Bug or other albums from that 18-24 month period that were ultimately much bigger parts of the whole alternative scene, even if the artists behind them were ultimately much less significant than Nirvana.
Oh, also Isn't Anything. And Daydream Nation, of course.
I think Bleach is great, but it's kind of like Nirvana's version of mid-80s Flaming Lips. Which was also occasionally great, but the Lips were still trying to be Butthole Surfers at that time, and Nirvana was more or less trying to be the Melvins with Bleach.
In short, it's good and healthy for this to be your least favorite Nirvana album. When compared to what they would go on to do just two and four years later, it's ultimately just an origin story. If a good one.