More Important: Nirvana or Fugazi?

[oldangelmidnight]

And then this happened:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySsbkLVuYOs[/youtube]

[D.o.S.]

Pumpkin Pieces has hit the nail on the head for a large part of Nirvana's importance.

Fugazi's importance has a whole lot to do with artistic integrity.

I'm not a huge fan of Pitchfork's music journalism, but they put up a great interview with Ian MacKaye a little while ago:
http://pitchforkmedia.com/news/44777-ia ... musicians/

[Big Mon]

Ian Mackaye winked at me when they played "Waiting Room". So I met him backstage and asked him just how str8ejj he was. He said" Very." So I took off my pants, he took off his. And a post-hardcore,minimalist hot dog was made. The end.

[Ghost Hip]

Ian Mackaye winked at me when they played "Waiting Room". So I met him backstage and asked him just how str8ejj he was. He said" Very." So I took off my pants, he took off his. And a post-hardcore,minimalist hot dog was made. The end.

Beautiful.

[jrmy]

Ian Mackaye winked at me when they played "Waiting Room". So I met him backstage and asked him just how str8ejj he was. He said" Very." So I took off my pants, he took off his. And a post-hardcore,minimalist hot dog was made. The end.

Beautiful.

I would imagine that this can't be the first piece of Fugazi fanfiction ever penned. But it might be the best.

[Gearmond]

the problem with everyone saying "oh nirvana got me into these bands, therefore they're more influential" just stops there and refuses to go the step back, to where the real influence lies.

Are you talking about how The Pixies, Melvins, Sonic youth, etc. influenced Nirvana? Because I completely acknowledge that. And I could say personally Sonic Youth and The Pixies are more inspiring than Nirvana in my own music. However it was Nirvana that led me to them, and that goes for a lot of my friends. Now just because you found the Melvins without Nirvana doesn't discount that my generation found out about all of the bands Nirvana supported through Nirvana. Just like someone might check out Nirvana because Rivers Cuomo talked about how Nevermind greatly influenced the Blue album.

Or look at it this way, I'm going to go look up Fugazi now, because of you guys talking of them so highly. Who is more influential? You or Fugazi?

however that doesn't necessarily mean that everyone got into those bands through nirvana. i mean, its not like they weren't being played on MTV or Beavis and Butthead, and wouldn't have direct exposure.

I only had Beavis and Butthead and the "real" MTV for about five minutes though. I was born in 1990 and I wasn't musically or culturally conscious enough to look at MTV for more than five seconds. By the time I knew MTV existed it was Sum 41, Good Charlotte, and Avril Lavigne. The only good music I could get at through Television was Daft Punk and Gorillaz. I completely understand your case that for the generations conscious of the music when it was produced those other bands were easily accessible via other means. For me and the many after me, it's not. That's why I feel Nirvana is more influential to the world.

It's hard out there for a kid, and Nirvana points arrows to many good bands for us to enjoy what past generations had greater access to.

so was I, and I never got into these bands through Nirvana.

another thing with that is that generally MOST people dont bother to look for the bands that influence the bands they like, and MOST people probably wouldn't have even bothered to look for those bands lest they were exposed to them first hand.

I stil fele you're equating popularity with influence, when thats absolutely not the case here.

[jrmy]

so was I, and I never got into these bands through Nirvana.

...

I stil feel you're equating popularity with influence, when thats absolutely not the case here.

Well, here's the thing - we're taking anecdotal experiences, and trying to generalize wider trends from them. That just won't work from two test cases, or twenty or forty. HE found those bands through Nirvana. YOU did not. So that's two data points just cancelling each other out.

Further, even if we could get a large enough test case, we'd still be arguing about what constitutes "importance" as a musical concept. Supposedly the Velvet Underground were the most influential band that barely anyone saw live... but they eventually gave us Lou Reed collaborating with Metallica. Ouch!

Which is not to say that this discussion isn't valid, or worth having...

[Ghost Hip]

so was I, and I never got into these bands through Nirvana.

another thing with that is that generally MOST people dont bother to look for the bands that influence the bands they like, and MOST people probably wouldn't have even bothered to look for those bands lest they were exposed to them first hand.

I stil fele you're equating popularity with influence, when thats absolutely not the case here.

Ah, I misunderstood part of your argument. That does make sense. I feel like influence relies more on the constellation of people who you talk with about music and if you particularly like the music you're shown. I mean we're musicians and we like to go deeper and find other bands, but you're right most people don't. I still think Nirvana is a greater influence on the culture due to their popularity, but as far as musically influencing each of us that's pretty different on an individual basis.

Another question I was pondering... which is very hypothetical but food for thought... is if Nirvana didn't promote or speak highly of these other bands that influenced them, would those other bands be as easily accessible today? I think the culture was ready for a band like Nirvana, and it's fortunate that Nirvana, despite their flaws, promoted bands that were friends or of influence to them. Regardless if you found those bands through Nirvana or not, I'm sure Nirvana played a part in bringing those bands more awareness.

[Gearmond]

so was I, and I never got into these bands through Nirvana.

another thing with that is that generally MOST people dont bother to look for the bands that influence the bands they like, and MOST people probably wouldn't have even bothered to look for those bands lest they were exposed to them first hand.

I stil fele you're equating popularity with influence, when thats absolutely not the case here.

Ah, I misunderstood part of your argument. That does make sense. I feel like influence relies more on the constellation of people who you talk with about music and if you particularly like the music you're shown. I mean we're musicians and we like to go deeper and find other bands, but you're right most people don't. I still think Nirvana is a greater influence on the culture due to their popularity, but as far as musically influencing each of us that's pretty different on an individual basis.

Another question I was pondering... which is very hypothetical but food for thought... is if Nirvana didn't promote or speak highly of these other bands that influenced them, would those other bands be as easily accessible today? I think the culture was ready for a band like Nirvana, and it's fortunate that Nirvana, despite their flaws, promoted bands that were friends or of influence to them. Regardless if you found those bands through Nirvana or not, I'm sure Nirvana played a part in bringing those bands more awareness.

on the other hand, you could also argue that the other bands had mediocre success and Nirvana just happen to be the lucky band that got picked up as the flagbearer for their trend. like say Motley Crue with hair metal (sort of) or more recently say MCR with 3rd wave emo, or Fall Out Boy with that pop-punk thingy that Latterman and others were doing before them. and I would argue against said lucky-figurehead-for-a-movement being influential so much as the movement itself, and maybe only hold influence to the bands immediately after cashing in on the trend (again, arguably the influence of the trend itself rather than the band). So they're not exactly an impact on culture so much as the name put to it.

Conversely, for a band from the same/similar ish era, i'd say Radiohead had impact as a singular band.

of course much of this applies to Fugazi's SOUND, but thats not exactly the argument we're making i guess.

[theavondon]

or more recently say MCR with 3rd wave emo, or Fall Out Boy with that pop-punk thingy that Latterman and others were doing before them.

[Mudfuzz]

Conversely, for a band from the same/similar ish era, i'd say Radiohead had impact as a singular band.

First time I heard Radiohead my impression was they were a poppy Nirvana clone I was actually surprised later on when I heard them again.. it was like Oh they do have their own sound now... be it still boring...

[phantasmagorovich]

I don't believe in the lucky thing. The figureheads like Nirvana (or for similar wide popularity, impact but even more underground grudge: The Strokes) are usually bands that are more than just the musical component but charismatic, fashionable, memorable and sellable. I honestly don't think that any band that makes it makes it out of luck alone. And I can think of / am part of many bands that will never make it due to certain flaws in those departments.

[Gearmond]

yes, but they aren't that way intrinsically so much as due to the context in which they occur.

there are oodles of bands that preen themselves to have that sort of identical fashion/charisma/marketability, and the hair metal scene was the epitome of that. and form what I see, it really does boil down to luck.

[D.o.S.]

Nirvana's one of the ultimate right-place right-time bands. That said, I don't think it's entirely fair to paste them into "the system." By all accounts (and I'm conjecturing here, since I never did this work for them) they were a total PR nightmare--like most of the other Seattle bands.

In fact, running my head back over that area and sound, the only band who seemed less crazy than the rest of them was Pearl Jam... and they were the only ones to sue Ticketmaster.

[Big Mon]

I wonder what kind of shit storm a Zappa vs Hendrix thread would cause...