Jesusetc84

I figure that is a different deal. Who knows. It just seems to me that a lot of stuff gets re-released now. REM/U2/Pearl Jam etc.

 

It may not happen soon, but I think it will some day.

Yeah I mean...Rereleases at least in my opinion, should come on a nice rounded off year. 10,15,20 or 25th anniversary. YHF is 7 years old; that'd be kind of random.

I don't know what there business deal is - but why would they want to stop them? It would mean more money in royalties or whatever.

So would the Blu Ray IATTBYH. We saw what happened to that.

It will happen eventually. Everything get re-released - more than once these days. From what I have seen, there are many reasons for re-releases.

 

1. It happens after a band leaves a label and the band has some success. The band's former label re-releases their catalog in hopes of getting a piece of that success.

 

2. The band's hit making days are over, and re-releases are a good way to move catalog.

 

3. The band has a well known album that people will buy again and again, particularly when there are goodies added.

 

4. The band's cd catalog sounds and looks terrible, so the label deletes the albums and puts out re-releases. First in a box, and then separately a few moths later.

 

I have bought some bands cds 2 or 3 times. I guess it just depends on what you want, and what you are ok with sound wise.

 

I figure all the Wilco cds will come out with added material someday. I never thought the Uncle Tupelo cds would, but they did.

If Reprise wanted to do that with the 3 albums they have the rights to, could Wilco stop them?

I really can't wait for this.

Does it make me a bad person that other than Wilco and Radiohead, Dylan output has been my favorite of the past 15 years? That may sound like me being lazy and fanboyish because he's Bob Dylan, but really...every album he's released since Time Out of Mind has been so good.

so what do you all think... had Cobain not killed himself, what kind of music would he be playing today? and how long would Nirvana have survived?

 

I suspect Nirvana wouldn't have lasted much more than a couple more years - Cobain seemed weary of his fame even before he got it. Dave Grohl also seemed destined for front-man status, although I doubt he would have been the cause of the band's breakup.

 

Personally, I can easily see Cobain having followed the route of guys like Mould, Morello, Westerberg & Costello - former punks/rockers who found a need to produce more lyrically-oriented work, often accoustic, at various points in their later career(s). And like those guys, I'm sure he would have also felt the need to bolt out some aggressive music as well... but it would have been wonderful to hear a "Workbook" like solo album from Cobain.

There's a couple of songs on the boxed set that suggest that direction, but they're kind of embryonic. Kurt had expressed an interest in making an album like Automatic For the People. Basically, I think MTV Unplugged was a dry run for what he wanted to do on the next album, just with a new batch of songs.

Not to change the subject, but I wish Teenage Fanclub would tour the States a bit more. Never seen them perform before.

 

I didn't get into Nirvana until after he was gone. I was too wrapped up in hippie music while I was in college. Actually I was in my bedroom in my apartment drinking a Rolling Rock and listening music when my roommate came in and told me. I just grabbed another beer out my fridge that I had in my room. I rather like their music, now. I had friends who use to see them when they came through Chicago area and I do regret not seeing them perform when I had the opportunity.

They played some good shows in Chicago, among them, the only live performance of "You Know You're Right" ever.

i loved that one popular hole cd. great songs.

Which one? The one Kim Gordon wrote, the one Kurt wrote, or the one Billy Corgan wrote.

Kidding...Kidding...

I for one, am against re-releases with bonus tracks (and best-ofs with new tracks). Forcing your fans to dish out cash for something they already once did is an insult.

I am, however, not opposed to b-side/rarity/etc compilations, like Dylan's Bootleg Series or Nirvana's terrible "With the Lights Out" box set .

Had to take the Nirvana dig didn't you.

I dunno...I'm 50/50 on comps vs. bonus discs. I feel like bonus discs give the extra material context than say putting random things from completely different eras doesn't provide.

There's also a 3rd option which is the rarities album. They were pretty popular in the 90s, since there was no internet to distribute b-sides, but now I don't know what would really be the point. Also unlike say, The Smashing Pumpkins Pisces Iscariot, where all of the songs came from the sessions of 2 stylistically similar albums, produced by the same producer, using most of the same gear, a Wilco equivalent would have all sorts of songs that would have different band members, be recorded on analog and digital mediums etc etc. Unless you went back and remixed all the songs, it'd be a very scatter shot confused listening experience.

I'd be more interested in Reprise era reissues, given that at least according to the Kot Book, they had 30 songs total for Being There, and some left over from Summerteeth.

Pixar's name is really a promise of quality. Every movie they've put out has been excellent.

Wall-E is possibly my favorite movie of all-time, much to the chagrin of my girlfriend.

I'm feeling listy and gradey so... I'll do both

01. Automatic For the People (A+)

02. Murmur (A+)

03. Reckoning (A)

04. Life's Rich Pageant (A)

05. Document (A)

06. New Adventures in Hi-Fi (A-)

07. Fables of Reconstruction (A-)

08. Green (B+)

09. Out of Time (B )

10. Accelerate (B )

11. Up (C+)

12. Monster (C+)

13. Reveal (C )

14. Around the Sun (C-)

Right now:

01. Don't Go Back to Rockville

02. Fall on Me

03. Man on the Moon

04. Perfect Circle

05. Laughing

06. Shaking Through

07. I Believe

08. King of Birds

09. Bittersweet Me

10. Wendel Gee

Summer dates, Summern't.

I don't believe in legacy as being gauged by "your average album's worth". I believe in legacy as being gauged by the number of great songs and great albums you bring to the table.

For example, the Stones have a number of horrifically bad albums, but they still have 9-10 I'd call 4-5 star classics.

So, even SBS, which I disliked more than most people on this board, to me wasn't a "Legacy tarnisher". It may not have added much to their legacy, but at the very least it added 2-3 great songs to Wilco's repetoire, including "Impossible Germany" which is something of a fav of mine.

Even if they put out a completely terrible record, it wouldn't make anything they did between 1996-2004 any less brilliant. So to answer your question, "No."

(besides this record looks like it's going to be a lot better than SBS judging by the songs we've heard.)

Classic.

Of course later today, someone's going to claim they have a copy of the new album...and april fools! it won't be true.

The Grateful Dead intimidate me...there's just so much material so little time o.o.

TONY FOR THE SAVE!

His voice didn't sound very good?

Throat Polyps from screaming. Needed surgery towards the end. This was recorded two weeks before he died.

I've come to accept that people on here don't respect Nirvana very much...but that "not very tuneful" thing was grossly inaccurate.

Wow. I guess there's a reason Kurt didn't sing many songs like that.

Reason being?

Well, if the last Nirvana song is any indication, they weren't really moving in that direction.

 

edit: not that that has anything to do with the Toadies.

This was recorded after that one and is quite melodic.

Nirvana = What's the Frequency Kenneth?

 

Interesting theory.

 

I also recall a Rolling Stone article in which Cobain said he wanted to be like REM, but the he killed himself before making any more music.

Well he was obsessed with Automatic For the People, so the next album was supposed to sound like that one. Of course a splitting headache put those plans on hold.

I'm sorry, that was tasteless.

I recall a Nirvana backlash a few months after Nevermind came out because grungelitists thought it was TOO tuneful.

Steve Albini was never convinced of Nirvana's noiseiness, once saying they were "R.E.M. with a fuzzbox".

And Nirvana's songs are?

While they're certainly not The Kinks, I'd say there's a respectable level of tunefulness in Nirvana's best songs; I would hardly call "About a Girl" a tuneless song for example.

So who wants to you join me in an incantation so the album will magically appear on the internet tomorrow?

Sure, they have some distorted guitars, though they did/do not depend on distortion to nearly the extent that Nirvana did. That's pretty much where the similarities end, as far as I can tell. The Toadies' songs are a bit more tuneful, straight ahead rock songs than Nirvana's, and Todd Phillips's voice doesn't really sound anything like Kurt Cobain's. So they have a little bit of a soft/loud/soft thing going on - they likely got that from the Pixies, as has been said. Many of the songs on Rubberneck (which is likely where the misguided comparison comes from) were written before Nevermind was released, and I don't hear anything on Bleach that reminds me of the Toadies.

 

My point in posting those videos above with the tags I did is to point out that the Toadies sound as much like Nirvana as they sound like Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Mudhoney, the Smashing Pumpkins, or any other guitar-based band from that era.

Really? Tuneful? I don't see them as that melodically strong quite frankly.

"Tyler" sounds nothing like Pearl Jam. It sounds like The Pixies I suppose. Really none of those songs like any of the bands you compared them to. I suppose the Nirvana thing was a bit of a rash statement but I'm not entirely sure the Toadies deserve a much closer look. (Sorry, I used to really hate the Toadies on the radio when I was a kid.)