Frontmen notwithstanding, which is a better, more creative, groundbreaking, legendary, adjective-worthy album?
Personally, I think AfD is a much better album. I was incredibly disappointed with Nevermind. In fact, the day after I purchased it I took it to school and sold it at a $5 loss.
I still throw in Appetite on a regular basis…I think some of the better songs are the ones that actually didn’t get that much airplay.
Bolding mine.
I’m not sure about the bolded part but music wise I prefer Appetite but I do like both albums.
Appetite For Destruction is one of the greatest albums of all time, and quite possibly the greatest debut album ever. Nevermind, whilst an extremely good and important album, isn’t Nirvana’s best work.
Appetite for Destruction is one of the best hard rock albums of all time (heck, I think it’s one of the best albums of any genre). That’s no knock on Nevermind, but it’s not quite in the same class.
It’s unfortunate that GnR went rapidly downhill from there.
I still listen to Nirvana occasionally and never liked Guns ‘n’ Roses at all, so… not a tough choice over here.
Just had a thought…what would GnR’s legacy have been if Axl had eaten a shotgun before Use Your Illusion?
Nevermind is far and away more influential and caused a much bigger shift in the overall direction music took, but Appetite is a much better album.
Not quibbling; this is a serious question. Wasn’t there a ‘scene’ where Nirvana developed, to where it was inevitable that that style of music (I guess grunge in general) would become mainstream pretty quickly, anyway?
In terms of influence, and what casual fans would listen to, exactly the same as it is now. With the possible exception of November Rain.
Sure, there was a scene, and it was building, but it could have easily stayed in the underground. The opening chords of Smells Like Teen Spirit blew the doors open and effectively killed the entire arena rock/hair metal scene.
Intersting question, tough choice. But I quickly went with AfD.
Context is everything. I’m no music historian, but I remember pop music in the 80s. Guns n Roses was exactly the perfect style, vocals and subject matter to comprise the bucketful of vomit that needed to be poured on Asia, Sting, Madonna, et. al. Appetite (and it’s album art!)screamed, “Bullshit!” and delivered some really good cuts. Sure, there was already punk and shock rock, but somehow it wasn’t gritty and polished at the same time.
Nevermind was fine in its way, but I see Nirvana more as an icon of a new genre–which is still awesome–than as something daring and “devil-may-care.” Plus, I still listen to GnR but not Nirvana so much.
Pretty much this. I wouldn’t be quite so emphatic on the first point, although I do think it is certainly one of the great debuts. Nevermind is more important as the marker of a musical change (or at least a change in mainstream rock), but I think, while a good album, it pales in comparison to In Utero. If I had to keep only one of the OP’s albums in my collection, it would have to be Appetite. Now, if it were between Appetite and In Utero, I would choose the latter.
I was thinking the same way. I remember the first time I heard Teen Spirit. I was in a heavy metal club outside of Fort Hood. In between sets of whatever band was there they were playing the usual combination of Hair Metal and Hard Rock. When Teen Spirit came on I knew it was something different. I didn’t even know the name of the group for a while but I could tell it was something big.
Having said that, I was never a big Nirvana fan. Appetite is still something I listen to from time to time if my iPod wants me to.
But I voted for Rush.
This is something I have heard but just assumed to be a fact; Nirvana is given credit for changing the face of music. But what about their comtemporaries? This is a list of albums that I could think of that were released around the same time, I did have to look up the actual dates:
Soundgarden, Badmotorfinger, 1991
Stone Temple Pilots, Core, 1992
Bush, Sixteen Stone, 1994
Aline in Chains, Dirt, 1992
I know I’m getting out of my depth here, but why does Nirvana get all of the credit? Can’t a lot of the lineage of modern rock be traced back to these bands (and others) as well?
Hey Sicks, nice hijack of your own thread 
They don’t get all the credit, but they get the biggest share because Nevermind (1991) was the first of those albums to make it big. Badmotorfinger was somewhat successful, but not a huge hit the way Nevermind was or Superunknown was for Soundgarden in '94. Ten by Pearl Jam should be on that list, too, although I was never a big Pearl Jam fan either.
:smack: That was on my mind when I started writing, and I forgot about it by the time I got to that point. In fact I would give Pearl Jam more credit than Nirvana.
I will not start a Ten vs. Appetite thread.
Worldwide sales totals:
Badmotorfinger - 3 million copies
Core - 8 million copies
Sixteen Stone - 9 million copies
Dirt - 5 million copies
Nevermind - 30 million copies. Or five million more than those other four combined. That goes a long way toward establishing Nirvana as the pack leaders there.
ETA: For completionists sake, Ten has sold 13.5 million copies.
Nevermind was a hit first, though. Maybe you’re talking about the direction the music took after that, but if you’re talking about that style becoming mainstream, it’s Nirvana by a wide margin.
AfD has sold 28 million,. Hated to leave one of the subjects of the OP out of the statistical running!
Nevermind spoke to a generation, but AFD is timeless.