Again - check the OP; he linked to an article on Grantland discussing them both. I think comparing them is just a conceit to discuss them both and how perceptions have evolved as the music has aged…
IMO, Nirvana is extremely overrated! You can guess how I voted.
They got their face on Mount Rushmore in their lifetimes; Cobain just couldn’t find his way. I just wish they had more material; a place on Mount Rushmore with such a slim output is part of the issue. They have a really good couple of short stories or novellas; it would have been really, really cool to see if and how they matured in terms of output.
I was the exact right age for these albums when they came out. I think they just appeal to a completely different set of people in 90s terms. You’re a young adult, and you’re finally old enough to be your own person, but people still view you as a kid. That’s a common frustrating experience, and it depends on how you deal with it.
Nirvana people were always so sad and serious and such a bummer. Everything was just SO bad and unfair and why wouldn’t people just recognize their awesomeness, etc. Plus, In Utero was so edgy (it had a girl’s sex parts in the title! But the “smart” word for it) and no one understands you, and the world’s so screwed up, you might as well just be angry and “crazy” and over it all. Just feeding the pretentiousness of the average 18-20 year old.
August and Everything After certainly has those messages, but they’re just regular, just a reflection of how life actually is, and how no one is special in that regard. But it also had really positive messages, particularly in Rain King, that gave some kind of release to those awful, nasty feelings. Mr. Jones is not only really well written, but it has a really empowering message, and gives some kind of hope that one day, you may get to be as awesome as Bob Dylan, you know.
I much prefer AaEA, if for no other reason than it’s not just droning, whining and ultimately boring. They’re both just pop albums, albeit very good ones. If Cobain hadn’t killed himself, Pearl Jam would have risen to the top of the grunge heap, and they deserve it more, as they are far more talented than Nirvana. I know it drives people crazy when I say it, but Nirvana was based more in fashion and pop culture, certainly far more than Counting Crows. There is almost no musicianship in Nirvana, some lousy songwriting skills, and no joy. I am so glad Cobain offed himself so the true talent of Dave Grohl could shine.
Just hold on there, Sparky. :rolleyes:
Same here. I had both and liked both for different reasons.
WordMan-Do you actually believe non-Nirvana nuts can name a second song by them? (Before you try to make the same case for the Crows, if someone cam into this thread and said about them what I said about Nirvana, I seriously doubt people would lose their shit.)
FTR I’m 35
You’re right, of course I’m not glad a father offed himself. I’m just so glad that Grohl got a chance to shine without the baggage of Cobain holding him back. Grohl is in a lot of ways the opposite of Cobain, and it would a real shame if he had spent much more time in the background. Kurt Novaselic-whatever seems like a real wet blanket as well. I have no idea how Grohl got along with them for so long.
I think the problem is that many folks can name every freakin’ song off Nevermind because it got so much play.
Again, Nirvana is on Mt. Rushmore - or are in the discussion; Counting Crows aren’t even close. That leads to more provocation and passion - and more resentment from folks who had to hear the songs over and over.
Wow. I don’t even know how to respond to this, and I like both Nirvana and Dave Grohl (although not so much the Foo Fighters.)
“In Utero” going away. I could never get past Adam Duritz’s blatant imitation of Van Morrison. Counting Crows epitomized Corporate “Alternative” Rock.
I know, I read it. The article’s author even makes the point that most people who owned/listened to one owned/listened to the other:
I am confused by the “Mount Rushmore” thing. Is it slang for “really famous”? Or was there actually some Mount Rushmore/Nirvana incident?
Just “really famous.” They are one of the landmark bands, whose name and sound represent an era.
This. I never really got into Counting Crows but I couldn’t really put my finger on why until somebody else mentioned the Van Morrison thing to me. I guess subconsciously I kept expecting Van and the pale imitation left me cold.
OTOH, Nirvana (esp. “In Utero” (esp. the Steve Albini mix)) was right up my alley and brought an instant rush of nostalgia for my own teen years listening to Killing Joke, Husker-Du, The Replacements, etc.
Virvana was better than PJ. I preferred Pearl Jam when I was younger, but now in my 20s I much prefer Nirvana.
And Grohl is a cool guy, but the Foo Fighters are like one of the most milquetoast, forgettable, post-grunge radio-rock bands of the past decade or so.
Dude! Nickleback is like…standing right there!
Seriously though. While I like Grohl and the Fighters of Foo, I do think they feel like a product of an earlier time.
In regards to the OP’s question, I suppose the answer depends on whether you prefer the grunge sound that sort of faded in the early 90s, but led to post-grunge bands like Foo Fighters, Nickleback, Three Doors Down, Creed and Audioslave. Or do you prefer the American trad-rock pop alternative sound of bands like Matchbox Twenty, Gin Blossoms, The Wallflowers, Hootie and the Blowfish, and The Fray?
Never heard either of them, but I know I hated (and continue to hate) the Counting Crows, so I’ll vote for In Utero. 
That’s just sad. I mean, you mention Albini, and then don’t mention Big Black in you otherwise excellent list 
Cobain wished he could write Kerosene.
All those bands you listed suck so much it’s a crime to even put them in a conversation with Nirvana. Isn’t Creed basically “Christian rock”??