Nirvana's In Utero attacked

scoobyjack

Found this on the PROC forum - unbelievably negative review of In Utero.
http://www.thealbumslate.com/reviews/niu

Seemed a bit ridiculous until I read the rest of the site - great piss-take reviews of classic albums by Soundgarden, Faith No More, Chilli Peppers, Hendrix (Calidefecation!?!?) among others.

Apparently the people commenting on the site don't get the humour though.

Edit: changed title from "destroyed" to "attacked". Maybe not much better!

Numina

You had me worried there for a second. I thought that the original master tapes of In Utero had been destroyed. Change your thread title.

nyarlothothep

Interesting, the reviewer is entitled to his opinion, I don't fully agree but I can see where hes coming from, if you don't really like a band to begin with you're probably more inclined to dislike future releases moreso. I think its an ok album, it has some nice ideas on it, for example the mixing on the drums and guitars with the gated open sound stylings. I also think the songs were pretty decent with some standouts, heart shaped box and rape me among them.

Nailz

How does one attack something that has no real substance to exist under rather than an inanimate CD???


Edit: Good thing it's a piss take site, I just saw the review of my beloved Angel Dust, and if it were real, there'd be slaps I tells ya!

Max Power1

I would agree with most reviews there.

(Hendrix, soundgarden, nirvana etc)

Thats the thing about having an opinion and a webpage. You can express one on the other.

Angron

Max Power1 wrote: »

I would agree with most reviews there.

(Hendrix, soundgarden, nirvana etc)

Thats the thing about having an opinion and a webpage. You can express one on the other.

It just gets difficult to tell if sarcasm is being used.

But yeah, I hate Nirvana, and not all that fond of Hendrix..

scoobyjack

Denny M wrote: »

It just gets difficult to tell if sarcasm is being used.

Oh, I dunno... I think the site's name pretty blatantly gives it away.

The review isn't particularly subtle either.. it's so damning, it has to be taking the piss.

The final "hidden" track, Gallons of Rubbing Alcohol Flow Through The Strip, sounds like producer Albini, perhaps inspired by the Infinite Monkey Theorem, locked a rabid drug-inhibited Cobain and band into the recording booth for as long as it took until they outputted something he could tack on the end of the CD as a bonus track. Unfortunately, he left it 7 minutes and 31 seconds before he realised his mistake and stopped the tape. I can certainly empathise with him, although my own suffering lasted a full 49 minutes.

Angron

scoobyjack wrote: »

Oh, I dunno... I think the site's name pretty blatantly gives it away.

I didn't mean that one site, I meant the internet in general. Plain text doesn't give away sarcasm easily.

scoobyjack

Denny M wrote: »

I didn't mean that one site, I meant the internet in general. Plain text doesn't give away sarcasm easily.

Oh, yeah, fair enough. In fact I'd say the resulting fights are what keeps most internet forums going!

Malice

Denny M wrote: »

Plain text doesn't give away sarcasm easily.

Plain text doesn't provide any information on tone. That's why we have emoticons .

Adyx

Pisstake or not, there are some interesting points raised in the review. In Utero seems to have this "can do no wrong" attitude toward it that frankly it doesn't deserve. There are some really good songs on the album but overall in my opinion it's only slightly above average.

What really let me down with this album though was not the songs, but the production. It was too reactionary to the "over-produced" Nevermind and as a result it sounds purposefully under-produced - as if they said: "what can we do to make people think we didn't do any production on this". It's over-under-produced.

I hope I don't come across a one of those "I liked them before they were mainstream" hipsters, but I think Bleach and the sublime Incesticide are are better example of the Nirvana sound and contain some of their best work.