Now more then ten years after the 90s were finished music fans and critics agree that these two albums defined 90s rock music. Debate over these two albums started a couple of years ago but it was friendly with both fan bases agreeing that they were both great albums. Just recently Rolling Stones magazine did a vote of the greatest 90s albums with Nevermind comming in 1st and OK Computer 2nd.
Both records are highly influencial the masterpeice of Ok Computer that influenced many of todays bands or the alternative rock flagship album Nevermind.
OK COMPUTER VS NEVERMIND?
No competition - Nevermind definded the generation and started a grunge rock revolution. The fact that Radiohead came in second, and with OK Computer is what's shocking to me. Besides, Pablo Honey was a much better album.
Most Rsdiohead fans actually consider Pablo Honey one of the worst Radiohead albums.
I am one of them, it had 3 good tracks, other than that it was pretty weak.
Many bands have a poor debut album though, Blur for example, it makes you wonder how many dropped bands could have gone on to make fantastic music.
For me, The Bends is the best Radiohead album. OK Computer WAS perhaps more groundbreaking.
There was an album missing between OK Computer and Kid A, that transistion confused me and that is when I stopped getting into Radiohead.
Lots of people like Kid A, Amnesia, etc. I didn't understand it. There was a 4 year gap, an album in between may have seen me develop my taste with the band.
Well, I'm not a Radiohead fan. Maybe that explains it.
I'm sorry Pearl Jams ten was better then both albums combined!!!
I preferred Nirvanas earlier stuff, and prefered The Bends to OK Computer. So I guess that the world just has different taste!
Everyone heard Nevermind.
It really did define a generation, and will always be one of the best albums made.
no your nuts for comparing anything radiohead has done to nirvana, no contest!!! Pearl jam is better then nirvana and the only reason most people like them is because Cobain died!!
I dont like Radiohead but there music is critically acclaimed and always ranked high in music all time lists but so is Nirvana. Pearl Jam had one good album then have been releasing rubbish ever since please Cobain better voice, better lyrics and Nirvana just a far better band.
Teen Spirit better then Alive easy.
Come As You Are better then Jeremy easy.
In Bloom better then Even Flow easy.
So on so fourth.
Just out of curiosity, does being "critically acclaimed" mean quality? I’ve actually stopped watching most movies that are critically acclaimed because they're usually garbage. For me, the same goes for music. Most of what the critics like, I think is terrible.
I say listen to whatever moves you, If grimlock likes Pearl Jam (and I do as well) I say go for it.
And to make another point, you can say that Eddie Vetter's work has declined after their first album, and I'd be inclined to agree with you (though I love the solo stuff he did for Into the Wild).
But you can never argue that Cobain’s work wouldn't have done the same had he not committed suicide, because you never know what direction an artist will go. And it would go without saying that he was heading down a very dark path.
Yeah, but you have to remember unlike most bands, Pearl Jam has never fully embraced the idea of being a mainstream band. If anything, they rarely ever make any music videos. Sure, they may make a few here and there, but they're not known for making videos too often. Not saying Radiohead or Nirvana have fully embraced commercialism more. However, I do agree with grimlock to an extent where if Cobain never would've died, then I doubt Nirvana would've have become as influential as they are today.
Don't get me wrong, they still would've been famous, and sold a lot of records. However, the impact on the music culture wouldn't have been as significant. It's kind of the same thing with the film, "The dark knight." i love that movie a lot but even i'll admit if Heath ledger never would've died, then it would've only made around 500 to 600 million; versus the billion dollar profit it did make. Same thing with Nirvana, if Cobain would've lived, then they still would've been famous; just not in the same way. However, since Cobain did die, that caused people to see Nirvana in a completely new way to where now they're practically legends now. Of course, that's just my thoughts anyway.
jeremy is better then all of those songs you just named, more people can identify with it! eddie vedars voice made Cobains die out. Cobain was never known to have a voice like vedar has!!!
Big fan of Radiohead here. But " Nevermind " was definitely the Sgt. Peppers of the 90s.
To make another point, getting away from the topic of being "critically acllaimed", let's talk record sales.
These are rankings from the top 100 best selling albums of the 90s
18. Pearl Jam- Ten (12.1 Million Sales)
29. Nirvana- Nevermind (10.6 Million Sales)
76. Pearl Jam- Vs. (7.1 Million Sales)
OK Computer, not on the list.
The Bends, not on the list.
Pablo Honey, not on the list.
Kid A, not on the list.
And if you really want to know what I was listening to in the 90s, it was Metallica, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Stone Temple Pilots, Rage Against the Machine, or Green Day. That along with a wide variety of classic rock. Those were the albums that defined my generation to me.
Nevermind has done 26 million worldwide u only counted sales in the US. Ten did 23 or 24 million worldwide.
STP was a great band Greenday went from cool to lame. The blog wasnt about other bands you think defined the generation.
Well, was Radiohead on the top 100 best sellilng albums anywhere?
All I know is Ok Computer is regarded a one of the greatest rock albums ever. Go look it up personally the band that was the best in the 90s was Oasis they were real rockstars and were selling more singles then other bands were selling albums.
My I ask what source you are using for that? Because that appears to relate only to US sales.
If you are having a conversation with a user with the avatar 'BritishRock' then you are only going to be able to argue on a global basis.
For example, Nevermind has sold 26 million copies worldwide. If you are using US sales as an example, then that would suggest that it sold 16 million copies outside of the US.
Pearl Jam 'Ten' on the otherhand is said to have sold 9.6 million copies worldwide. Using your statistics, that would suggest that the impact outside of the US is minimal (2.5 million overseas sales).
What you are in fact arguing is that Pearl Jam has been one of the most influential artists in the US, their global impact has been minimal, but the same cannot be said for Radiohead or Nirvana.
There can be no doubting that Pearl Jam's first two albums sold massively, reached a large audience of Americans, and can be considered influential.
Not influential enough for them to have longevity though? People got bored of their sound. Hence the reason that the album 'No Code' released in 1996 was certified Platinum in the US in 1996 yet the album OK Computer released in 1997 was certified double platinum in the US.
The former didn't even reach number one in the UK, the latter is triple platinum in the UK. Despite our smaller population, you actually have to see many more albums for each of the 'Platinum' awards in the UK.
So arguing the influence of Radiohead versus Pearl Jam is an entirely mute point on a global scale, and irrelevant on a domestic scale. Pearl Jam were huge in the early nineties, Radiohead were huge in the second part of that decade. I suspect that Radiohead have sold many, many, many more albums over the course of their whole careers. Pearl Jam didn't stay at the top.
Of course, you have conveniently chosen the bestselling Pearl Jam albums and ignored the bestselling Radiohead albums. You are using an album which charted at #21 in the US billboard and ignoring the follow up, Kid A, which charted at #1 and the follow up Amnesiac which reached #2 in the US.
If you want to restrict your argument to US sales rather than applying this methodology to US sales then it should be noted that Pearl Jam have 5 albums which have failed to reach #1 on the billboard.
Of course, that entire way of thinking is seriously flawed, because the Backstreet Boys would be the fifth best band of all time, and Britney Spears would have more talent than Radiohead, Pearl Jam, and Nirvana, which we all know is not true.
Thus, using album sales as an indicator isn't ever going to win you that argument.
Pearl Jam have actually soled more then Radiohead.
PJ 60 million.
Radiohead 40 million.
A figure which doesn't include the millions of 'pay what you want' In Rainbows sales and doesn't yet include sales from the Kings of Limbs which has just been released.
Only 100,000 of those are counted, the deluxe boxset. Deducting In Rainbows and Kings of Lambs and you have six studio albums. Pearl Jam have released nine.
Pearl Jam: 6.6 million sales per album.
Readiohead: 6.6 million sales per album.
It has been two years since Pearl Jam last released an album. What will Radioheads sales figures be like 2 years after their ninth studio album? (not including In Rainbows).
You will have three albums worth of figures on that total, plus back catalogue sales. They will exceed 60 million.
I'm going to go against the grain here and say OK Computer has more cultural relevance. Nevermind certainly defined an American generation, but OK Computer's influence was far more global and wide-reaching. In particular you can see an incredible shift in the British music landscape with the release of OK Computer, from Britpop to more surreal, Radiohead-influenced music. It still continues even today.
Britpop basically died mostly cause Oasises disaster 3rd album Be Here Now. Nevermind and Nirvana are just as influential as Radiohead in todays music.
That's a very American idea. Britpop was far bigger than Oasis, and in fact I would argue that Blur were more the faces of Britpop than Oasis ever were.
hahaha Blur took a back seat they ended up selling 20 million worldwide Morning Glory did 23 million alone hahaha I have a dvd called Live Forever Rise And Fall Of Britpop Blur werent the faces Oasis by far were a bigger band ever heard of the concert Knebworth 1996.
Morning Glory 3rd highest selling UK album of all time.
No Blur album even in the top ten highest selling ablums or even artists for that matter.
As emphasised by me above, judging a band by their album sales is a dangerous game to play. Otherwise you are conceeding that Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys are better than Oasis.
Sales figures do not make a good band, enjoying their music as an individual makes a good band. Most of the mass-selling crap nowadays is a load of sh*te and you know that.
Unless you subscribe to the idea that Lil Wayne is one of the best hip-hop artists in the world. I would argue that Roots Manuva is a thousand times more talented, and has chosen not to "sell out" to an industry controlled by people with no interest in music and every interest in profit.
I think that Oasis are sh*t by the way, but that's just my personal opinion. Personally I get embarressed when I see British people spouting off about how good Oasis are, because it then leaves people thinking that we don't have any genuinely great bands.
This is talent: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE7-lhxwQQQ
This is not: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IH8tNQAzSs
Sales figures and "the crowd" are not going to tell me that a crack head singing about lollipops is better than the son of a Jamaican preacher writing some of the best bars in the industry.
The guy above said that Blur were the face of Britpop thats why I brought up the sales and how big Oasis were in the years of 94 to 98 in the UK. Please Oasis were the greatest band to ever come out of the UK Noel and Liam had balls they told the Americans to get fucked and they made two of the best albums ever in Morning Glory and Definently Maybe.
A lot of bands made up Britpop, including Blur and Oasis. They both had a place in the movement. Blur were amongst the pioneers, but Oasis were more than entitled to join the scene.
I don't think that anybody needs to argue over who were the best out of Oasis and Blur, that whole tabloid "battle of the band" media sh*te was what killed the movement in the first place.
Britpop was the anti-scene, the underground movement, and being brought to the attention of old dears with purple rinse and accountants was what made it uncool.
Arguing the Oasis v Blur thing over and over again is disrespectful to the other awesome bands in that era, e.g. Pulp with their album Common People. How about Supergrass? They had a couple of anthems. James, Suede, The Charlatans, how about Cast? Black Grape, Ocean Colour Scene, The Boo Radleys if you like.
Simply defeating every post with "Oasis are the best", or "Liam Gallagher is a rock god", actually makes you nothing other than an Oasis fan.
If you were a Britpop fan then you would acknowledge the excellent of Blur as a band, if you are really a big fan of the movement then you would appreciate that Britpop was bigger than any one band, it was a MOVEMENT not a competition. By making it a competition you supporting the awful media hype which killed britpop in the first place.
Greatest band to ever come out of the UK
What, better than The Smiths? The Who? The Clash? Madness? The Beatles? The Jam? The Stone Roses? The Specials? The Rolling Stones? Pink Floyd? righty'o; I am talking to a madman.
Yeah Id fucking totally luv listening to The Beatles Revolotuion over Oasis Champagne Supernova bahahahaha i swear some people are deaf. The Smiths were rubbish and for fake sack Pink Floyd are the most boring most overrated band of all time. Mick Jagger sings like shit and The Who sound like garbage and always have.
Your obviously one of those people who refuse to admit to Oasises greatness because u hate the Gallagher brothers. If Oasis were around in the 60s they would have been farrr bigger then the fucking Beatles.
Its funny out of all the shit overrated bands you mentioned you forgot to mention an actually good band like Queen who are far better then any band on your laughable comment.
It had just as much to do with Graham Coxon threatening to quit Blur if they didn't change their sound after The Great Escape.
Nevermind for me - it blasted away the tired, big-hair, stadium crotch rock of the late 80s, in the same way that punk destroyed the pompous, slavering beast that 70's prog rock had become.
It wasn't the best grunge album, and Nirvana were not the best act around (Alice in Chains ), but it defined a generation. I don't mind Radiohead, but I don't see that they shook the establishment in the same way - even my mum liked them!
Of course, music is all about opinions
Surely we can all agree that Coldplay are more insipid than cold sick
Anyone who seriously thinks Oasis were a greater and more influential band than the Beatles obviously knows nothing about music, or how it's written, or how many subsequent acts were heavily influenced by the Beatles, including Oasis, Blur, Nirvana, and a lot of the other bands mentioned.
Nirvana had the advantage over Radiohead of being in the right place at the right time and being able to lay claim to their status as leaders of a movement, grunge. Having a popular movement behind you will automatically make you more legendary. Nobody would remember the Sex Pistols if not for the punk movement. That Radiohead managed their success without all the media hype that grunge gave Nirvana is testament to the fact that their album is better than Nevermind. The bigger album sales are just a product of media exposure and the general public's willingness to buy what they're told is good.
I was mad for grunge as a 14-year-old. It was new and exciting and made it possible for less mainstream acts to follow, but to make a great grunge album took nothing like as much musical talent or originality of ideas as creating OK Computer or The Bends. Ask any composing musician.
Britpop acts like Oasis are Blur are just that... Trite guitar pop which relies very heavily on the Beatles. You could never accuse Radiohead of being Britpop because there's much more to them than just catchy little guitar jingles and over-confidence. Even Cobain made major decisions about the recording of Nevermind based on "what John Lennon would have done".
by BritishRock 7 years ago
This is an intresting question to answer because alot of 90,s bands could warrent being called the biggest of the decade but which was the most consistant band through the 10 years? Nirvana cant be because Kurt Cobain killed himself in 1994. Metellica was also a huge band but they formed in the...
by BritishRock 7 years ago
In 2010 BBC Music wrote that Arcade Fire,s The Suburbs was there OK Computer but arguably better then that. Debate has since continued over the internet most people calling it a laughable statement.I personally felt the statement ridiculous and sure The Suburbs has won many awards and praise but...
by Poethepoet 11 months ago
Do you feel the art of collecting actual photographs in photo albums has become a thing of the past?
by shazwellyn 8 years ago
I researched this hub quite extensively and hoped that people may be interested in voting or/and commenting. It is surprising as to what the results are, so take a peak?http://hubpages.com/hub/Vote-For-The-Al … The-Decade
by BritishRock 7 years ago
1. The Beatles - Sgt Peppers Lonely Bands Club.This is the eight studio album from the iconic Beatles the album spent 27 weeks at the top of the UK charts and fifteen weeks at the top of the American Billboard charts. This album is perhaps The Beatles finest hour it is often regarded as the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|