with essentially the same track list, except for About A Girl (acoustic), which has been available on the Unplugged In New York album since 1994. The 2002 best of album at least included a then unreleased song, proportedly the last song Nirvana ever recorded. Something for the die hards to nibble on. It also featured 14 tracks, which isn't a bad amount for a casual Nirvana fan to familiarize themselves with the band's overall output.
Even so, Nirvana only recorded 3 studio albums. Each one of them is worth owning. So is a best of all that necessary? Let alone 2 best of albums, that have essentially the same track list? Maybe that's just a fan talking. I am a big Nirvana fan, admittedly, so I think all of their albums are worth owning. Except for these two. With only 3 studio albums, it's not that difficult to find a starting point. Pick one of the 3, and if you like it, get the other two. And if you like all three, by golly, you're a Nirvana fan.
I do understand how best of albums can be a good thing though. I own several myself. It's a good way to get a taste for a band, especially when the band has an extensive catalog. So, maybe I'm a hypocrite. Maybe it's impossible to approve of a best of album for a band that you have followed for a long time. There's always the knee jerk reaction that no "best of" track list can ever really do the band justice. For instance, between these two "best of" albums, there is only one track from the Bleach album, my personal favorite. But that's precisely my problem with a Nirvana best of; they only had three studio albums. That's 37 songs. You could squeeze nearly all of them on a good two disc set. Cherry pick the real "gems," and you have room to include stuff from Incesticide (their covers album) and Unplugged In New York (their acoustic album). Maybe even a live track or two. Or, I don't know, something previously unreleased, so the loyal fans have something in which to be interested.
Courtney Love has gone on record saying that she has 107 tapes of Nirvana/Kurt Cobain recordings, afterall. No matter what the quality, fans would love to hear some of that. Kurt's untimely and tragic death has left fans wanting to collect anything and everything that the band recorded. The singles box set, which features recordings that were once very rare, still sells for over $100. Nirvana shirts are still sold in Hot Topic stores (and Target, oddly enough...). Their songs are still played on the radio. And if you have anyone in your life around the age of 30, you've likely been told how life changing Smells Like Teen Spirit was back in 1991. There's still a high demand for Nirvana material. So if it's about the filthy lucre, why not tap the vaults a bit to release more goodies to the fans? Why yet another collection of songs they already have?
To its credit, Icon is at least affordable. $8 on Amazon at the moment. That's less than $1 per song. Well, until you add shipping costs. Then it's about the same price as iTunes, or one of their three studio albums. Bottom line, there's no point to this collection. It's not a good representation of the band's discography. There's nothing special for long time fans. It has the hits, but the hits aren't always the best songs.
For a good introduction to Nirvana, pick up the Live At Reading album. It captures an important moment in the band's history (their last show in Europe), it presents a good cross section of their discography, and it features the band in their prime. And you really can't go wrong with either Nevermind or In Utero.
Nevermind is probably an easier ride for first timers. It's their most pop album. In Utero is a bit rougher around the edges. Heavier, more screaming, angrier tone in general. Bleach, to me, is the perfect blending, even though it came first. But Bleach also only cost $600 to record, so it may be a little too muddy for most. The newly releases special edition of Bleach cleaned up the mud, and also includes an early live show from the band. I like the mud better, but it's a good listen. Unplugged In New York is excellent. It really captures the band's song writing abilities. Where Did You Sleep Last Night is a haunting capstone to the set, which is filled with unique takes on some of their classic songs, and many covers that threaten to outshine the originals. They even manage to have some fun while playing. But it's not necessarily a good representation of the bands usual sound, and it's not filled with hits. It's a unique performance. From the Muddy Banks of the Wishkah has been outshone by Live at Reading. It's mostly for absolute completeists now. And Incesticide showcases the band's ability to take another artist's song and make it their own. It's my second favorite Nirvana album really, but again, no hits. it's mostly a collection of b-sides and covers. Pick it up if you can find it, but not until you've checked out their other albums.
But avoid the "best of" cash ins.
No comments:
Post a Comment