condorbars

The only track that gives glimpses of the (former) prodigious genius is "climbatize"; the rest of the album served to compensate for the lack of rock on MTV at the time. Also to cater to the "self-destructive" tendencies of their fans busy playing with the Play, like our reviewer. Good for them...

Oh yes Easycure: Certainly, there's nothing original among these grooves, but these jokers never take themselves seriously, they shake you up and, fundamentally, a world without these lovely rascals would be a little bit sadder.

Since you cite quotes from Evan Dando, let me share a quote about Evan Dando, once spoken by Richey Edwards of the Manic Street Preachers: "I think lately there’s been nothing more boring than Evan Dando trying to pass himself off as a drug-addled misfit, while it’s clear to everyone that he’s just the usual tan-obsessed idiot from Los Angeles."

festwca, give us a listen: I've been listening to it quite a bit, I find it to be the perfect record for this early spring.

First of all, thank you for your polite comments. It seems to me that I have given Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and recognized the importance of the Smiths in many aspects, particularly individual songs like "This Charming Man" or "Hand in Glove", and also the key tracks of "The Queen is Dead". What I dislike is clearly subjective. If I find the lyrics of "Cemetry Gates" banal and suited to cater to certain quirks of Morrissey fans (those who walked around with a bunch of flowers around their necks, just to be clear), or the pathos of "The Boy with the Thorn in His Side" frankly irritating, pedantic, and self-indulgent, it's unlikely that I will change my mind. Regarding "I Know It's Over", I believe it's an overrated piece, and its crescendo has never excited me much: far more dazzling was the bedsitting expressed by Soft Cell in "Bedsitter". As sfascia carrozze says, de gustibus...

the usual Smiths fan.....

Accatone, certainly this album doesn't add anything to the current state of rock, like a good 95% of today's productions. But if by rock and roll we mean lounging, fun, excitement - this is what rock offers in contemporary times - I believe few do it like Mudhoney.

I don't know this album, but your review is really intriguing. Well done, Jerry Drake!

On the fact that Kurt Cobain was pathetic, everyone can think what they want. Honestly, I believe that in that era the "pathetic" ones were others, for example those who built a reputation as tortured and anguished just to jump on the depressive-grunge bandwagon while enjoying themselves, investing in the stock market (just to name one: Billy Corgan).
I agree with omoganex that the marketing created around Cobain was cloying, but one cannot say that the leader of Nirvana had planned it out, or that he had speculated on it, or that his malaise was fake. In fact, he always had the clarity to poke fun at the phenomenon and at himself. Just think of the opening lines of In Utero: "Teenage angst has paid off well/ now I'm bored and old." Unlike others, his struggles were real, and I believe his end proves that.

Good morning captain, I don’t think the Pavement were much more “mature” than Nirvana, at least not the Nirvana of Bleach or In Utero. In the end, what Malkmus and his band did was to resurrect a brilliant and mysteriously overlooked group like the Fall, filtering them through the Pixies and the Velvet Underground of their third album. The true "mature" innovators of the time were others, like Jane's Addiction or Sonic Youth. There’s little to say about Slint: Spiderland is a wonderful record, one of my absolute favorites. But putting them in competition with Nirvana seems like a stretch to me: they are two completely different things. Slint focused entirely on music, atmosphere, and technique. The core of Nirvana was Cobain's charisma, his ability to reinvent the mold of a worn-out genre, his anguished voice, and his lyrics.