rank the songs on nirvana's "nevermind"

1. Territorial Pissings
2. Drain You
3. Lithium
4. Teen Spirit
5. In Bloom
6. Come as You Are
7. Polly
8. On a Plain
9. Breed
10. Something in the Way
11. Stay Away
12. Lounge Act

The rest is all a big tie, about equally good. However, if I never heard "Teen Spirit" and "Polly" again in my life, it'd be a nice thing.

The good songs
In Bloom
Polly
Stay Away

The not songs
Something In The Way
Territorial Pissings

The ok songs - alpha order
Breed
Drain You
Lithium
Lounge Act

Wow, Search tells me this is the only exclusively Nevermind thread (unless there is some poll I missed.)

Anyhoo,20th Anniversary Box Due in September.

I can't remember what "Lounge Act" sounds like.

That's the one were he talks about arresting himself and how he still smells of you.

1. Drain You
2. In Bloom
3. Breed
4. On a Plain
5. Smells Like Teen Spirit
6. Lithium
7. Territorial Pissings
8. Lounge Act
9. Come As You Are
10. Polly
11. Something In The Way
12. Stay Away

I'd be one of the weirdos that puts "Territorial Pissings" at (or near) the very bottom

----

I can't remember what "Lounge Act" sounds like.

― jawmes hetfeld (absolutely clean glasses)

That's my absolute favorite Nirvana song. Maybe not my fav of the moment but still

for me the top 6 is songs i really like and the bottom 6 are ones i'm more or less indifferent to, order not really very set in stone

something in the way
drain you
lithium
slts
in bloom
come as you are
breed
lounge act
on a plain
territorial pissings
pay to play
polly

i first heard this record in 7th grade during home ec class.

related thread: your fav Nevermind single

01 on a plain
02 smells like teen spirit
03 drain you
04 in bloom
05 lithium
06 come as you are
07 something in the way
08 polly
09 lounge act
10 stay away
11 territorial pissings
12 breed

1. Endless Nameless
2-13 everything else

surprised anyone would rank "Breed" last!

My answer is mostly due to overdosing on Nevermind several times.. Endless Nameless just makes the most sense to me at this point.

surprised anyone would rank "Breed" last!

well the last four are pretty much = but breed in particular just sounds like poorly-executed jerry bruckheimer soundtrack fodder to me

ha there's an awesome scene in the movie Shoot 'Em Up set to that song

wow a lot of ppl hate Polly; is consensus that KC's ironic postmodern shouldn't tackle something as legitimately shocking and awful as rape?

i just don't like quiet nirvana as much as loud nirvana personally

whatever your feelings on polly you must agree it is better than new wave polly

i actually heard that version first (my order of hearing their albums was perversely In Utero > Incesticide > Nevermind > Bleach) and kind of prefer it!

but doesn't it bug you how non-new wave it is?

i didn't have the slightest idea what new wave was when i was 12 so...no

as a dumbass grunge-loving preteen i don't even think i heard the phrase "punk rock" that much until Dookie or, hilariously, The Spaghetti Incident

haha i don't even know what new wave is now, but "new wave polly" seemed a little too generic to warrant any kind of genre affix.
like there's this peanuts cartoon where violet or patty has a hi-fi jumprope. then charlie brown goes, "HI-FI jumprope?"

1. breed
2. in bloom
3. smells like teen spirit
4. lithium
5. drain you
6. on a plain
7. lounge act
8. come as you are
9. territorial pissings
10. something in the way
11. polly
12. stay away
13. endless, nameless

^ last five are more or less arbitrary, like them all about the same

1. On a Plain
2. Breed
3. Stay Away
4. Lithium
5. Territorial Pissing
6. Smells Like a Teen Spirit
7. Drain You
8. In Bloom
9. Polly
10. Lounge Act
11. Come As You Are
12. Something in the Way

1. Smells Like Teen Spirit
2. Lounge Act
3. In Bloom
4. Breed
5. Lithium
6. On a Plain
7. Stay Away
8. Territorial Pissings
9. Something in the Way
10.Drain You
11.Come as You Are
12.Polly

should be noted I don't really dislike any of these...

1. In Bloom
2. Drain You
3. SLTS
4. Lounge Act
5. Lithium
6. On a Plain
7. Come as you Are
8. Stay Away
9. Polly
10. Territorial Pissings
11. Breed
12. Something in the Way

Lithium
On a Plain
Drain You
Lounge Act
Breed
Smells Like Teen Spirit
In Bloom
Polly
Come as You Are
Something in the Way
Territorial Pissings
Stay Away

"Stay Away" is the only one on here I don't have time for

i'm glad this thread exists because it's making me listen to nevermind for the first time since the 90s

Here is informal tally of ILX's rankings (lower score is better):

on a plane : 1
slts : 3
: 5
territorial pissing : 5
years pass .. : 6
smells like a teen spirit : 6
teen spirit : 8
endless nameless : 9
everything else : 13
endless, nameless : 13
smells like teen spirit : 45
drain you : 52
(6 years ago) [35]permalink : 53
in bloom : 57
on a plain : 60
lithium : 61
breed : 73
territorial pissings : 89
lounge act : 91
something in the way : 107
come as you are : 112
stay away : 124
polly : 152

It turns out Polly is the most hated!

I misread slts as 'Slits' and was all like 'hellyeah, ILX totally rules! On a Plain and the Slits!'

(6 years ago) [35]permalink : 53

can't believe this placed where it did

Side B >>>>>>>>>>>> Side A

On a Plane
Drain You
Lounge Act
Stay Away
Breed
Territorial Pissings
Lithium
Smells Like Teen Spirit
In Bloom
Polly
Come As You Are
Something in the Way

Lounge Act is the shit

respect

how's the 20th anniv going for you guys? Man, this Kurt Andersen radio show on it is terrible.

well, I guess you are ignoring it

this album hasn't aged well for me; the production makes too many of the songs sound super-generic.

i enjoy the handful of overlooked songs on side b -- 'on a plain,' 'lounge act' -- more than any of the singles.

I had no idea this record was recorded in Van Nuys, CA right around the corner from Dr. Hogly Wogly's Texas BBQ.

i havent heard ANYTHING about it Morbs...

JD otm: except for Lithium, my three favorites are Drain You, Lounge Act, and On a Plain

I wish there was something like The Stooges "The Complete Funhouse Sessions" except it would be 1 CD with 10 different versions of "Endless Nameless."

I read somewhere that Endless Nameless was improvised live in the studio [citation needed]

It might have been, but they've played it live plenty of times

The second side >>> first, because the production and the songs are married perfectly.

From this excerpt:
http://read.mtvhive.com/2011/09/19/everybody-loves-our-town-an-oral-history-of-grunge/?all=1

BUTCH VIG The afternoon we tried to track “Lithium,” we had done a few passes, and for whatever reason Dave kept speeding up and it didn’t feel good. Like halfway through the fourth take Kurt says, “Stop! Stop!” He started playing “Endless, Nameless,” and I just kept the tape rolling. Kurt was singing so hard I thought he was gonna kill somebody. The veins in his neck were bulging out, he just was pouring sweat, strangling his vocal chords, and at the end of song, he started smashing his guitar. I was in the control room and didn’t even know what to say. I went out and asked, “Are you okay?” He just got up and walked in the other room, and Krist sort of looked at me like, Whoa! I’ve never seen so much rage in someone in the studio that came out that instantaneously. It was scary to watch him play that song. I’m not kidding.

right on.. the parts where they switch to the quiet section seem sync'd up as if they had played it before, or at least had noise-jam'd a million times prior..

Nevermind is the best album ever...

... for falling asleep to the soothing closing track, only to be rudely awoken for the awesome noisejam hidden track 15 minutes later.

preferring Lounge Act to the hits = the very definition of trying too hard

"Lounge Act" is as effortless as the hits!

you like debbie gibson tho

who doesn't?

Would love to hear Debbie Gibson cover 'On A Plain' tbh

Snakes on a Plane! Mmmm-mmmm!

i just can't snake
your plane

Yes it's true
I'm on a
I'm on a
I'm on a
I'm on a pla-a-a-n-n-e.

doll SNAAAAAAAAAKE
test PLAAAAAAAAANE

waht

Lounge Act is fun to play on bass

http://mubi.com/notebook/posts/1991-grunge-and-poses

"Lounge Act" is the best.

omg did you know it was out 20 years ago? i heard it was the record that changed everything, when people heard this shit they was all like WHAATT??

youve become an interesting troll

drain you and lounge act are the heart of this album

#1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6livarlSRo

i hate this album

there's not a single tune on here that i prefer more to the versions on unplugged

I love the way it sounds but sometimes almost oppressively rigid in its verse-chorus structuring. A lot of the songs you could cleave many of these songs in half and both halves would be essentially the same. That's why "Lounge Act" is my favorite; it's asymmetrical. Instead of repeating itself it builds and smolders and ends on an unresolved note.

Lounge Act, On a Plain and maaaaybe Lithium are the only tracks I could be bothered to listen to now. It's always been their least exciting album overall.

i agree, the unplugged versions of all nevermind songs are better just for Kurt's vocals. he sounds like a wounded animal.

I love this album.

Territorial Pissings
Breed
Lounge Act
On a Plain
Come As You Are
In Bloom
Something In The Way
Smells Like Teen Spirit
Polly
Lithium
Drain You
Stay Away

Lithium
Drain You
On a Plain
Come as You Are
Something in the Way
Lounge Act
Polly
Breed
Smells Like Teen Spirit
Territorial Pissings
In Bloom
Stay Away

Lounge Act
Drain You
Smells Like Teen Spirit
Lithium
In Bloom
Stay Away
Polly
On a Plain
Breed
Endless, Nameless
Territorial Pissings
Come as You Are
Something in the Way

Great album, but those last three I'll probably actively skip for the rest of my life.

Ha -- I ranked some of the catalog last month.

On a Plain
Drain You
Lounge Act
Something in the Way
Smells Like Teen Spirit
Lithium
Territorial Pissings
Breed
Stay Away
Come As You Are
In Bloom
Polly

"Lounge Act" is the best.

― Euler, Friday, September 23, 2011 3:45 AM (five years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Apart from "Polly" and "Something in the Way", which I could do without, I rank them all about the same these days.

https://pitchfork.com/news/nirvana-sued-by-baby-from-nevermind-album-artwork-for-child-pornography/

i'm not really a fan of the cover but that seems like a real stretch

He named Chad Channing as a defendant! That guy can’t catch a break.

jeez, that's the kind of lawsuit people talk about later in the "aren't all lawyers and people who sue just TERRIBLE" voice

Hard to take too seriously when he’s been cashing in on the cover for years. I mean, ffs, he recreated it in, what, 2016?

2016 seems to be when he started complaining about it. The links in that article really… tell a story.

Hope the guy eventually finds some peace (even if he doesn’t get a payout).

Yeah, so most recently in 2016, from a Spin article at the time:

Spencer Elden is 25 years old, but once, he was the baby on the iconic cover of Nirvana’s Nevermind, which was released 25 years ago today. Elden marked the album’s anniversary this weekend the best way he knows how: by recreating the shot for New York Post. He then told the Post that he prefers the Clash to Nirvana, which is fine, but still a little disappointing.

Elden also recreated the famous underwater pool photo for Nevermind’s tenth anniversary in 2001, for its 17th in 2008 , and for its 20th in 2011. “Every five years or so, somebody’s gonna call me up and ask me about Nevermind … and I’m probably gonna get some money from it,” he told Rolling Stone at age 12 in 2003. Keep chasing those dollars, dude.

I personally wouldn’t risk the Insta-flaming that could come with suing Courtney Love even if she ran over my foot with her car.

(re the 2016 reshoot)
"I said to the photographer, 'Let's do it naked.' But he thought that would be weird, so I wore my swim shorts," Spencer told the New York Post.

also ok um?
Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker"

he has Nevermind tattooed across his chest

Nevermind baby still chasing that dollar bill.

Actually is the cover of Nevermind (and picture of naked babies) allowed on FB et all or do they have a policy regarding that kind of things ?

Would be odd if this case goes in his favour and then they raid his house finding many copies of Nevermind

xp I got a fb post pulled down once for posting a youtube link to a song from 'Houses of the Holy.' I imagine the same has happened with many Nirvana posts.

The Houses of the Holy cover is suggestive—and gross—in a way that this cover isn’t.

That said, I see why he is annoyed that he has this notoriety he never asked for. I think the lawsuit is a stretch though. The dollar bill was a critique of consumerism and a commentary on the band itself “selling out.” Everyone knows that.

The Houses of the Holy cover is suggestive—and gross—in a way that this cover isn’t.

Never really saw it that way - what suggestiveness do you see there?

Background fwiw: https://dangerousminds.net/comments/houses_of_the_holy_the_backstory_to_the_famous_led_zeppelin_album_cover

But the algorithms or whatever don't really care if it's suggestive, gross or else, do they ?
It's not actual people from FB etc who pull down these things on line or is it ??

So bullet points 71-87 here seem to lay out their argument for why this is pornography: https://fr.scribd.com/document/521576572/Elden-v-Nirvana-L-L-C-et-al

Wrt this

74. To ensure the album cover would trigger a visceral sexual response
from the viewer, Weddle activated Spencer’s ‘gag reflex’ before throwing him
underwater in poses highlighting and emphasizing Spencer’s exposed genitals

and the references to the 'common strategy' of promoting rock albums with child-pornographic album covers, I'm wondering if the argument also rests on a premise that at least a significant number of the millions of people who bought the album or have seen the image are in fact deriving sexual titillation from it - if so, does that mean all of us should also be charged with possession of child pornography?

I guess points 106-111 also seem pertinent. Also

103. Spencer’s image created massive commercial success for Nirvana,
L.L.C. for which Spencer never received any compensation.

It seems curious to me that someone would raise this as an issue if they were also arguing that they were sexually exploited and an object of child pornography.

But obv IANAL and don't know Elden's experience

and the references to the 'common strategy' of promoting rock albums with child-pornographic album covers

one of the albums it references as a previous child porn album cover is Van Halen's Balance which was released after Nevermind and is maybe questionable but doesn't cross the line into 'child porn' at all? the others are notoriously gross ones which are absolutely deserving of the label child porn though and have received scrutiny for that in the past (though probably still not as much as they should have)

it seems like he's upset about not having gotten royalties or anything, and also now understandably feels weird about the cover, but the claims that it's deliberately sexually provocative & not just kinda in bad taste don't hold up at all

When do photoshoot models receive royalties from album sales?! It's only the producer that gets royalty points iirc (apart from Steve Albini obv).

Interestingly, the law firm which filed the complaint specializes in childhood sexual abuse claims.

My initial reaction was that the claim trivializes actual cases of CSA, but these guys must at least know what they’re doing…

Elden's lawyer, Robert Y. Lewis, argues that the inclusion of the dollar bill (which was superimposed after the photograph was taken) makes the minor seem "like a sex worker"

This particular point is completely asinine. But beyond that, even if Elden doesn't get anything or very much in the way of compensation, I could see this case establishing some kind of precedent that would make covers of this nature (satirical art that is not intended or generally interpreted as child pornography) more difficult to do in the future, with some kind of additional legal oversight being established.

it seems like he's upset about not having gotten royalties or anything

smells like mean spirit

(ok that was crap really sorry)

He’s pretty explicit about it:

Everyone thinks you’re making money from it. You’ll hook up with a hot chick, and then they figure out you’re not making any money from it and they’ll dump you.

jees this guy

it’s pretty easy to imagine feeling violated or exploited or having complicated feelings about being part of this, having your imagine used and reproduced so often for other people’s profit, wanting at least something for that. I don’t know enough about the law to know whether the pornography angle is likely to be the most effective approach for addressing this, it might well be, it seems like a bit of a risk

ok he seems like kind of a dickhead but regardless

Honestly fuck this guy.

And fuck whichever society thinks of naked babies as pornography. If this album cover ever gets censored it says more about those people censoring it than the album cover itself.

he could live his whole life without anyone ever even knowing it was him, but that's not what he wanted

Maybe no outlet asked him to recreate it for the 30th anniversary and he realized the cash is drying up.

How and why is Chad Channing tied up in this?

this is a very serious lawsuit. some are already calling it the "case of the century". channing may have key information on what happened with an infant's penis that day

ultimately it was a pretty shitty thing to put a photo of an actual baby on the album cover imo.

The particular language makes me wonder if he's fallen down a Q-hole and that was the impetus for this. Especially since he had no issues with the whole thing as recently as five years ago.

has "album covers with children on them" been done yet?

How and why is Chad Channing tied up in this?

I guess suing the guy who was fired and didn't get shit lends credibility that this is more than just the money?

It seems they just went scattershot w/the defendants. You would think that weakens the claim, but I dunno.

this is obviously a trauma causer. people saying well he's been milking this for years, fuck him, have a serious lack of empathy. that's all i'll say because fuck this revive and several of you assholes tbh.

he could live his whole life without anyone ever even knowing it was him, but that's not what he wanted

He was found out pretty quick. He'd been ID'd at least in the press as far back as when the album broke, and iirc there's a bit about him in Azzerad's Nirvana bio from '94.

Man pictured as a baby grasping for a dollar, is grasping for a dollar. The album cover is so prescient. A work of genius. https://t.co/4fj3wy33Mn

— Paul Martin (@paulmartin2012) August 25, 2021

xp But if he hadn't done all the press over the years, would his name even show up in a Google search today? No way of knowing obviously, but he actively participated in keeping the association out there.

he was a fucking KID. there's no way you could grow up without knowing that you were on the cover of one of the most famous albums of all time, figure out early on that if you let your classmates know it would give you elite status, and then it would pretty much trap you for the rest of your life, unless you had the support and therapy to do some serious work on it. AS A FUCKING KID. this is not rocket science people. jesus. i can't do this. gotta avoid this thread for the day. suffice it to say there's some real ugly shit going down itt atm.

All of that would be true even if he had been clothed, this lawsuit might not be the best way to make his point or get the share he feels he deserves.

XPSI imagine his name would show up in Google searches even if he hadn't consented to all those later shoots because his family and/or the photographer put it out there at the time. It was a big part of the album narrative then.

How is it traumatic? The photoshoot itself? The self-imposed fame? If he was ID’d it was as simple as saying yeah that’s me but I don’t want to do any interviews or photoshoots and he would be a little piece of trivia noone really cares about. He decided to go the other way, got the press and the money and he has made it clear time and time again that his sole interest is getting money out of it. Someone put the idea that he should be making more money out of it by accusing everyone involved of child pornography. It’s super fucked up and I have no sympathy for him.

I hope he loses. This is a cash grab and I highly disagree with the scope of a naked baby being porn just because he’s naked. The fucking lawsuit describes the baby as being a “sex worker”. How can they do this with a straight face is unforgivable to me.

xp We're talking about old print articles from 1991. Anyway the point is you would think the claim may face an acquiescence problem or something similar, when you look at the history of his participation in publicly making the link (including as an adult).

(Not to mention the 2016 interview where he basically says he first got mad about it when the surviving band members wouldn't do his art show.)

One thing that's interesting is that DGC was worried about stores not carrying the album because of the cover (remember this was about a year after Ritual De Lo Habitual was blocked from many outlets before Perry Ferrell came up with alternate '1st Amendment' cover), and prepped an airbrushed version that ultimately didn't go out in favor of a strategically placed hype sticker.

Yeah, that's what confused me about the one article I read saying that he thought a sticker was going to be placed over it but wasn't, because I distinctly remember the racks of this at Best Buy with the hype sticker right in the center.

We're talking about old print articles from 1991

...in oft-cited (and archived online) publications like Rolling Stone and Spin, in addition to a best-selling authorized band biography published when he was a toddler.

So the theory would be that he suffered "loss of wages" b/c a prospective employer searched his name, found the same name in some old articles, concluded it's the same guy and refused to hire him for some reason?

there are plenty of people who were featured in super-iconic media properties when they were small children who are "known" in the sense that their names are associated with it online and maybe there are some articles here and there, but who live normal adult lives as relative unknowns just bc they dont engage with it, and people stop caring after a certain point (especially if you dont continue in showbiz.) it is possible to be in a situation like that and not make it part of your personal identity for life. i know people personally who have been/are in that exact situation, and who seem to find it very manageable to navigate how much or little they want it to impact their adult lives, largely by moving on, not giving interviews, and not trying to cash in. the idea that he was irreversibly doomed to a life of fame and ridicule from infancy is a delusion.

he has the right to have mixed feelings and feel confused about this. he never gave consent because he was an infant and incapable of it. it's not difficult to understand the personal turmoil of millions of people being able to see your penis forever anytime they want. this has nothing to do whether he publicly announced that he was the infant on the cover. plus, these things are documented, so i'm sure if you really wanted to know, and he hadn't said anything, you could've found out.

showing an infant's penis on the front cover adds no artistic value to the original artistic intent, except for playing with borderline shock antics. at the very least, they should remove his genitals from there. if they refuse, i agree with a lawsuit and compensation.

showing an infant's penis on the front cover adds no artistic value to the original artistic intent, except for playing with borderline shock antics

I can understand feeling uncomfortable that half the world has seen your naked baby picture but I don't agree with this. If the message is that greed and consumerism are taught to us as soon as we are born, like from a state of nature, I do think showing a naked baby chasing a dollar bill sends a different message than putting a diaper on him (or airbrushing out his penis).

showing an infant's penis on the front cover adds no artistic value to the original artistic intent, except for playing with borderline shock antics. at the very least, they should remove his genitals from there. if they refuse, i agree with a lawsuit and compensation.

What's shocking? That babies have genitalia?

I never thought of it as sexual or a shock tactic.

Maybe one thing that could come from this business is that parents won't be able to profit from the sale of the images of their children.

This seems like a legitimate complaint: A possibly new contention in the lawsuit is that Elden’s parents never even signed paperwork allowing any use of the image.

Everything else seems like a pretty far reach to me.

This seems like a legitimate complaint: A possibly new contention in the lawsuit is that Elden’s parents never even signed paperwork allowing any use of the image.

Yeah, that's the part that leaped out at me, and the part I cannot imagine a multinational corporation's legal department overlooked for 30 years.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-58327844

Now 30, Elden says his parents never signed a release authorising the use of his image on the album.

The legal case also alleges that Nirvana had promised to cover Elden's genitals with a sticker, but the agreement was not upheld.

and iirc there's a bit about him in Azzerad's Nirvana bio from '94.

― Precious, Grace, Hill & Beard LTD. (C. Grisso/McCain), Wednesday, August 25, 2021 12:18 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

there is and to the best of my recollection they used it because it was the best photo they got of the baby swimming and were worried that the penis might be a problem, then somebody or other said fuck it, we can just put a sticker over it if people complain. a lot of unintended consequences to something i don't think anyone was thinking all that deeply about at the time.

If the message is that greed and consumerism are taught to us as soon as we are born, like from a state of nature, I do think showing a naked baby chasing a dollar bill sends a different message than putting a diaper on him (or airbrushing out his penis).

― Sequel to Sadness (Sund4r), Wednesday, August 25, 2021 10:12 AM (fifteen minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

this seems to be a call for unnecessarily realistic "art." movies don't generally film all the mundane things that happen between main points, just as other art doesn't. sure, there is a niche for this, but when it involves nude infants and children, they should be left out of it.

The only acceptable case in which a baby penis should be shocking is if it’s start peeing while you’re changing his diaper.

People who find baby penis shocking might want to avoid museums completely. You might end up shocked from all the baby jesus penises in there.

the part I cannot imagine a multinational corporation's legal department overlooked for 30 years

That wouldn't be surprising to me; but yeah the release an interesting angle.

this seems to be a call for unnecessarily realistic "art." movies don't generally film all the mundane things that happen between main points, just as other art doesn't. sure, there is a niche for this, but when it involves nude infants and children, they should be left out of it.

I don't think it's a call for unnecessary realism! If you want to depict or represent human life in its initial state of nature, it makes a difference to the depiction if a child is wearing clothes or not, same reason it matters that Adam and Eve are described as naked when they were created in the Bible. It's not a mundane detail like "why don't we see Michael Corleone brushing his teeth?" I'm totally fine with people arguing that e.g. they should use a painting instead of a photograph of a real person but I'm just saying that nakedness has an artistic purpose there, that it's not just a shock tactic.

this seems to be a call for unnecessarily realistic "art." movies don't generally film all the mundane things that happen between main points, just as other art doesn't.

frantically trying to wrap my head around this.

also, just to add: art is a conversation between the artist, the piece, and the public. in the context of american society, this would have come across as, like i said, borderline shocking. anyway, this was only a minor point. if you want to normalize viewing nude children in art pieces that appear in non-sexual ways, that's a different conversation.

more and more often i see stuff and just think i don't want to have an opinion on this

last week: Bob Dylan
this week: Nirvana
next week: ???

also, just to add: art is a conversation between the artist, the piece, and the public. in the context of american society, this would have come across as, like i said, borderline shocking. anyway, this was only a minor point. if you want to normalize viewing nude children in art pieces that appear in non-sexual ways, that's a different conversation.

Was the American public shocked? I was young at the time but I don't recall a controversy around the artwork for Nevermind like there was for e.g. the cover of Nothing's Shocking or around 2 Live Crew's music. Totally willing to hear about it if there was one.

I don't either. Honestly I've never thought about the baby's penis so much until this thread.

the fact that they talked about covering it up with a sticker is a pretty big flag that there was a conversation that this might not be appropriate

The album cover is super iconic but I can’t recall anyone among my friends at the time talking about anything other than the music. The actual shock whenever Nirvana was mentioned came from Kurt’s suicide.

the fact that they didnt cover it up and after it came out nobody reacted to that aspect of it is a big flag that it wasnt controversial

more and more often i see stuff and just think i don't want to have an opinion on this

― Blues Guitar Solo Heatmap (Free Download) (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, August 25, 2021 1:43 PM (seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

ilx starting to feel more and more like twitter every day

this seems to be a call for unnecessarily realistic "art." movies don't generally film all the mundane things that happen between main points, just as other art doesn't. sure, there is a niche for this, but when it involves nude infants and children, they should be left out of it.

― Punster McPunisher,

I feel for the guy, this has obviously had a huge impact on his life that i don't doubt it's taken many years to process... But what a load of fucking bullshit.

I also sympathize w/him. The cover just doesn't meet any definition of pornography (let alone CSAM) that I'm aware of, which is why it's mystifying and even a little maddening that the complaint would push that angle.

i'm reading that the lawsuit includes all possible violations, including consent

baby penises meant different things back then but this is 2021

The cover just doesn't meet any definition of pornography (let alone CSAM) that I'm aware of, which is why it's mystifying and even a little maddening that the complaint would push that angle.

― Shallot Shortage 2021 (morrisp),

Any and all nudity in art is pornographic.

Afaict, the "nature of the action" of the suit is completely on child pornography grounds:

https://fr.scribd.com/document/521576572/Elden-v-Nirvana-L-L-C-et-al

xps

Any and all nudity in art is pornographic.

We can just go ahead and type anything into these little "Add a Post" boxes and click 'Submit Post' now can't we?

also, i just googled to see what people had to say about the cover art, and CBC called it "controversial," so there's that:

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/undertheinfluence/nirvana-s-nevermind-cover-almost-looked-completely-different-1.5445655

also, sund4r, i'm not a lawyer, and i haven't read the official case, i'm just going by discussions on the internet. it's not entirely unheard of that lawyers could pivot, though, but i guess that would fall more under strategy and compromising

there's a rolling stone article saying "While non-sexualized photos of infants are typically not considered child pornography under law, the suit argues that the images of Elden are sexualized."

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/nirvana-nevermind-baby-lawsuit-child-pornography-1216672/

someone else can fact-check this, though

it's not entirely unheard of that lawyers could pivot, though, but i guess that would fall more under strategy and compromising

So if there's a cash settlement and the lawyer says "yeah, never mind" (pun very much intended), what will the position of all the moral foot-stompers on this thread be? What's the next stop in the big anti-child pornography crusade? The tanning lotion ad where a dog is pulling down a little girl's bathing suit?

I remember that the In Utero artwork was altered to appease Wal Mart who refused to stock it otherwise, but don't recall any such furor over the Nevermind cover. xxp

The suit argues that the images of Elden are sexualized because the baby is grasping for money "like a sex worker," which seems highly specious.

Yes, the suit does make that argument. You can read it at the link I gave if you want to consider how convincingly it does so.xps

that's a bad angle. but i assume it's making a very big claim to try to settle for something else

Just FYI, because I used to work for a magazine that commissioned and/or purchased a lot of photo shoots: models get a one-time fee for a photo shoot. They are not entitled to royalties, ever. The photographer is, depending on the rights specifically granted at the time, which may include:

• "first rights" - the initial purchaser has the exclusive right to the first-ever use of the image(s), then after a designated interval the photographer can re-sell the image
• "world rights" - the initial purchaser owns the image(s) in perpetuity for all markets everywhere

This dude's parents were paid a flat fee at the time of the photo shoot. Legally, that's the end of Nirvana's or the record company's financial obligation to him or anyone other than the photographer. If it can be proven that the parents never signed a release form, his lawyer might be able to argue that Nirvana, DGC et al. never had the right to purchase the image from the photographer (because the photographer never had the right to sell it) and the album must therefore be withdrawn and reissued with new cover art, all other licensed versions of the image must be withdrawn, etc., etc. But that's unlikely to happen, and he's unlikely to see any kind of financial windfall from it.

models should be entitled to royalties forever

also all this pc gone mad catastrophising needs to stop

Was a college freshman at the time of the album’s release and not once so I recall anyone even remarking upon much less being shocked about the artwork. This was at a Christian college to boot.

We must be about the same age. I was also at a Christian college when the album came out, and as far as I can remember the cover was a non-issue. Baby penis usually is exempted from our society's restrictions on display of penis, and considered a symbol of innocence rather than sexuality.

just came in to rank the songs on Nevermind and wow this is not what I expected to find.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Putto

o well, whatever

just came in to rank the songs on Nevermind and wow this is not what I expected to find.

you forgot their Rudimentary Peni cover

in any case, I don't know how to feel on this case, I mean obviously I noticed there was a baby's penis on the cover but I never took it as sexualized. because if I had, at the age I was, I wouldn't have bought it.

but there is also something to be said in general (not necessarily just 'sexuality') of using a child's likeness on an album cover when they can't consent and knowing they may be impacted by it years later in some way shape or form, positively or negatively.

using a non-sexual example, can imagine if I was used as a baby on the cover of some really racist country or rock 'n roll group and discovered later to be the child and possibly associated with that band's dogma, that I might be upset by it.

for me the trauma aspect is diminished by years of seeking publicity for the role, literally 10 people would have know it was him otherwise

"The baby from Ready To Die and the smoking girl from Green Mind were unavailable for comment at press time."

1. Baby Penis
2. Baby Penis
3. & 4. (tie) Baby Penis
5. (I’m aroused by) Baby Penis

I haven’t heard the rest of the album. :(
― Bach on harmonica! (Boring, Maryland)

You forgot Baby Jesus Penises

Is there any precedent for anyone claiming a similar childhood picture was damaging?

I have to confess that while not really believing his argument, I did feel a bit "I can see why he is aggrieved at everyone else making money". He doesn't seem to be seeking that much, in the scheme of things?

I don't know but I'm not about to google "naked child photos" to find out. I don't need that in my internet search history. I seem to remember an art photographer who took pictures of her kids nude in a non-sexualized way in her work, and there was some controversy around it. Can't remember the name.

Sally Mann

there are definitely naked pics of me, my brother, and our friends from childhood in a swimming pool. as far as I know, they're not on a specialty website currently

She wrote a book about the pics, look like. From a NYT review by Francine Prose about the book

iThe book is honest about the price that Mann, her husband and children paid for the family photos. Stung and alarmed by her critics, Mann consulted a member of the F.B.I.’s Behavioral Sciences Department, who confirmed her fears that “some people would be aroused by these pictures.” Consolingly, he added that “I don’t think there is anything you can take a picture of that doesn’t arouse somebody,” but warned that the Manns might be in for “a rough time.” Soon enough, their rough time arrived in the person of “one obsessive who lived in an adjoining state” and who troubled “our waking and sleeping hours for years” with a barrage of letters and creepy requests for information about the children. “This is the first time I’ve publicly referred, in any detail, to the shadow this weirdo cast for so many years. I knew of course that it would only validate those critics who said I put my children at risk. . . . Unwittingly, ignorantly, I made pictures I thought I could control, pictures made within the prelapsarian protection of the farm.”

https://www.digitalspy.com/music/a389951/placebo-album-cover-boy-sues-band-for-ruining-his-life/#:~:text=David%20Fox%20says%20that%20he,he%20featured%20on%20the%20cover.&text=The%20boy%20who%20appeared%20on,to%20his%20lack%20of%20qualifications.

From another article:

In June 2012, Fox told The Times he was going to sue over the album cover as it "ruined his life" because he was bullied at school. Fox was last seen in the identity parade on an episode of Never Mind The Buzzcocks in October 2013.

and his Twitter page: https://twitter.com/davidfox2013

He sounds credible in the first article but evidently chose another path

there were a couple of Ride singles that had (non-genital) Sally Mann photos on them. Catchers singles as well iirc.

Here's some interesting background on the Nirvana cover shoot (with pics): https://milanote.com/the-work/the-designer-of-nirvanas-nevermind-album-cover

Never noticed the hand print before.

It's not hard to understand how this is humiliating to him, or that his nudity in the photo has exacerbated that humiliation. Reasonable and probably sufficient to claim "my privacy was violated and consent may not have been given" but they are also adding "and images of this nature are more broadly unacceptable because it is pornograhy"

the only criticism of the cover i can remember was a couple times hearing people (maybe even my parents?) tut-tut that it was cruel or dangerous to put a baby underwater

can they be tricked
can they be chucked

That aspect freaks me out too. I know they supposedly hold their breath by instinct, but I don't think I'd do that with my infant for $200 (...maybe if Geffen threw in a G'N'R poster).

my friend got his infant pool training at one years old, maybe this one had similar training

How and why is Chad Channing tied up in this?

That seems fair

He's on the Smart Studios demos packed with reissue too.

No smoke without fire

when I was like 11 I remember wondering a lot about that baby, if being on the cover of such a well known CD was gonna stop him from living a normal life somehow. just a dumb thought experiment. I guess we have the answer!

Geffen was concerned that the infant's penis, visible in the photo, would cause offense, and prepared an alternate cover without it; they relented when Cobain said the only compromise he would accept would be a sticker covering the penis reading: "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."

they couldn't have known it was going to become one of the best selling albums of all time when they shot the cover, right?

the only criticism of the cover i can remember was a couple times hearing people (maybe even my parents?) tut-tut that it was cruel or dangerous to put a baby underwater

― nobody like my rap (One Eye Open), Wednesday, August 25, 2021

that was what I remember about the image, not the baby penis. I took my goddaughter to her first "swimming lesson" when she was 8 months old at her parents' request and it was a traumatic experience for both of us

That reflexive breath-holding thing apparently only works until 6 mos., though... after that, yeah, it's a whole other deal.

I vaguely recall an MTV News segment from the time mocking a store that tried to censor the cover, that’s about it as far as controversy.

Pretty sure DGC anticipated sales that were about the same as Goo.

Geffen was concerned that the infant's penis, visible in the photo, would cause offense, and prepared an alternate cover without it; they relented when Cobain said the only compromise he would accept would be a sticker covering the penis reading: "If you're offended by this, you must be a closet pedophile."

― symsymsym, Wednesday, August 25, 2021 7:00 PM (three hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

The back cover features a photograph of a rubber monkey in front of a collage created by Cobain. The collage features photos of raw beef from a supermarket advertisement, images from Dante's Inferno, and pictures of diseased vaginas from Cobain's collection of medical photos. Cobain noted, "If you look real close, there is a picture of Kiss in the back standing on a slab of beef." The album's liner notes contain no complete lyrics; instead, the liner contains random song lyrics and unused lyrical fragments that Cobain arranged into a poem.

xxpost: well he sure loved violating his own privacy by featuring in all those magazines and documentaries of the album.

This is ridiculous however you want to spin it and will get dismissed as it should.

Way to make being part of something cool something very uncool.

xxpost: well he sure loved violating his own privacy by featuring in all those magazines and documentaries of the album.

it sounds like he couldn't resist trying to capitalise on it when he was younger & kinda got burned by it & now is understandably resentful about the whole thing

but that doesn't make his case not ridiculous

I was just talking irl about how no one ever said anything about the back cover, partially because the collage was so out of focus. Although Walmart later object to the In Utero art and "Rape Me".

It's kind of funny now to think about how scared labels were of retailers back then (particularly Walmart) and the power said retailers had re:stuff like LoveSexy and the Jane's LPs.

There really hasn’t been a more iconic album cover released since Nevermind afaik

Mmmaybe Ready to Die comes close but I would give it to Nevermind

“I wanted the word Nevermind to look kind of underwater and wavy. So I had the type printed out and I held it on a Xerox machine. As it was scanning I wiggled the image and it put waves through it. Then I scanned it again and wiggled it in another direction. That’s how I got the wavy type. Now you’d just go on a computer and use filters or whatever, and people say the wavy type is kinda cheesy. But back in the day it was groundbreaking damnit!”

this is so awesome

sounds like the kind of thing you bring up to help launch your own project.
Is it well known everywhere that that baby is this specific guy. Like he doesn't have to not walk around with a giant arrow attached to him to deny it or something. THat Nevermind tshirt with the arrow pointing up from the baby to his face so he can walk around saying Hell No that ain't me.

I just wonder, can see the tabloid press coming back to him every few years to say this is this baby now or something though.

Surely it's quite well accepted that trauma can lead to acting out and destructive behaviour so the idea that he can't have been hurt or bothered by it because he's sought publicity etc. doesn't hold as an argument, whatever the actual case.

Maybe… but he knew he didn’t have a case if he said TMZ was on his doorstep every 5 years. trying to spin the album cover as child porn is still a highly questionable approach to me.

That’s the sole reason I can’t seem to muster any empathy towards his case compared to idk the kid who played anakin skywalker who just wants to be left alone nowadays.

trying to spin the album cover as child porn is still a highly questionable approach to me.

Stated in those terms (which I'm not saying is a misrepresentation) it certainly seems absurd and my knee-jerk reaction is that's got to be bad faith on the part of the legal team at least. But I've not made any attempt to be informed on the details so I wouldn't like to make a call.

I don't remember the nakedness being an issue at the time and I think if anyone had said it was pornographic it would generally have been considered a them problem.

Then again, the Banksy-style do-you-see is basically We Are All Prostitutes.

The parental advisory sticker had just come out the previous year. We were in the midst of grade-A prudishness as a culture. There would have been an uproar if there was a hint of one to be had.

lot of ppl are conflating 2 different things - understandably bc the suit is based on conflating them - an issue about consent wrt creation & reproduction of images of oneself, esp intimate ones (which should be taken more seriously in general) & a claim or implication that images featuring nude children (or anyone tbh but that’s a whole other thing) are inherently sexual or pornographic (which is bullshit & contributes to the kind of sexualisation it’s supposedly targeting). I do wish ppl were a bit less flippant about the 1st thing though

idk if the idea is that the porn angle is more likely to succeed than just making it about consent, & if so whether that’s true - i hope not but I wouldn’t be surprised

Xp yep

And yeah they're obviously testing the spaghetti method but that's Not so harmless and it's important to call bullshit.

yep, agree

Wait, what??

Wasn't that your post about "unnecessarily realistic art" etc?

i think you're conflating my explanation of what the case was about with what i actually thought of it

which kind of brings us back to, this is what lawyers do. in fact, i would be surprised if channing himself (and even elden) believes the judge would buy that the infant was being depicted as a sex worker, which is what they're initially going for

at any rate, i was referring to left's main point, not what he said in parentheses, which i assume is what you're referring to: "(which is bullshit & contributes to the kind of sexualisation it’s supposedly targeting)"

i still don't agree with this, by the way. i think the "if you want to censor it, you're the pedophile" has to be the silliest and most juvenile argument.

there's a point where you want to protect your child, your own self as a child (in elden's case), and children in general from predators. just because you don't have sexual thoughts when looking at naked babies doesn't mean there aren't others looking for this kind of imagery in public, which is why unfortunately these kinds of restrictions need to exist.

just because you don't have sexual thoughts when looking at naked babies doesn't mean there aren't others looking for this kind of imagery in public, which is why unfortunately these kinds of restrictions need to exist.

Agree. We must scrub society of any and all images or phrases that someone, somewhere might want to jerk off to.

so, i was expecting that. there are degrees. there's no need to go to such extreme, right?

but talking specifically about this case, you are refusing the right for a person to do what he wants to do with his body, which i think is a lot more dangerous.

which kind of brings us back to, this is what lawyers do.

Good lawyers aren't known for deluting reasonable/strong claims (such as the lack of a signed release, if that's true) with wild ones.

*diluting

but talking specifically about this case, you are refusing the right for a person to do what he wants to do with his body, which i think is a lot more dangerous.

This guy spent more than 10 years doing everything he could to draw attention to the fact that he was The Baby From The Nirvana Album. There are multiple interviews in which he talks about how he attempted to use it to get laid. Once he realized he wasn't going to get rich (or laid) from it, he sued and claimed to be a traumatized victim of child pornographers. Now, he's free to do that, but there's a broader context here that people seem to be consciously ignoring.

Good lawyers aren't known for deluting reasonable/strong claims (such as the lack of a signed release, if that's true) with wild ones.

― Shallot Shortage 2021 (morrisp), Thursday, August 26, 2021 12:06 PM (fifty-six seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

that presupposes that a "good" lawyer is enough to win a case and that we live in an ideal world with unambiguous laws

unperson, those are ad hominem attacks

xp If you're saying the outcome is unpredictable, should this actually go to trial - I agree.

I think the divide here is btw. posters analyzing the apparent strength of the claim, and others talking more generally about the ethical/moral issues that the case raises.

well, sure, i agree with that. but i would add that there's a lot of speculation of his character based on what people read through gossip/sensationalist sites/magazines.

Perhaps, though the way unperson characterized it above is pretty directly supported by that 2016 interview (more accurately: he said he was getting laid, but the "hot chicks" would dump him once they learned he's not rich). That doesn't mean he's lying about feeling increasingly uneasy about how the fame of the cover has affected his life.

Kinda cool article on p4k about this phenomenon of cover models suing artists, some of which I hadn't heard about:

https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/a-brief-history-of-musicians-being-sued-by-their-album-cover-subjects/

That is a good article, I'm impressed Pfork pulled that together so quickly.

It seems like people don’t like finding themselves on album covers. It’s not flattering to them. This should be kept in mind by artists.

Only capybaras on albums from here on out!

One thing they missed in that article (despite mentioning the album) is that The Velvet Underground & Nico was off racks for a significant bit of 1967 because Eric Emerson was pictured in the live shot on the back cover and he sued to get quick cash to cover legal bills from a drug arrest, forcing Verve to put a sticker on his face for subsequent pressings.

This guy does appear to be pretty traumatised by the experience, and it must be difficult to be in a position where no matter what you do with the rest of your life the defining moment of your existence is something you never consented to. Sure, he’s gone along with it in the past but what real choice did he have? Now he’s looking back as an adult it’s understandable he might not have the same opinions as he was younger

He doesn't have to continue to make it the defining moment of his existence, is the thing. He could probably do nothing, and zero people he meets in his everyday life would recognize his name.

Kinda cool article on p4k about this phenomenon of cover models suing artists, some of which I hadn't heard about:

https://pitchfork.com/thepitch/a-brief-history-of-musicians-being-sued-by-their-album-cover-subjects/

― a superficial sheeb of intelligence (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Thursday, August 26, 2021 3:27 PM (forty minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

That is a good article, I'm impressed Pfork pulled that together so quickly.

― Shallot Shortage 2021 (morrisp), Thursday, August 26, 2021 3:32 PM (thirty-four minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

They missed Red Hot Chili Peppers Mother's Milk!

Mother's Milk features a black and white photograph of the band sprawled across the arms of a proportionately larger topless woman, with her nipples covered by a rose on the right (which appears colored), and Kiedis standing up on the left. Controversy arose when the model Dawn Alane claimed the band did not notify her that she was the one chosen to be on the cover of Mother's Milk ... Following the album's release, a limited number of promotional posters were issued with the model's breasts exposed. Dawn had no knowledge of the pressing and sued the band, winning a $50,000 settlement.

morrisp otm. That reminds me that one of the reunion era Smashing Pumpkins bassists was joked to be one of the girls in the Siamese Dream cover photo and they actually fact-checked it because nobody knows who they are.

Alright now the Loverboy album cover

Agree. We must scrub society of any and all images or phrases that someone, somewhere might want to jerk off to.

― but also fuck you (unperson)

X2

Also morris is making the point I was trying to make earlier. This guy could have easily avoided being known as the baby from Nevermind.

That’s not what he wanted though.

Alright now the Loverboy album cover

This is kinda disturbing (b/c she was 13), but also sad, b/c she apparently died in 1991.

yeah we got in a long convo about that a few years ago apparently

FWIW, one of the lawyers in the lawsuit was on CNN yesterday:

Elden’s lawyers have made wild claims about the album cover, saying it made him look like a sex worker, and that he was used as an essential element of a record promotion scheme. Thirty years later, Mabie says there’s no doubt the image constitutes child pornography and was sexual in nature.

“The focal point of the image is the minor's genitalia. And here in that image along with all of the other dose factors as we pled in our complaint, it is a very over-sexualized image, and does constitute child pornography,” Mabie said. “More importantly, it was child exploitation in the way that they created it, and the way that they continue to distribute the image today.”

The image in question shows Elden as an infant, naked in a swimming pool appearing to be trying to get to a digital imposition of a dollar bill on a fish hook. The cover has generally been understood to be a statement on capitalism, which was (Chris) Cuomo’s take

“I don’t ever remember anybody ever writing or anything being out there in society about this image as a sexualized or pornographic image,” Cuomo said. “I always thought that it was a suggestion of how right out of the womb, people are just grabbing for money and doing anything they can. I thought it was more about capitalism than it was sexuality.”

Non-sexualized photos of infants are generally not considered child pornography under law, yet Mabie went so far as to compare Elden to actual victims of child pornography.

“Spencer wants this image redacted,” Mabie said. “He is saying that he doesn’t want his genitalia out there for the world to consume any longer, and if we have this image redacted, that will be a monumental signal for all victims of child pornography that their voices are being heard and their privacy is being respected.”

Forgot to paste in the link: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/chris-cuomo-argues-with-lawyer-representing-man-suing-nirvana-for-child-pornography-071701484.html

what a bunch of horseshit

_Alright now the Loverboy album cover_

This is kinda disturbing (b/c she was 13), but also sad, b/c she apparently died in 1991.

Me too! I thought it was own hand behind his back.

(For the record, here's the story)

Oh I was thinking of album number 1.

The real story is..wow.

i think the "if you want to censor it, you're the pedophile" has to be the silliest and most juvenile argument

kurt cobain would never resort to a juvenile argument

wonder if anyone's ever tried to sue their mohel

the mohel things change

BREAKING: woman on cover of SLAM DUNK'N HOES to sue Top Dog, claiming unpaid royalties and goaltending pic.twitter.com/SaMq8PGTq2

— vax muncy (@toriimacdaddy) August 26, 2021

irl lols at "goaltending"

didn't do a very good job of it from teh looks of it!

offensive goaltending

u can say that again

Exactly

there's a point where you want to protect your child, your own self as a child (in elden's case), and children in general from predators. just because you don't have sexual thoughts when looking at naked babies doesn't mean there aren't others looking for this kind of imagery in public, which is why unfortunately these kinds of restrictions need to exist.

here's the thing -- there is actual pornography involving children where they are being sexually exploited ... groomed, coerced, money changing hands for explicit sexual content. There are also pictures of children that pedophiles find sexually stimulating that were not created with pornographic intent. Like a random family photo album from the 70s or 80s that one finds at a yard sale or charity shop.

This also includes plenty of commercial images

Should diaper ads depicting a baby or toddler getting their diaper changed be considered p0rn?

https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/k46acagzk7z.png

https://scontent.ffcm1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/240061737_10226783778046549_6860459423098292363_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&_nc_rgb565=1&ccb=1-5&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=v71_6OBG3-IAX8nuBL9&_nc_ht=scontent.ffcm1-2.fna&oh=fe0db095744d4be24d5ebe0993e1b49d&oe=612D8E24

kurt cobain would never resort to a juvenile argument

― symsymsym, Thursday, August 26, 2021 7:02 PM (yesterday) bookmarkflaglink

lol, i guess i was asking for too much

Speaking to the Sunday Times about the lawsuit over the weekend, Dave Grohl hinted that there are plans to “alter” the album cover ahead of its forthcoming 30th anniversary.

“I have many ideas of how we should alter that cover but we’ll see what happens...We’ll let you know. I’m sure we’ll come up with something good.”

https://img.discogs.com/hzodGGZSp9P67i0X4uN_oGXwXXk=/fit-in/300x300/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(40)/discogs-images/R-3756184-1343119519-1245.jpeg.jpg

in bloom
lounge act
breed
lithium
drain you
on a plain
come as you are
teen spirit
stay away
pissings
something in the way
polly

the shouted third verse & chorus in Lounge Act is possibly my favourite sequence of the whole album.

morrisp, your check from Grohl is in the mail, excellent work.

Lithium
In Bloom
Drain You
Lounge Act
Breed
Something in the Way
Come As You Are
Smells Like Teen Spirit
On A Plain
Stay Away
Endless Nameless
Territorial Pissings
Polly

the shouted third verse & chorus in Lounge Act is possibly my favourite sequence of the whole album.

Yes! There's something about some of the uptempo tracks on here, that Cobain probably conceived as relative throwaways, that convey a more original and individual point-of-view than the big "production numbers".

Side B >>>>>>>>>>>> Side A

On a Plane
Drain You
Lounge Act
Stay Away
Breed
Territorial Pissings
Lithium
Smells Like Teen Spirit
In Bloom
Polly
Come As You Are
Something in the Way

― The Edge of Gloryhole (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn),

are Drain You and Territorial Pissings conceptual cousins?

Territorial Drainings

Lounge Act was my favorite as a kid and I still love it. one time in high school I recorded myself playing the song and I got to the third verse and was shrieking and my mother stormed into the garage, horrified, thinking I was dying

Lounge Act and Drain You were my favorite ones in here. It really is a very radio-friendly album. It’s slighty edgier power-pop. You could’ve released almost every song in here as a single and it would’ve made sense. Hell, I think “something in the way” is probably the only song that wouldn’t work as a single. And Territorial Pissings to I guess.

In Utero is my favorite but you can tell the label were really struggling to find a single in there when Nevermind did the job for them so well. They fucked up by not releasing “serve the servants” as a single though.

Several years ago we had a shortly-lived "Classic Alternative" station on the dial that spent about half of its existence seemingly fully-automated (including the programming), and it was weird af to hear "Polly" on the air during drive time.

no matter how many times i hear this album i cannot get my brain to match "Lounge Act" and "Territorial Pissings" to the songs in question. a widespread alt-rock problem, admittedly. i'm sure the album would have a pinch less mystique, especially among teenagers at the time, had they been titled "I Got This Friend" and "Gotta Find A Way!".

Cobain was a great "by degrees" singer, seemingly always capable of taking it up a notch to elevate the tension of a song at any given point in time.