Nirvana could be a problem. The group only put three studio albums and a handful of unreleased B-sides and demo tracks. When you add everything together, they had just over 60 qualified songs.
From what I know and remember, I really enjoyed the hits from Nirvana. My algorithm tends to lean heavily on the greatest hits. With so few songs and a large chunk being potential 4-star or 5-star songs, this could shoot Nirvana to the top of the list and potentially break the system.
The goal is to create a list that I can look at it and say – “Yes, that seems about right”. So far, it’s done a damn good job.
After listening to the entire discography, I know that I like Queen far more than I like CSNY. I also find myself liking Cake more than Jethro Tull.
I, however, do not like Nirvana more than “Weird Al”.
I was scared by this potential problem.
The Math Checks Out
Thankfully (I guess), Nirvana did not produce all great songs. In fact, they produced the highest quantity of 1-star songs. It seemed for every great song there was an equally disastrous song. It was left to their mediocre songs battling it out. There were just enough hits to keep them on the positive side of the score, but not enough to have them compete with some of top 20.
Unlike groups like Elton John and Jethro Tull, Nirvana had the exact opposite problem. Instead of producing too many albums, they just didn’t have enough. I could only imagine that Nirvana would continued to sprinkle out 3-4 good/great songs per album and would have been able to outweigh the average songs. This was not in their cards and they will likely watch many artists and groups pass them by.
Read my full artist breakdown of the Nirvana.
Next Artist: The Doobie Brothers