Whilst Nirvana did help give the music scene a boot up the bum, they were not that great after all. If Kurt became clean, happy and vegan, and then didn't kill himself, they would not have been so highly regarded. Discuss.
All I know is that in my senior year of highschool, Nirvana released "Nevermind" and baptized my friends and I with a tornado the likes of which I haven't felt in rock music since. I seduced at least a dozen cheerleaders to that album, so I'm biased, of course.
1) You clearly never saw them live. 2) You have no idea what your talking about. I really don't have enough energy to argue beyond that. Just know that you're wrong. Thank you.
Re: Re: Nirvana weren't that good (or were they ???) I saw them in Dallas in 1988 (I think) with about 500 other people (ok- maybe 1000). We knew we were waking up to something.
I think they're good, but not that good. Part of the hype is down to Kurt being such a tortured, f_cked up guy who shot himself. He wasn't that good a singer in my opinion.
It's difficult to separate cultural relativity from pure aesthetics sometimes. Nirvana definitely struck a cultural chord with US youth that an Englishman like yourself perhaps can't relate to. You may be right, is what I'm saying, but it's unlikely you're going to convince any yanks of that.
The main reason people loved Nirvana is that hair bands were so godawful they needed somewhere to turn. Right place, right time.
One of the interesting things about reading the excerpts of Heavier than Heaven, the recent biography, is to realize how personal Cobain's abstract lyrics really were. Nevermind was written and recorded entirely during a period in which Cobain was going through an intense break-up with the only woman he had really ever loved. It was one of those particularly poorly distributed loves where the guy wants the girl to be his singular object of affection and the female, in this case a hard-core feminist, doesn't even speak in those terms. WHen coupled with his horrible childhood that was full of what a child would see as rejection, it made for a very explosive mix. That explosion is fully realized on Nevermind, which, through the smokescreen of its abstract lyrics, turns out to be something like Layla, an album wholly inspired and haunted by the spectre of a woman and powered by the intensity of her rejection. Perhpas if you lined Nirvana's music up against xs-music, comapred the notes and chords and came to a conclusion, it wouldn't seem that different from other bands. But if you think of the personal, wounded intensity that he brought to that music, it's really overwhelming. You have more of an idea of who Cobain was by listening to hte music than you would get by standing next to Brittney Spears for a decade. Great band.
The excitement that Nirvana caused while Kurt was around far surpassed whatever legend the band has attained since his passing. I guess you just had to be there.
I think GREAT music goes beyond just the people who were there. It speaks to all of us. And I think Nirvarna were just a good band. They are only considered great amongst their fans. No one else can say, "Well its not my thing but those guys were great". Nirvarna isnt gaining new fans every year in droves like TRUE GREATS do. Hendrix, Zepplin,The WHO, Sabbath, Santana, Tito Puente, etc they all have a bigger following now than they did before. People STILL listen to their stuff and get blown away. Nirvarna on the other hand seems to only linger among the crowd who was there in the early 90's. Not to many kids today pick up a copy of Nevermind and think that is GREAT music. Do they rock out to it and think its good? Sure. But dont look for them to put them on the same level as all the TRUE greats. They are mostly a hyped up band who was there at the right time and was able to capitalize.
I'm not sure if I agree or disagree. For me personally, my appreciation for Nirvana has grown in the past few years. When they were around, I never thought much of them - I'm not quite old enough to be Generation X, the core fan base of the band, I never quite understood the appeal. But as I've gotten older and listened to their stuff, I've come to enjoy it more. I believe the Unplugged session will someday get the credit it deserves, as a masterpiece. Kurt wailing "my girl, my girl, where did you sleep last night" is hallowing, to say the least. Say what you will, Nirvana is a band that defined its era. You can't say that about too many bands.
they weren't my thing, but nirvana is/was great i'm more into one of the other seattle bands... pearl jam, a band that everyone knows of, yet does what it can to just make music and stay out of the lime light i mean dave grohl is making crap music and living off of his nirvana days... who the hell would have published that first album for him if he hadn't been in nirvana??
Like NGG said, if it weren't for all the horrific music that preceded them Nirvana would just be a good band. Because they stole the show in the rock and roll music landscape from retarded music dick pigs they ended up "defining their era", which when you consider how many whiny Seattle bands with Eddie Vedder vocals actually existed, doesn't mean squat.
Not many kids today pick up Velvet Underground or David Bowie records, but they are still considered great.
This is no argument. I guess the Sex Pistols were just in the right place at the right time too then? Music changed after the Sex Pistols and music changed after Nirvana. THIS is what makes them great bands. It's not as if hair metal was the only music out there at the time that Nirvana came around. There was tons of good music out there. Bands like Jane's Addiction, The Pixies, The Jesus and Mary Chain and The Smashing Pumpkins all had albums out. They were pretty damn good, but they didn't have that indescribeable, extra something that Nirvana had. That's why Nirvana revolutionized music and those bands didn't. That's why Nirvana is seen as a "great" band and the others are seen as just "good" bands or "cult" bands.
Nirvana was by no means a great band. Nor were they innovators or all that original. Mudhoney was Nirvana before Nirvana was Nirvana. Hell Nirvana was a better band BEFORE they revolutionized rock n roll and baptized gringo tex. Listen to all the Subpop singles from the 7" club back in the 80's, that stuff sounded just like Nirvana. It's just that radio stations played Nirvana on top 40 radio so people who were too lazy to search for music were exposed to it. I can name probably a 100 bands that could have had the same effect on music, top 40 just happen to choose Nirvana.
and lemme guess... no other bands ever sounded like the who, the stones, the beatles, or anything else that made it big very pathetic thinking... your line of reasoning has everyone as being meaningless... and there is some truth to that, but the reality of the situation is that nirvana did it, they are huge just like the stones and the beatles, or would you say that the stones didn't base their music off of others??? i swear to god that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard... i will have to remember that artists are always 100% original, no one ever takes another's style and makes it their own whatever
I was just pointing out that Nirvana were not the innovators some peopl ehere are trying to make them out to be. And don't you have a Pearl jam thread or something to post on? To Astorian, aside from the Pixies I'd say those bands you listed all pretty much suck. But you know what? I know just as many people who think the Smashing Pumpkins are a great, revolutionary band as those who think Nirvana was. If you say that Nirvana was great because they changed the course of music, then you must also think the Backstreet Boys are great too, since they knocked alternative rock from the top 40 stations and sprouted a million imitation bands just as Nirvana did.
Okay, I feel it's my duty to defend hair metal against the string of rabbit punches on this thread that began with this one. Some hair bands were godawful, e.g. the ubiquitous clones that emerged around 1990 like Danger Danger and Trixter. A band like Poison (who I'm having to defend on a parallel thread) sold millions and millions because they had catchy songs that appealed to a broad cross-section of the population. No they weren't particularly intellectual, which is what most of you here at M,V, B&M look for in a band. They were about having a good time, and I myself prefer that to the depressed, mopey bands that dominated the decade that followed. Hair metal appeals to me in large part because of the musicianship involved. Let's say you start playing guitar and would like to play, say, a Whitesnake song note for note. It will take you at least five years of constant practice to develop the chops necessary to play just the solo on Here I Go Again. You will be able to play a typical Nirvana song within a year. Some people prefer apples. Some prefer oranges. Music is subjective, and no band is inherently better than any other. I held a grudge against Cobain for many years for what he and MTV did to hair metal. In retrospect I have to admit that Nirvana had a lot of great songs, and they are definitely not overrated. But to this day I still despise Smells Like Teen Spirit.
a lot of hard core fans of a band are like that for the most well known song... i have known numerous nirvana fans that hated that pumpkin fans hating disarm it's kinda similar to my own dis-taste of jeremy or alive... i still think they are great songs, but it was overkill in many respects, i think that early success is why pj just ducked away... i think they like what the got now and won't ever make a push to be anything bigger, hell, they would probably be happier with a smaller fan base
Yeah, I know what you mean: I hate Wind of Change by the Scorpions. By the way, the Scorps are now playing in smaller venues because their appeal has become more selective.
lol pj still fills outdoor venues... but you will notice they rarely do a video and only do one publicity thing anymore (meaning letterman for a tour or his b-day)... hell, they refused to release black they still find a way to make life a bit better for the fans too... such as the releasing every show... they specifically said, buy one and burn the rest or whatever... they didn't care, they just wanted to stop the selling of high priced boot legs... plus the donated the proceeds away (possibly to the roskilde tragedy fund, whatever that was) they also recently turned down a chance to do another spot on unplugged... they are main stream rock, yet walk a bit of the path of the hippie jam bands