I'll tell you the great differentiator for early 90s bands -- the MTV Unplugged set. If the band could strip away all of the noise and effects and screaming and still end up with a great set of songs, they were a decent band. Nirvana gave arguably the best MTV Unplugged set ever. They were just great songs, period.
The Great White and Ratt umplugged sets are considered by many (not just people like me) to be good. Do you think those are great bands? EDIT: I see you said early 90s bands. My mistake.
While I will most definitely agree that Nirvana's unplugged album was great, I think that Alice in Chain's unplugged album was the best ever.
To tell you the truth, I was never really into the Smashing Pumpkins, but Gish and Siamese Dream were pretty good albums, so I give them credit for that. However, there's no way that I'm going to swallow what you said about there being "just as many people who think the Smashing Pumpkins are a great, revolutionary band as those who think Nirvana was." As to your other point, well first I'm still trying to recover from the shock of your comparing Nirvana to the Backstreet Boys, but I will remind you that this is a ROCK music discussion, not a POP discussion. The Backstreet boys didn't really have too much of an impact on the artistic direction of rock, thus they weren't a great rock band. I don't really care that top 40 jumped on Nirvana, my earlier mentions of the Sex Pistols and Velvet Underground prove that I don't think a band has to be on top 40 radio to be considered "great." Whether or not you think they are worthy is irrelevant. It's up to the artists that come after them to decide that.
for the pumpkins being as big as nirvana no way... pumpkins are based in chicago, my school is basically filled with people from there while most of them will generally claim to like the pumpkins more, they typically will say that nirvana was the better overall and more meaningful band
Agreed. Nevermind and the unplugged set are great albums. Smells like teen spirit, In bloom, lithium, and come as you are all great songs. They stand the test of time. Though I could do with terrorial pissings.
Ok then how about Twisted Sister, Motley Crue, Kiss? They all changed ROCK music. They gave birth to the Hair bands of the 80's. Do you think they are great?
On closer revue I'd like to question the entire premise of this comment. What if I liked the Nathalie Merchant unplugged better, for example? I'd like to know what your criteria are for what makes one performance any better than another. Just because you say "period" at the end of an opinion still doesn't make it a fact.
I knew this question was coming. To answer it, Twisted Sister no (they only had two songs), Motley Crue probably not, Kiss yes. I would also throw Guns 'n' Roses, Slayer and possibly Rage Against the Machine into the "great" category as well. Even though they didn't have as big an influence on rock music imo as Nirvana did, they still contributed significantly to the genre.
If you don't think that Nirvana, The Velvet Underground and David Bowie are great, then I guess you must.
No, you just have a different one that I certainly don't get....the Nirvana argument-I've had it about a billion times (me being on the Nirvana was great side) so I'm not going there. But how can you possibly say that the Velvet Underground wasn't great?!? OK...I'm calming down now... Who are "great" bands to you then?
I think a lot of people underestimate the impact Rage AGainst the Machine had on music...how many talentless rock/rap groups do we all have to endure today because those guys really ripped it up? They weren't the first to do it, but they did it well. Anthrax/Public Enemy collaboration is probably what spawned Rage Against the Machine and neither of those bands will get the credit for that. PE will get credited for other stuff, but Anthrax was doing rock/rap in the early-mid-80s.
So...if the artists during the Renaissance "perfected" painting in your opinion, does that mean that every painter that has come after them is substandard and irrelevent? That they added nothing to the art of painting and to culture in general because IN YOUR OPINION the Renaissance artists PERFECTED IT? If that's the way you look at things you're missing out on a lot. Rock in 1975 was amazing and maybe it was perfect to you, but that doesn't make it perfect-case closed. That's a ridiculous thing to say. It closes the door on so many things. What about bands like Sonic Youth, My Bloody Valentine, Boredoms? What about Van Halen, Guns n Roses? They pushed the rock genre in new directions, and pushed the instruments to do different things and played with sound dynamics....I'm not saying you have to like this stuff, I'm just saying you have to give it credit. I love 70s rock but I'd be pretty f'in bored if it all still sounded like that. Rock wasn't perfected in 1975-the sound of rock IN THE 70'S WAS PERFECTED IN 1975.
Damn, I missed it...I wasn't born until 5 years later. That's what I get for posting some long winded, snotty speech.
Wow, lots of people replying to one of my threads in a short amount of time. Who'd have thought it. To re-itterate a point (however you spell that word), its not like I think Nirvana are crap, just a bit overhyped. i daresay I'm in a moinority with this view, but I'll go over the thread when I can focus on the screen properly.
Nirvana is very important. Kurt was outstanding at choosing musical influences, knowing what made them so good and pushing that music forward. Ultimately great bands are excellent at all aspects of that process and I think Cobain was.