Nirvana

David Smith · Post by **David Smith** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:06 pm

I just been in a chatroom expressing my dislike for Nirvana and getting insulted for it so let me ask, what does everyone here think of them?

Now first i want to say i don't hate Nirvana, i don't even dislike them that much, however i would say they are probably one of the most over rated bands ever. I mean come on, sure Nevermind had it's moments and stuff, but to be honest they were just another angry rock band with cynical lyrics and mtv friendly pop rock tunes.

They were the music of the Pixies meet the concept of the smashing pumpkins but not as good as either

And Kurt ("i don't want to be famous") Cobain was a total hypocrit claiming he hates fame but going out of his way to acheive it with the overly commercial videos, the extensive merchandise and the acoustic show on MTV... !?

Ah well, enough moaning, what does everyone else think?

qjamesfloyd · Post by **qjamesfloyd** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:31 pm

Nivana are crap,and any man who is made a hero figure for killing himself is and idoit

Post by **mosespa** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:12 pm

I feel that Kurt Cobain had a gift for melody and turn-of-phrase lyricism.

Nirvana were very much a product of their time. If you were a "twenty-something" when Nevermind hit it big (as I was,) you could relate to Cobain's cynicism and sarcasm...because you were cynical and sarcastic yourself.

Nirvana delivered the death-blow to all of the Motley Crue's and Poison's of the day. They were the band who showed a whole generation of people that you didn't have to be poodle haired and sing about your crotch in order to be a huge success on the pop charts. They also proved that you didn't have to wear denim and leather and play 2 million notes per second in order to be perceived as "heavy."

Before Nirvana, most "rock" music was either Motley or Maiden...and neither really appealed to me.

When I was a teenager, my favorite artist was Springsteen, because on the Born To Run album, he wrote about young people who's lives were being wasted on the nowhere town's they lived in.

Cobain was, to me, Springsteen's alienated teen carried out to it's logical conclusion...it became enraged at being left out, cynical since it knew that it didn't matter and there was no point in pretending that there was any real meaning to it's life.

I think there was really something to the words and music of Kurt Cobain.

Sure...he was ripping off The Pixies...but, obviously he touched a nerve that Frank Black couldn't since it worked better for Nirvana than it did for The Pixies. Frank Black was trying to be ironic...Cobain was simply desperate. If his life was going to amount to anything, it would be because of music...you always had the feeling that Frank Black could find something else if the music thing didn't work out. It wasn't a matter of life or death for Black Francis...it was for Cobain.

One could always dismiss Nirvana's music as being too much of the same because every song had quiet guitars and loud guitars, loud drums, simple bass lines.

I predict that someone else will come along and show what could have been done with Cobain's songs had someone with some REAL musical knowledge been asked to contribute...much as different people have taken Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd songs and set them to orchestral scores.

But...if they're just not to your personal taste, nothing will change that.

But it should also be admitted that they're just not to your personal taste.

No one should ever try to discredit a band just because you don't like their music.

Expression of an opinion shouldn't be masqueraded as fact.

Flame-Sky Diver · Post by **Flame-Sky Diver** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:41 pm

Overrated, really overrated.

Especially their technical skills - how can Kurt Cobain's solo on Smell Like Teen Spirit get into top 100 guitar solos of all time??? I didn't even notice there's a solo!

I've listened to a few albums, even had a copy of Nevermind on a cassette (some nice songs here and there).

The only album I own now is the Unplugged In New York. The acoustic stuff sounds unbelievably good. The best song on it is The Man Who Sold The World (David Bowie cover).

Don't care about them much though.

Yucateco · Post by **Yucateco** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 9:46 pm

maybe they are overrated, but i like their music

David Smith · Post by **David Smith** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:12 pm

A note to Mosespa, i beleive my generation is even more cynical and sarcasstic than yours and as a whole i would say my generation can see through Nirvana and recognise that the cultural impact they had in the early 90s was simply periodic and are not so much the misunderstood and alienated artist that all teenagers these days consider themselves, but rather that Thom Yorke holds more that position

Then again in 10 years time people will probably say the same critisisims about Radiohead

decampos · Post by **decampos** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:20 pm

Nirvana are fab. If you don't believe me you should check out this nifty site:

http://www.bevelled.net/nirvana.html

it's the guide to that top beat-combo

emiemi2375 · Post by **emiemi2375** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:12 pm

hmm... nirvana... i have mixed emotions i must say. above my pc screen is a copy of the fairly rare nevermind picture 12" disc. but i'm gonna have to go prop on this one.

Nirvana were a formula band like the beatles. the beatles had that harmonising formula where they would sing with a fairly complicated main peice, lyrically and melodically and then spring on you with an ultra catchy chorus. NIrvana did the same sort of thing, but different. they're catchy bit came during the verse and then they leap on you with a heavy chorus.

Don't believe me (i know you never said it but hey you might.) the Beatles solo's tend to go along to the chorus whereas nirvana's solos go along wit the verse.

Charade I am · Post by **Charade I am** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:14 pm

Oh brother! you have touched me with this subject!!!!!!!!!! Please!! don?t say it?s crap just because you don?t like it......
Nirvana was my favorite band when I was a teenager and it still was until I "discovered" Pink Floyd, like 3 years ago....I still like it a lot.....of course you can?t compare it with Pink Floyd...two totally different bands....but I believe that Nirvana?s music transmits one of the many aspects and sensations the human being has......that part when you just wanna send to hell everything, I believe their music was strong in that aspect.....In the unplugged album they did, they changed that style for a "laid back" one, and I think it was interesting, playing even some ..songs not made by them like "Where did you sleep last night", I just love the way Kurt sings that song

I think it was a great band, a differente band, they had a unique sound and style....it was simple music, but they made simple music sound great. they had something that I don?t know what it was that got into me very deep......they were getting better with every album release...and I think they would?ve evolved in their music if Kurt wasn?t dead...I remember one thing Kurt said, he wanted to evolve in his music, just like the Beatles did, going from "I wanna hold your hand" to "St. Pepper"...it?s a shame he killed himself....

P.S....I don?t believe he was acting with that "I don?t wanna be famous" thing....I believe that every person who commits suicide is in a very big and serious internal problem....he needed help...he didn?t get it in time, and if he got it, it wasn?t enough....it?s a shame

__________________
Ha, ha! Charade I am

Flame-Sky Diver · Post by **Flame-Sky Diver** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:16 pm

David Smith wrote:Then again in 10 years time people will probably say the same critisisims about Radiohead

I don't think so. Radiohead exist much longer now than Nirvana did. If nothing bad happens, I think we may expect many interesting things from Radiohead. They are not a "formula" band like Beatles or Nirvana, as emiemi2375 stated.

Flame-Sky Diver · Post by **Flame-Sky Diver** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:25 pm

Charade I am wrote:P.S....I don?t believe he was acting with that "I don?t wanna be famous" thing....I believe that every person who commits suicide is in a very big and serious internal problem....he needed help...he didn?t get it in time, and if he got it, it wasn?t enough....it?s a shame

It's a shame, but how can anyone possibly help a drug addict who has serious psychic disorders? People who do such killing drugs like heroin must be either mad, or totally bored of living as a super star. There's only one way to get better - stopping using it, going into a detoxication cure. Most of them don't have the will to do it. John Lennon had that will.

Charade I am · Post by **Charade I am** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:46 pm

Flame-Sky Diver wrote:
Charade I am wrote:P.S....I don?t believe he was acting with that "I don?t wanna be famous" thing....I believe that every person who commits suicide is in a very big and serious internal problem....he needed help...he didn?t get it in time, and if he got it, it wasn?t enough....it?s a shame
It's a shame, but how can anyone possibly help a drug addict who has serious psychic disorders? People who do such killing drugs like heroin must be either mad, or totally bored of living as a super star. There's only one way to get better - stopping using it, going into a detoxication cure. Most of them don't have the will to do it. John Lennon had that will.

You can always help....sometimes I feel, his real friends, if he had any, didn?t help him enough....I would do the impossible to save my friend from killing himself

__________________
Ha, ha! Charade I am

Flame-Sky Diver · Post by **Flame-Sky Diver** » Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:53 pm

You're right, everyone would do everything to save a friend's life, but as you say, most of his "friends" weren't true friends (he had money and was famous). But what do I know?

Charade I am · Post by **Charade I am** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:02 am

yep...it?s a shame

__________________
Ha, ha! Charade I am

Emily_ · Post by **Emily_** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:18 am

David Smith wrote:A note to Mosespa, i beleive my generation is even more cynical and sarcasstic than yours and as a whole i would say my generation can see through Nirvana and recognise that the cultural impact they had in the early 90s was simply periodic and are not so much the misunderstood and alienated artist that all teenagers these days consider themselves, but rather that Thom Yorke holds more that position

Then again in 10 years time people will probably say the same critisisims about Radiohead

nirvana are better than led zeppelin. I think the rule - they had more influence than led zeppelin.