Nirvana

[seamusz]

I hate Nirvana..... I think that their songs are absolutely terrible.

Thats a pretty genralized statement... how many of their tunes have you heard?

[lisa]

If you ever need anything please don't
hesitate to ask someone else first

[mosespa]

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

No offense, David...but EVERY generation "THINKS" they're more cynical and sarcastic than the one that came before. But simply calling everything that came before "crap" is NOT being more cynical and more sarcastic...it's simply being less imaginative.

Perhaps each succeeding generation really IS more jaded than the one that came before it, but perhaps it's equally accurate to say that each generation is more self-important than the one that came before. Every generation since the Roaring Twenties of the last century has been eager to establish it's own identity by denying any validity to anything that came before it.

It's interesting that you cite Radiohead as a band to suffer the same critical fate as Nirvana in ten years...as if they hadn't come out about the same time as Nirvana...back when I was 22 or so...as if "Creep" doesn't follow the same quiet/loud guitar dynamic that Cobain is accused of stealing from The Pixies...as if Thom Yorke's lyrics in "Creep" don't wallow in "pity me" self-importance.

To be honest...I really don't see how many of today's bands are so different from Nirvana...or Pearl Jam...or Smashing Pumpkins.

Today's bands all write about broken hearts as if theirs were the first...they all write about anger as if it's never been experienced before them...alienation as though The Wall never happened...surrealism as though Dylan had never tripped...it's all the same.

Only the times have changed.

[decampos]

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

I totally disagree with that. If anything Nirvana are more popular now than they ever were.
If anything people cite Nirvana as a MASSIVE influence and are forever trying to match their integrity, sincerity and passion.

I'm in your generation bracket and I recognise that Nirvana is generally regarded as legendary and timeless.

[David Smith]

I dunno, maybe it's just a british thing

And yeah i know every generation THINKS it's more sarcasstic and cynical than the one before, hence my note about Radiohead in 10 years being ridiculed, and it's this reason that so many bands are just being left behind as their flaws become more aparant.

Personally i'm not a fan of contemporary rock music but i would not say it's similar to Nirvana and the other grunge era bands, i would also guess blues is going to be incorporated back in to rock music again but that's my theory. In truth i don't know what the next step is but i wouldn't say Nirvana can be sited any more as a major infulence in music upon bands today aside from the manufactured depths of Nickelback and the like who are all just jokes now

Yeah generations are getting more self centred i would think

[mosespa]

I've recently read an article in a guitar magazine that cites Nirvana's In Utero as virtually providing the blueprint for what is now called "Screamo" music.

Or perhaps it cited In Utero as providing the blueprint for what is now called "Emo."

Perhaps some variation of both.

Anyway, it went on to list the names of some of these bands ("Poison The Well," "Thursday," are two that come immediately to mind) and interviews with members of these bands in which they mention Nirvana (and in particular In Utero) as a HUGE influence on them and their music.

So...I would say that Nirvana ARE still a major influence on music today...just not as influential in the POP market.

Or is that what the complaint is?

[Charade I am]

This is one of Kurt?s last interviews, it was kept hidden for a while. It?s a 3 part interview:

Part 1 http://www.guitarworld.com/artistindex/9610.cobain.html

Part 2 http://www.guitarworld.com/artistindex/9611.cobain.html

Part 3 http://www.guitarworld.com/artistindex/9612.cobain.html

__________________
Ha, ha! Charade I am

[decampos]

In truth i don't know what the next step is but i wouldn't say Nirvana can be sited any more as a major infulence in music upon bands today aside from the manufactured depths of Nickelback and the like who are all just jokes now

Nickelback are nothing like nirvana. Nothing at all. Completely different ballgame. Nickelback are more a cross between Guns and Roses and Phil Collins.

I reckon Nirvana are influential to every meaningfult contemporary rock band.

[David Smith]

i reckon not only were nirvana criminally over rated but they're influence is laregly just on poor bands. Ok, so they laid out the blue prints to some Screamo sub genre or whatever it was called, can we keep in mind though that it was the Pixies that laid out the blueprints for Nirvana?

And as for the pop music thing how can you defend it? Have you watched their mtv music videos? Highly commercial and build Nirvana upon an image trying to pass them off as a bunch of punk rebels and stuff rather than good old honest rock'n'roll, defintily pop music videos and image

[decampos]

i reckon not only were nirvana criminally over rated but they're influence is laregly just on poor bands.

Which bands?

can we keep in mind though that it was the Pixies that laid out the blueprints for Nirvana?

Yep

[David Smith]

i reckon not only were nirvana criminally over rated but they're influence is laregly just on poor bands.

Which bands?

You ever heard of Puddle Of Mudd for a start?

[mosespa]

And as for the pop music thing how can you defend it? Have you watched their mtv music videos? Highly commercial and build Nirvana upon an image trying to pass them off as a bunch of punk rebels and stuff rather than good old honest rock'n'roll, defintily pop music videos and image

This is how I defend the "Pop Thing:"

The minute you step onstage and demand the attention of people, you are a sell out...you are attempting to go "pop."

"Pop," of course, is short for "popular," which implies the approval of a large number of people.

If you don't want to be accused of going pop, stay in your room and don't EVER let another person hear you play. Keep it to yourself.

Every "underground" genre has started with a small core group of fans who deride "popular" music as being stupid because people are buying it. No one buys the "good" music, of course, or else their favorite band would be Number One.

Then, when their favorite band DOES go Number One, they complain because they perceive the group as being a sell out who pandered to the lowest common denominator (though THEY still bought the album, too.)

What they don't realize is that performance in front of an audience is ALL ABOUT wanting to be liked or approved of by your audience. Any one who tells you otherwise is full of it.

Only GG Allin (that we know of) ever took the stage in order to be loathed...which is still just the flip side of the "popular" arugement...it's still the same drive to capture the attention of the largest number of people you can.

Maybe Radiohead (for example) are no longer worried having a pop hit...they don't need to be, they got "Creep" out of the way early on...but what are the chances that they will ever perform a show for NO ONE? You don't think they're seeking "popularity" whenever they set foot onstage?

The band who DOES NOT seek popularity IS NOT interested in others hearing their music.

Again...if you don't want to be considered "pop," keep it in your room.

[Flame-Sky Diver]

Interesting point.

Here's my definition of "pop".

1. Get together:
- Catchy (for some people) music.
- Simple mainstream arrangement.
- Simple lyrics with no poetic quality or deeper meanings, but almost always about love.
- A singer (or rarely a group of singers), who does not play any instruments on the recording (rarely plays piano), with an image of a so-called "celebrity".
And you receive something like music, that is systematically focussed only on commercial success and that does not aspire to any artistic targets, does not want to say anything besides "Hi, I'm Britney, do you think I'm cute? Go and buy my CD I'm half stripped on page 3 of the booklet." (take no offence please - just an example) That means it is constructed in a radio-friendly way, the interpretes have pretty bodies but no musical education/training and so on... That's pure pop.

2. A second level of pop are the artists (and I use this term for these much rather than for the first group) that are avowedly replicating a UNIQUE style and techniques that made famous somebody before them (which is what all the people from the first group do), or, in the broad sense of the word, artists, that are intentionally changing the style of the music they perform according to current mainstream or the style played by current most popular artists.

3. Now on the other hand, we've got all those so-called underground "punk-rock" or whatever bands, that are presented on the MTV as "the rock of today", which they aren't. I get the feeling that any band playing the classic rock/blues rock/prog rock today would be classified as indie/alternative, because the ROCK of today is occupied by heavy metal and punk bands, which may have started as underground bands, but ended promoted as official anti-pop bands, which is very confusing, because they get the same attention as pop stars.

So - Nirvana, IMO, started as a band of their own style, derivated from various influences. They've had luck, made a breakthrough and became famous and at that point, many bands started copying them, so the style of music Nirvana played quickly became mainstream. That's where Nirvana ended. Even today, I see artists directly copying Nirvana and being successful, which is why Nirvana is so influential.

[David Smith]

I would say bands can easily be popular without being pop stars although it rarely happens really. My definition of a pop star is one who changes firstly their style, secondly their persona but finally their image, all of which Nirvana changed with Nevermind, and of course projecting a flase image

I would say Nirvana tried to project to much of an image in their videos and stuff focusing on irony and whiney teen angst to far to much of a level, and those lyrics? Lets not beat around the bush, they were so moany and with powerful catchy choruses, especially Lithium being the worst offender, and the chandaleir swinging video, what was the need

I would not say Pink Floyd turned to pop music after they turned big, they didn't even show themselves in their videos and unlike mr Cobain didn't do stuff like jump in to amps and go on about their depression all the time, they just got on with the job and aside from Money being released in America didn't even release a single until 1979 while Nirvana released like 4 singles of the same album and did a highly commercial follow up album and mtv concert while Kurt complained about fame for a while so i would say they were hardly faithful to their grugne routes and changed with the movement they helped to create therefore conforming to the music of the time

That's why i think of them as pop

[mosespa]

This is what I see as having happened...

Nirvana released a first album (Bleach) that was successful enough that it generated some major label interest. (Now...mind you, they were "sell-out's" before the even recorded the first note of Nevermind because now they were signed to a MAJOR recording label.)

They recorded "Nevermind" and it became a pop smash, in part due to Butch Vig's ear candy production (which Kurt would STILL be complaining about if he were alive.) They made some videos (which were conceived and directed by people NOT within the band, so they can't really be blamed. And if you want to blame them for their participation, remember that it would have been VERY costly to buy their way out of their recording contract...which surely specified that they make videos whether they wanted to or not. Hell...even Pink Floyd did whatever they had to in order to meet the terms of their recording contracts...hence, the song order on The Wall inner sleeves being different from what it actually was on the album.)

With "Nevermind" being a huge smash, they continued to make videos imagined by other people and toured, toured, toured. Kurt did a lot of heroin (which could account for some of his more questionable decisions,) and they recorded In Utero...quite possibly their most UN-commercially produced record. It most certainly didn't sound like anything I was hearing on the radio at the time. Then, some more touring and an appearance on MTV Unplugged in which Kurt went out of his way to perform some of their lesser known numbers alongside some OBSCURE (at the time) covers.

Face it...how many of you on this board under the age of 30 would even KNOW the song "The Man Who Sold The World" if Nirvana hadn't done it?

Be honest, now.

I say again...by MY definition, EVERYONE who plays a show for an audience or records an album meant for distribution to other people is trying very hard to be a more POPular artist than they already are.

TOOL are pop

Radiohead is pop

The Pixies are pop

Mike Oldfield is pop

Mr. Bungle is pop

Frank Zappa is pop

Gang Of Four is pop

...or at least, they all tried to be....they certainly were trying to be more POPular than they would have been by staying in the garage.

Much of what has been described as "pop" in preceding posts is actually more to do with "Prefabrication" than with popularity. Britney Spears and N'SYNC give pop music a bad name.

In it's most literal definition, any recording that has sold enough copies to be certified by Billboard Magazine (or some other industry magazine) is a POPular recording, regardless of what style of music the artist recorded.

Nirvana were not a prefabricated band. Kurt Cobain was writing music that was cathartic for him...he wrote in a simple fashion because he wasn't a very technically oriented musician.

His music isn't pop because it was simple. It was simple because that was all he could do.

Cobain had a gift for catchy melodies, and (in my humble yet outspoken opinion) his lyrics were no more "poor poor pitiful me, my life sucks" than Roger Waters' have been.

If you don't like Nirvana...that's your business and your perogative.

But that doesn't make them crap.