Nirvana

[Flame-Sky Diver]

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?

Me!

[David Smith]

Personally i didn't call Nirvana crap if it's me that comment's aimed at

Also seeing as Bowie is bigger than Nirvana i have faith people under 30 would know the song The Man Who Sold The World, specifically because David Bowie named an album after the song

I would not consider being signed to a major record label to be selling out, just remember that The Beatles were on a large record company. I'm also sure Nirvana have a lot of creative control in their videos and the image they project, to say they didn't would make them purely corporate pop stars

Now ok so going by the very basic meaning of pop you could say any band that tries to be more popular is a pop band, however i would think concerts are something that all bands have to do, what else is the point behind being in a band? And also who goes to the concerts? Fans who most probably have the album unless someone they know does

That is of course unless you are meaning when bands do live shows towards the begining of their careers to get fame, with which case i would see no reason for a small bands not to tour

i do not agree with pop just menaing popular, for a start if that's what pop means then what's the point in sub dividing musical genres once the band are large. The Stones for example can only be described as a rockn'roll band no matter how popular they are and they certainly didn't go out of their way to appeal to people and push a teen angst ridden image, they just got on with life rather than whining as which was popular in the early 90's

And again, i don't hate Nirvana, i just think them vastly over rated

[drafsack]

Why are people so in awe of nirvana they were just a very over rated group if Kurt was still around they would be just a bunch of washed up has beens. Whats more their importance is hyped up by the press. Much as I like Q magizine they are so far up Nirvana's ass its embarrising. They will put Kurt on the cover at a drop of a hat and every time Dave so much as farts they cover it with a 3 page spread. Much of this months Q magizine is dedicated to Kurt because he did the decient thing of getting out while he was ahead and doing us all a favour.

[decampos]

Why are people so in awe of nirvana they were just a very over rated group if Curt was still around they would be just a bunch of washed up has beens. Whats more their importance is hyped up by the press. Much as I like Q magizine they are so far up Nirvana's ass its embarrising. They will put Curt on the cover at a drop of a hat and every time Dave so much as farts they cover it with a 3 page spread. Much of this months Q magizine is dedicated to Curt because he did the decient thing of getting out while he was ahead and doing us all a favour.

Yeah, but from what you're saying, killing himself hasn't done YOU any favors because according to you if he hadn't have died they'd be washed up has-beens and presumably out of the public eye and not the legendary band to which they are now hailed as.
Thanks for you input on this subject anyway.

[Vlad The Impaler]

Personally I like Mosespa's posts on this subject because now I don't have to write a thing.

[mosespa]

Personally i didn't call Nirvana crap if it's me that comment's aimed at

No, you didn't...and that comment wasn't specifically aimed at you. I was just making a bit of a gross generalization.

Also seeing as Bowie is bigger than Nirvana i have faith people under 30 would know the song The Man Who Sold The World, specifically because David Bowie named an album after the song

I would be inclined to agree with you, if it weren't for the fact that Bowie's last really POPULAR outing was Let's Dance about twenty years ago.

Granted, he's met with some moderate success with Earthling and Outside...but nowhere near the sort of media saturation that Let's Dance got him.

Bowie may be bigger than Nirvana in the greater scheme of things, but I'm sure that Nirvana have sold more albums in, say, the last five years than Bowie has.

I would not consider being signed to a major record label to be selling out, just remember that The Beatles were on a large record company. I'm also sure Nirvana have a lot of creative control in their videos and the image they project, to say they didn't would make them purely corporate pop stars

You may not consider it a sell out to be signed to a major label, but that was one of the very definitions of selling out in the early nineties, when Nirvana were coming to prominence. Major labes equal "money," is the argument. And anytime money is involved in a band, it equals "selling out."

Nirvana MAY have had creative control over their videos, but they also strike me as not really being too concerned about the content of a video. I really fail to see how any of Nirvana's videos are as awful as you've charged. The video for Smells Like Teen Spirit is a nice little bit of middle finger at the whole "Beautiful People" who are traditionally the cheer leaders and popular kids in high school. Come As You Are was a bit of surrealist art, as I remember. The whole footage of swinging from the chandeliers and that is, as I recall, NOT staged. It was something the guys broke into and Kevin Kerslake (the video director) cut it into the video. Lithium was bits of live footage spliced together into a video, so, any destruction going on in it more than likely actually occurred at a show. In Bloom was a very clever stab at how big they'd become by parodying The Beatles appearance on the Ed Sullivan Show. Black and white footage seen on an old television, Wink Martindale as the host (mispronouncing the name to show how clueless the "older generation" usually is when dealing with "new generation" things,) and the guys appearing in dresses.

I really don't see a whole lot of what would appear to be selling a phony image. The guys were being themselves in front of the cameras. Perhaps in hindsight it looks suspicious...or maybe it only looks suspicious to the "new generation" trying desperately to trash the idols of the "older generation."

Now ok so going by the very basic meaning of pop you could say any band that tries to be more popular is a pop band, however i would think concerts are something that all bands have to do, what else is the point behind being in a band? And also who goes to the concerts? Fans who most probably have the album unless someone they know does

The point of being in a band may just be to make a loud noise...not necessarily for other people to hear. I know people who play instruments and even write and record songs for their own pleasure...not for anyone else to hear. Granted, it may seem a little odd...but is it really any more odd than someone who takes up painting for it's own sake? Many people paint and never have an exhibition.

As for only fans going to concerts by a band...how did these people get to be fans of the band before they played that first concert? Some people actually go to concerts just to be seeing a live act. Granted, these people are usually outnumbered by the fans of a particular band, but they ARE there. That's how bands make new fans.

i do not agree with pop just menaing popular, for a start if that's what pop means then what's the point in sub dividing musical genres once the band are large. The Stones for example can only be described as a rockn'roll band no matter how popular they are and they certainly didn't go out of their way to appeal to people and push a teen angst ridden image, they just got on with life rather than whining as which was popular in the early 90's

Ah...but the Rolling Stones WERE a pop band at the beginning of their career. Just as The Beatles were. In fact, they were pretty much considered a darker version of The Beatles. The Rolling Stones first few albums consisted largely of covers of old blues songs (Time Is On My Side, The Last Time, Little Red Rooster, just to name a few...,) as they gained popularity, they became able to write more and more of their own songs...some of which dealt with drug use (Mother's Little Helper) and, yes...even some teen angst (Street Fighting Man.)

As for whether or not they "went out of their way" to appeal to people...Mick Jagger has certainly been shaking the heck out of his money maker for some forty years now...they were one of the first bands to accept corporate sponsorship (by a PERFUME company, no less,) and they went out of their way to fire the guy who FORMED the band when it seemed that his ideas of where the band should go clashed with what Jagger and Richards wanted (i.e., when Brian Jones wanted to tone down their popularity and Keef and Mick wanted to be even MORE popular.)

Let's not even mention their disco hits of the seventies...(Miss You, Emotional Rescue, etc.)

Nope, the Stones never went out of their way to increase their popularity.

And again, i don't hate Nirvana, i just think them vastly over rated

Of course you would think them over rated...you like Radiohead. That's not an insult...Radiohead are a band who is all about making new sounds and taking song structure to it's limits. Nirvana were a three chord power pop band.

And in the end, that's all punk really is...power pop.

Pop music is typically simple music...Punk is typically simple music. The only real difference is that punk music sets out be the anti-thesis of pop...and usually ends up becoming pop in some way, Green Day, for example. The Offspring, for another.

Bad Religion have managed to maintain their punk cred by not signing with a major label...however, the lable they started themselves is home to a number of other bands...so...are they REALLY still PUNK?

I say again...what is being derided as "Pop" music is really "Prefabrication." What we are really protesting against are artists that are chosen by record labels for their looks before their talent. They are then assigned the best songwriters and producers and are artificially built up for a career as Pop artists.

We can't really fault Pop music as a whole. There's some really good pop out there that's not prefabricated...you just have to dig a bit in order to find it.

[drafsack]

Decampos

I liked your nirvana site you have done a very good job. To spend so much time developing a site like that shows you are really dedicated fan and therefore you probably do not handle critisism of them well. Which if fair enough as I don't take to well of critisism of Pink Floyd. My main point, which I think you understood, was My main reason for not liking them NOW was that they hade been hyped out of all proportion. Now that critisim cannot be laid at the feet of the band it is the fault of the press. I feel that Kurt died at a very apt time, I feel they had peaked musically, Kurt was on the verge of imploading and as a result probably on the verge of breaking up the whole band. Him dying gave him marter status and made him more popular then when he was alive. Now that can be a good thing from the fans point of view you dont have to suffer second and third rate albums and poorley conseved come back tours which are only in it for the money. You have a band that for all the wrong reasons got out while they were still close to the peak of game and left a legacy of music that will unfortuanatly be milked to death.

[mosespa]

To drafsack

You are absolutely correct...in one of the last interviews he ever gave, Cobain had said that he couldn't see Nirvana continuing as it was at the time. He had suggested that a breakup might be coming.

I, for one, don't believe that he committed suicide. I believe that his addiction was taken advantage of and while high, he was coerced into writing the note (which, by the way, features two lines NOT in his handwriting, according to a private investigator...and those two lines are what makes it a "suicide" note,) and then a trigger was pulled.

I have my own ideas as to who might be behind it...but nothing can be proven.

Apparently, someone felt that Kurt was worth more dead than alive...the Elvis route.

[decampos]

I was just watching Nick Broomfield's 'Kurt and Courtney'. There's a very interesting discussion throughout the film about the possibilities of Murder. Personally I believe it was suicide. I accept there is weight to the murder argument and I do think that Courtney did drive Kurt to it, but Kurt had the 'suicide genes' and throughout his life displayed all the symptoms of a man with a deeply unstable mindset and suffered bouts of sever depression in patterns exactly that of millions of suicide victims.

As for if he hadn't have killed himself; there's a truly wonderful piece written about that here (it even includes a reference to our lord R. Waters:
http://www.bevelled.net/otherstuff.html#killed

[Useful Idiot]

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?

Me!

Me as well. Nirvana's cover is better than the original though.

[Kimbers Sheep]

I didn't like them...I still don't, did they have a huge influence, yes, but it's all about what "speaks" to you personally, and their music never "spoke" to me

[ObscuredEchoes]

I do think that Courtney did drive Kurt to it,

I agree with you 110%...

[Larry Bunson]

you know what?

you lot make me so bloody cross , as you say 'blah blah blah ...nirvana product of their time ...blah blah blah ** *** **** *** ******....blah blah'

Listen , were pink floyd a product of their time ? no ...they were a great band regaqrdless , as are nirvana....****** *** *** * ******

No personal attacks to members of the board
Syd.

[decampos]

On behalf of everyone here, we're gunna assume you're having a bad day and not ponder on what you've said.

[Charade I am]

...in one of the last interviews he ever gave

Again, 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