Nirvana inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Do they belong?

No. Limited catalog, all their music sounds the same, and we don't need to continue to glorify an idiot who killed himself leaving behind a 1 year old daughter.

I think so. However, what I can't figure out is how they get in on first year of eligibility (I believe this to be true, but didn't verify), but bands like Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, Deep Purple, who are equally influential with much more extensive catalogs, not in yet? There seems to not be any logical flow of inductions.

Isn't the R&R hall of fame supposed to be a joke to bands like Nirvana?

Absolutely.

WWRD wrote:

we don't need to continue to glorify an idiot who killed himself leaving behind a 1 year old daughter.

++1

The dude was clinically depressed.

curt kobaine wrote:

I say yes. A short lived but brilliant band. The voice of a generation.

I also say yes, but not because of the greatness of their songs but because they led the way to a new musical direction. Grunge brought back the lead electric guitar which had been missing for much of the 80s.

Flagpole wrote:

I also say yes, but not because of the greatness of their songs but because they led the way to a new musical direction. Grunge brought back the lead electric guitar which had been missing for much of the 80s.

Except for:

The Smiths

Echo & the Bunnymen

The Cure

The Clash

R.E.M.

U2

The Cult

Pixies

Sonic Youth

...and this isn't listing all the hair/metal bands.

The last great rock band. No rock band since has had any impact on the popular consciousness.

(LOL at anyone trying to make a moral case against a rock musician)

They get too much credit for the grunge explosion. A&C "Facelift" came out in 1990 and was huge, and if you don't think Pearl Jam's "10" wouldn't have been huge regardless of Nirvana you're an idiot. These two bands alone would have brought exposure to the Seattle scene and the likes of Soundgarden & STP. Was Nirvana part of it? Yes. Was "Smells like Teen Spirit" a great song? Yes. Did they create the grunge movement or bring back lead guitar? No. KC blowing his own head off added to their legend and made them over rated just like a lot of others who died young. And there's no way in h*ll they belong in ahead of some of the bands mentioned above.

I started listening to "In Utero" again for the first time in a long while. I remember it being big and liking it when it came out but now I'm convinced its a total rock masterpiece. Of course the production gets a lot of credit for that.

Has to be the rock album of that entire decade.

Nirvana is the only band that didn't start in the 1960's that overwhelmingly deserves to get in right from the first year they are eligible. Its a no brainer.

curt kobaine wrote:

The voice of a generation.

Yes, the band was at its finest when it provided the perfect metaphor: Krist Novoselic throwing his bass in the air and conked himself unconscious.

curt kobaine wrote:

I say yes. A short lived but brilliant band. The voice of a generation.

An obvious yes. And I'm just glad it's not another band from the 60s or 70s. Those decades are so over-represented in the R&R HOF due to nostalgic baby-boomers who are convinced that the only good music ever made existed when they were teenagers or in their 20s.

Of course Nirvana should be in there. They absolutely defined 1992-93.

They are the definitive grunge metal band even if they weren't the best, first or had the most longevity. They captured an era and had worldwide success even though they represented a sub-culture.

I'm not a huge fan personally, but they definitely deserve to be in the r&r HoF.

fv wrote:

[quote]

An obvious yes. And I'm just glad it's not another band from the 60s or 70s. Those decades are so over-represented in the R&R HOF due to nostalgic baby-boomers who are convinced that the only good music ever made existed when they were teenagers or in their 20s.

Your post is hardly controversial and in fact, quite dull. Back in the 60's people were saying the same about Bill Haley and Buddy Holly. Each generation is supposed to question the previous ones. That's what Rock and Roll is.

Think they might have dominated earlier induction because they were eligible,and uh, maybe the bands from Nirvanas era are just now becoming eligible?

Dope.

Believe it or not but it's young people who believe that most of the best music if from the 60s and 70s. Do you actually know any young rock fans? Do you have any idea what hip young kids listen to these days or do you think it's all Bieber and Miley?Most young people (I mean late teens and early 20s) are amassing large vinyl collections of bands you would assume are only appreciated by old farts.

fv wrote:

curt kobaine wrote:

I say yes. A short lived but brilliant band. The voice of a generation.

An obvious yes. And I'm just glad it's not another band from the 60s or 70s. Those decades are so over-represented in the R&R HOF due to nostalgic baby-boomers who are convinced that the only good music ever made existed when they were teenagers or in their 20s.

Flagpole wrote:

I also say yes, but not because of the greatness of their songs but because they led the way to a new musical direction. Grunge brought back the lead electric guitar which had been missing for much of the 80s.

Flagpole ... Your posts are typically much better ... Nirvana KILLED lead guitar .... All the big metal and rock bands from the 80s had great lead players ... And most of those bands died the day Smells Like Teen Spirit came along.

I remember teaching a student how to do a little finger tapping thing in maybe 96-97 and she laughs and says ."that sounds like eighties music". Most of the stuff kids were turned on by in the 90s hardly even had guitar solos.

But Nirvana DID turn music around, so for that, kudos.

They don't belong in the RnR HOF before Stevie Ray Vaughan.

Of course they belong. They stand out way ahead of their peers and contemporaries. Kurt was a big talent.