28 and not a Nirvana fan, though I recognize their importance in the grunge genre, that I don't care for. Nirvana, Soundgarden, STP, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Temple of the Dog, Bush, Candlebox....can't really say I like any of them. They were a gateway drug to Nickelback/Creed.
They weren't that great. They certainly weren't the Pixies.
Kurt realized this and it ultimately made him off himself.
needtoreboot wrote:
The most revealing thing is how these kids say there is nothing as fill-in-your-adjective as Nirvana today. I'd agree.
Musically we live in dead times where lifestyle and internet memes have somehow trumped actual musicianship. It's sad but this incessant screen time makes it inevitable.
Long live stage-jumping, the pit, and 10x1200 workouts in the snow with nary a helicopter parent in sight.
So...there's no one today that makes cool grunge music like Nirvana? Or is as cool looking and dynamic as Cobain? Or as talented? What exactly does this mean?
If you think there aren't musicians out there, today, that aren't just as talented or music being produced that isn't as good, you're not looking. Just because they don't make cool grunge doesn't mean they're not talented or the music isn't great - it just means it isn't as appealing to you.
For example: I'd argue that the New York Dolls did the same thing Nirvana did 20 years beforehand and get almost no credit. They were cooler, more talented, and influenced more bands. If 20 years ago I said: "nothing as fill-in-your-adjective as the New York Dolls exists today..."
Interesting to see the perspective of some of today's teens, not influenced by the band's popularity.
Those that already knew them liked it, and the others looked puzzled and some intrigued.
It's funny that they are like Spinal Tap in that they went through 5 drummers.
They mentioned that they had 3 studio albums.
But 'Incesticide', considered a compilation album, consisted of studio recorded songs that weren't on the other albums.
The first half of that album is great and the second half is totally weird.
Play the first 8 tracks, mostly two minute songs, and you are grooving. Stop there. You need heavy drugs to enjoy the last 7 tracks.
needtoreboot wrote:
The most revealing thing is how these kids say there is nothing as fill-in-your-adjective as Nirvana today. I'd agree.
Musically we live in dead times where lifestyle and internet memes have somehow trumped actual musicianship. It's sad but this incessant screen time makes it inevitable.
Long live stage-jumping, the pit, and 10x1200 workouts in the snow with nary a helicopter parent in sight.
If you think that we live in dead times in terms of music, you've probably just reached an age where your mind is closed as far as finding new music to enjoy. I still like plenty of '90s music (Pavement remains one of my favorite bands), but I have no problem finding great new music. Grizzly Bear, Arcade Fire, and a bunch of other bands are putting out great albums.
As someone on a recent thread said: there are 7 billion people in the world, and you mean to tell me that not a single one of them is making great music?
David's Groohl wrote:
There is no other band (with the exception of Pink Floyd) in the history of bands that is more overrated than Nirvana.
I agree with this statement if we're talking about just the music. Nirvana and Pink Floyd are not as good musically as they get credit for.
If we are talking influential, then Nirvana was very influential and one of the most influential bands ever. Also, I do believe that Dave Grohl is a genius, but that became more evident with Foo Fighters.
Flagpole wrote:
David's Groohl wrote:There is no other band (with the exception of Pink Floyd) in the history of bands that is more overrated than Nirvana.
I agree with this statement if we're talking about just the music. Nirvana and Pink Floyd are not as good musically as they get credit for.
If we are talking influential, then Nirvana was very influential and one of the most influential bands ever. Also, I do believe that Dave Grohl is a genius, but that became more evident with Foo Fighters.
Dave Grohl is a "genius" ?? He might be a hell of a musician, but....
a) terrible singer
b) except for 1st album, has written some of the most generic, unoriginal pop-rock songs in rock history (and I mean that without an ounce of hyperbole)
c) despite being a very good drummer, really added little to Nirvana. If you listen to their pre-Grohl songs, the drumming sounds nearly as good, and the songs are just as good (better production, the drums are more clearly mic'd on later Grohl tracks)
He is faaaarr from a genius. Yes, one can define that word how they choose, but cobain was much more of genius than Grohl (if you want to call either of them one). His songwriting is far more original than anything Grohl ever did. (as another poster said, listen to Incesticide). Cobain bared his soul in his music (whether or not you found it pleasing). Grohl......came up with some nice catchy riffs and hooks, and played technically very well. Excellent material for a car advertisement. That is NOT genius.
Kurt was the last Rock Star.
David's Groohl wrote:
needtoreboot wrote:The most revealing thing is how these kids say there is nothing as fill-in-your-adjective as Nirvana today. I'd agree.
Musically we live in dead times where lifestyle and internet memes have somehow trumped actual musicianship. It's sad but this incessant screen time makes it inevitable.
Long live stage-jumping, the pit, and 10x1200 workouts in the snow with nary a helicopter parent in sight.
So...there's no one today that makes cool grunge music like Nirvana? Or is as cool looking and dynamic as Cobain? Or as talented? What exactly does this mean?
If you think there aren't musicians out there, today, that aren't just as talented or music being produced that isn't as good, you're not looking. Just because they don't make cool grunge doesn't mean they're not talented or the music isn't great - it just means it isn't as appealing to you.
For example: I'd argue that the New York Dolls did the same thing Nirvana did 20 years beforehand and get almost no credit. They were cooler, more talented, and influenced more bands. If 20 years ago I said: "nothing as fill-in-your-adjective as the New York Dolls exists today..."
crete wrote:
They weren't that great. They certainly weren't the Pixies.
Kurt realized this and it ultimately made him off himself.
This is a good point. Nirvana totally copied the Pixies style of alternating soft and quiet/ loud and abrasive. But they had the same substance and original lyrics that The Pixies had. Cobain was a better looking and more marketable frontman then Frank Black, a short, fat, bald dude.
Since 1968 what rock bands can be looked at as being as relevant as The Beatles, Stones, The Who, Led Zeppelin, Creedence in terms of quality of output and popularity?
Nirvana and U2 are the only rock bands that grabbed the mantle of those earlier bands. And Guns and Roses briefly.
What other bands can you recall over the last 20 years that put out a new album and it was major pop culture news?
Bands that were on the cover of Time Magazine.
Bands that went on tours that were legendary and covered by major media in every city.
Those days are over. Nirvana was the last one.
Out of the mouths of punks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rhotCKLwcQ
"EVERYONE is a better musician than me" -Kurt
Self-deprecating arrogance at it's finest.
3 studio albums:
bleach
nevermind
in utero
All these posters who think Nirvana were way over-rated and not really that good: OK, so who are all these other bands that were superior to Nirvana?
I mean, you can say you don't like rock music in general, and I'm OK with that if that's how you feel. But if you do like rock music and still think Nirvana is over-rated, then please give me some examples of superior bands whose heyday was later than about 1975.
The Pixies have already been mentioned a few times, and I agree that they deserve more way credit than they've received, and they did perfect the "hard/soft/hard/soft" dynamic before Nirvana. REM were great. Most people would claim U2 also, although I personally am not as crazy about them. Who else? As I see it, it's easy to say Nirvana was over-rated, but not as easy to actually name anybody who was actually better, while also achieving some degree of popularity and influence (i.e. no falling back on super-cool bands that nobody actually listens to).
heyday later than 1975? Aerosmith, AC/DC, and Finntroll.
And don't go saying nobody listens to Finntroll.
For anyone who likes Nirvana, I would recommend the following contemporary bands quite highly: Black Rebel Motorcycle Club and The Black Angels. More of a blues or psychedelic tone much of the time, but keeping the rock'n'roll standard flying proudly indeed. Incredible live.
On a different, more eccentric/pop vein, the recent album by Mø, "No Mythologies To Follow" is pretty freakin amazing also. young raw talent, properly channeled.
Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:
Flagpole wrote:I agree with this statement if we're talking about just the music. Nirvana and Pink Floyd are not as good musically as they get credit for.
If we are talking influential, then Nirvana was very influential and one of the most influential bands ever. Also, I do believe that Dave Grohl is a genius, but that became more evident with Foo Fighters.
Dave Grohl is a "genius" ?? He might be a hell of a musician, but....
a) terrible singer
b) except for 1st album, has written some of the most generic, unoriginal pop-rock songs in rock history (and I mean that without an ounce of hyperbole)
c) despite being a very good drummer, really added little to Nirvana. If you listen to their pre-Grohl songs, the drumming sounds nearly as good, and the songs are just as good (better production, the drums are more clearly mic'd on later Grohl tracks)
He is faaaarr from a genius. Yes, one can define that word how they choose, but cobain was much more of genius than Grohl (if you want to call either of them one). His songwriting is far more original than anything Grohl ever did. (as another poster said, listen to Incesticide). Cobain bared his soul in his music (whether or not you found it pleasing). Grohl......came up with some nice catchy riffs and hooks, and played technically very well. Excellent material for a car advertisement. That is NOT genius.
Yes...Dave Grohl is a genius; a musical genius. We'll have to disagree there. Cobain was the leader of a groundbreaking band, but no genius in my estimation.
Flagpole wrote:
Yes...Dave Grohl is a genius; a musical genius. We'll have to disagree there. Cobain was the leader of a groundbreaking band, but no genius in my estimation.
Incorrect. Dave Grohl is a mediocre musician who rode on the coattails of Nirvana. You wouldn't be talking about him in any circle on his musical chops alone.
Top Noticer wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Yes...Dave Grohl is a genius; a musical genius. We'll have to disagree there. Cobain was the leader of a groundbreaking band, but no genius in my estimation.
Incorrect. Dave Grohl is a mediocre musician who rode on the coattails of Nirvana. You wouldn't be talking about him in any circle on his musical chops alone.
Matters not where someone gets their start. Fact is that he launched another band after Cobain was gone, and THAT is where his genius is found.
The NME agrees with me too as they gave him the "Godlike Genius" award in 2011. I won't say he's "Godlike", but I agree with the genius part.
He plays a ton of instruments (well too), writes music and lyrics and he even directs film. Dude is a genius, and Foo Fighters is GREAT.
Either you don't know what "mediocre" means or you have never heard a mediocre musician, because Dave Grohl is definitely NOT mediocre.
Flagpole wrote:
Matters not where someone gets their start.
In this case, it absolutely does. You seem to have forgotten how many mediocre power pop bands (such as Foo Fighters) came from the grunge era, MOST of which you certainly have not heard, and most of which no one has heard from since.
Fact is that he launched another band after Cobain was gone, and THAT is where his genius is found.
It's absolutely your right to believe that three chord power pop with stilted phrasing and unmemorable melodies is genius. You'd be absolutely wrong, but it's certainly not illegal.
The NME agrees with me too as they gave him the "Godlike Genius" award in 2011. I won't say he's "Godlike", but I agree with the genius part.
Of course they said that. What better way to sell sell sell magazines than to create controversy where none existed before?
He plays a ton of instruments (well too), writes music and lyrics and he even directs film. Dude is a genius, and Foo Fighters is GREAT.
You mean he plays instruments well as compared to you? I'm sure he does. Compared to other great professional multi-instrumentalists? That's funny. He couldn't get a gig as a session performer without his pedigree.
Either you don't know what "mediocre" means or you have never heard a mediocre musician, because Dave Grohl is definitely NOT mediocre.
I do know what mediocre is. Foo Fighters is the very definition of a mediocre, boomer-yet-still-hip-friendly, crapola band. C'mon Flagpole, I know there are plenty of cultural opportunities in Columbus. If you'd like to seriously critique music or art, you'll need to step outside of mayoville, please.
They sound a bit whiny. Don't know why you old guys like them so much