How are they still a good band if they are no longer a band?
How are they still a good band if they are no longer a band?
Star wrote:
How are they still a good band if they are no longer a band?
Because their music and legacy live on?
In the early 1990s people were sick of overproduced commercial crap and Nirvana happened were just an alternative, at that time. Over the next 2 years we all dressed like PNW lumberjacks and Eddie Bauer got rich.
Randy Oldman wrote:
In the early 1990s people were sick of overproduced commercial crap and Nirvana happened were just an alternative, at that time. Over the next 2 years we all dressed like PNW lumberjacks and Eddie Bauer got rich.
Exactly. They were no different than any other fad band that has come along, but they have the benefit of the self important lead singer blowing his brains out to add to their "mystique".
No mention he was a loser drug addict with a young kid. You know, because "he's the voice of a generation.......dude".
Maverik wrote:
Star wrote:How are they still a good band if they are no longer a band?
Because their music and legacy live on?
is abe lincoln still a good president or was he
Randy Oldman wrote:
In the early 1990s people were sick of overproduced commercial crap and Nirvana happened were just an alternative, at that time. Over the next 2 years we all dressed like PNW lumberjacks and Eddie Bauer got rich.
big nirvana fan here.
it's not fair just to say that nirvana was different at the right time so they succeeded. There were thousands of 'alternative' bands that year that no one liked. Because those bands didn't have the songs.
I remember when I first heard 'teen spirit' - it cut through the crap like a sword - it had passion, was clearly and irrefutably and unapologetically rock, and was catchy. It was a perfect riff, but not corporate or mellow - it was a blast back to punk. it was what rock was supposed to be.
You guys who say they just got lucky - that's nonsense - they were brilliant songwriters - 6-10 of their songs are just amazing as pieces of original, astonishing songwriting and musicianship.
Alice in Chains may have had the sound, but they never had the songs - hard to quantify this, but in the end you have to have songs people remember and want to listen to again and again - Alice in Chains just never came up with the goods.
Mundus Vult wrote:
Apparently Flagpole is not familiar with the Pixies. There was an entire Punk movement long before Seattle's Sub Pop scene came along. Frank Black, the Ramones, Sonic Youth, Black Flag, and a host of others had been pushing back against Drama Rock for over a decade before the Seattle scene emerged.
Yeah, but the Pixies? The Ramones? Indie and punk bands with half their members androgynous isn't what heterosexual teenagers were looking for when Nirvana hit it big. Nirvana filled a need for kids in the early 90s.
agip wrote:
Randy Oldman wrote:In the early 1990s people were sick of overproduced commercial crap and Nirvana happened were just an alternative, at that time. Over the next 2 years we all dressed like PNW lumberjacks and Eddie Bauer got rich.
big nirvana fan here.
it's not fair just to say that nirvana was different at the right time so they succeeded. There were thousands of 'alternative' bands that year that no one liked. Because those bands didn't have the songs.
I remember when I first heard 'teen spirit' - it cut through the crap like a sword - it had passion, was clearly and irrefutably and unapologetically rock, and was catchy. It was a perfect riff, but not corporate or mellow - it was a blast back to punk. it was what rock was supposed to be.
You guys who say they just got lucky - that's nonsense - they were brilliant songwriters - 6-10 of their songs are just amazing as pieces of original, astonishing songwriting and musicianship.
Alice in Chains may have had the sound, but they never had the songs - hard to quantify this, but in the end you have to have songs people remember and want to listen to again and again - Alice in Chains just never came up with the goods.
Yeah, Smells Like Teen Spirit was amazing. When that song came out I knew that Nirvana would be huge. I was in my mid 20s then, but I was student teaching 8th graders, and they ALL loved Nirvana. I could see why. Other than that first huge hit for them, I didn't really get into them, but as I've already said on this thread, I do greatly respect Dave Grohl, and I like Foo Fighters a lot.
Flagpole wrote:
Yeah, but the Pixies? The Ramones? Indie and punk bands with half their members androgynous isn't what heterosexual teenagers were looking for when Nirvana hit it big. Nirvana filled a need for kids in the early 90s.
I am more inclined to agree with this post than your last one. Nirvana may have appealed to a lost generation of heterosexuals who sought meaning in a vague anti-corporate, anti-sell out machismo persona. I really don't know.
But, I do know that their appeal wasn't because they were the first band pushing back against the Drama rock of the 80's.
Flagpole wrote:
Pixies? The Ramones? Indie and punk bands with half their members androgynous
This is the only time I've ever heard the Ramones described that way.
Get ready message board, the blowhard is on a roll, he got caught on a point and will now take over the thread talking about himself.
I'm not a big music guy but remember Nirvana's arrival vividly. As many have pointed out the music scene had bottomed out. I mean, Paula Abdul was on rotation on the radio, and unless you were a metal-head it was very difficult to appreciate the awesomeness of Metallica. Their first album Bleach didn't catch and got lumped in with the other small arthouse groups (the Pixies, Sonic Youth). But when Smells Like Teen Spirit dropped it just blew up. I can literally remember where I was and what I was doing the first time I heard it. Then the gravity of that single dragged Pearl Jam's Evenflow and Jane's Addiction, the Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumpkins into the light and onto the radio and soon every kid under 25 suddenly had good music to replace the Led Zeppelin tapes in their tape deck. It also made us realize in retrospect how good bands like Metallica, Guns N' Roses, Megadeath were. The 80's were over, bam! just like that. In the span of 6-8 weeks.
rtgxzz wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Pixies? The Ramones? Indie and punk bands with half their members androgynous
This is the only time I've ever heard the Ramones described that way.
Get ready message board, the blowhard is on a roll, he got caught on a point and will now take over the thread talking about himself.
So, all of them look for sure like men to you? -
http://p1cdn01.thewrap.com/images/2014/08/Ramones.jpgI would GUESS that they all are if I didn't know who they were, but if someone told me that a couple of them used to be women or were indeed androgynous (or hermaphrodite), I could believe that.
I like Nirvana and Alice In Chains equally.
But Alice in Chains didn't have the songs?
Man in the box
Rooster
Would
Down in a Hole
No Excuses (hit#1)
Heaven Beside You
Again
Got Me Wrong
Nirvana had the videos which was big at the time.
Teen Spirit and Heart Shaped Box were popular videos and they did well with MTV Unplugged
Nirvana was better marketed.
Mundus Vult wrote:
Flagpole wrote:Yeah, but the Pixies? The Ramones? Indie and punk bands with half their members androgynous isn't what heterosexual teenagers were looking for when Nirvana hit it big. Nirvana filled a need for kids in the early 90s.
I am more inclined to agree with this post than your last one. Nirvana may have appealed to a lost generation of heterosexuals who sought meaning in a vague anti-corporate, anti-sell out machismo persona. I really don't know.
But, I do know that their appeal wasn't because they were the first band pushing back against the Drama rock of the 80's.
They were the MOST SUCCESSFUL band to push back. They defined grunge, and it is was came at the end of a bunch of horrid 80s music.
Star wrote:
I like Nirvana and Alice In Chains equally.
But Alice in Chains didn't have the songs?
Man in the box
Rooster
Would
Down in a Hole
No Excuses (hit#1)
Heaven Beside You
Again
Got Me Wrong
Nirvana had the videos which was big at the time.
Teen Spirit and Heart Shaped Box were popular videos and they did well with MTV Unplugged
Nirvana was better marketed.
well comparing art is always difficult - I'll just say that in my opinion Alice in Chains never reached the level of songwriting of Nirvana - good people will have different opinions, but that's mine.
I mean - teen spirit and all apologies alone - those are amazing pieces of work.
marketing can work but only temporarily - it can make ariana grande huge...for a year. But 20 years from now the marketing will be forgotten and so will ariana grande.
but even after Nirvana's 'marketing' the songs still stand out and people still listen to them. More than Alice in Chains, I'm afraid.
BaloneyandPhooey wrote:
There were dozens of bands in Mpls doing what Nirvana tried to copy years before Nirvana. Nirvana is the 2nd most overrated band in history, only slightly behind Led Zepplin.
You obviously haven't ever seen Zepplin perform. Try looking for "The Song Remains The Same " on blue ray. Also if you listen to "Physical Graffiti " I doubt you would still call them over rated. Then once your hooked try to find Zepplin "Mothership" not easy to find it has a 2 hour DVD of live performances and 2cd's of some of there best work
Jimmy Page is one of the best on guitar with the next best being Hendrix.
They were and always will be the greatest rock band.
They stopped before they would have started to suck. If James Hetfield had just died in 1989, Metallica would be remembered as the utlimate genius badass band of all time. But he lived and they eventually started to suck. Due to Cobain death, this never happenned to Nirvana thus the legend lives.
Bonus question - where does our current era rank? I'd put it in a similar place as pre-Teen Spirit 90's. Rap has gotten stale and silly. I enjoy the current pop scene, but I'm a parent of young children who go for catchy songs like what you find on the Just Dance games. What does it say when the best of pop music appeals to 7 year old children?
Well, the fact that Smells Like Teens Spirit is Pachelbel's Canon in reverse is pretty cool, though it's doubtful Kurt had a clue when he banged that one out.I don't know, who says they were "genius?" Who even talks about them?Are you in a small American town where kids still listen to that crap as a rite of passage?
niryawna wrote:
The music is incredibly simple and dull.
Is there something profound that I'm missing?
Or do I just not get it, man?
Typical runner or sockpuppet wrote:
Bonus question - where does our current era rank? I'd put it in a similar place as pre-Teen Spirit 90's. Rap has gotten stale and silly. I enjoy the current pop scene, but I'm a parent of young children who go for catchy songs like what you find on the Just Dance games. What does it say when the best of pop music appeals to 7 year old children?
not a great era for rock music - the guitar has lost its primacy.
However, there is a giant Americana movement that still plays guitars - more acoustic than electric, but still rock and roll.
Bands like Houndmouth, the Avett Bros, Shovels and Rope, St Paul and the Broken Bones, Old Crow Medicine Show, Lucinda Williams - these artists are making rock and roll, but closer to country than Led Zep type guitar bands.
But if you are stuck listening to classic rock and want some new music - there is some great, great stuff out there if you want to go look for it.