Nirvana is the most overrated band in history. Change my mind

seattle prattle wrote:

paul72 wrote:

agree-timing was everything- Nevermind came out in '91 right at the start of the grunge era and the end of the "glam rock"era. not the best Seattle band by any means....Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were better bands in my opinion, but Nirvana seemed to lead the way...a great time to be in college!

The reason i could never get engrossed in Nirvana was because their songs were too repetitive and didn't seem to go anywhere. But what a sound! They hit that to perfection, but within any and every song, i was bored by the end of the second verse.

SoundGarden has some amazing stuff, and very prolific. Black Hole Sun, Fell on Black Days, etc. were just masterful.

Afghan Whigs from the 90's - i discovered after the fact, but they were making great music then. And still around today (Algiers)

And of course, Alice in Chains was just a powerhouse of superb rock from back then.

As important precursors to Nirvana. Husker Du and the Replacements were more to my liking. Of all these, those two Minn. bands are so freakin' pivotal i can't stand it.

paul72 wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

The reason i could never get engrossed in Nirvana was because their songs were too repetitive and didn't seem to go anywhere. But what a sound! They hit that to perfection, but within any and every song, i was bored by the end of the second verse.

SoundGarden has some amazing stuff, and very prolific. Black Hole Sun, Fell on Black Days, etc. were just masterful.

Afghan Whigs from the 90's - i discovered after the fact, but they were making great music then. And still around today (Algiers)

And of course, Alice in Chains was just a powerhouse of superb rock from back then.

As important precursors to Nirvana. Husker Du and the Replacements were more to my liking. Of all these, those two Minn. bands are so freakin' pivotal i can't stand it.

for sure-Alice in Chains definitely worthy of mention-I still have their Facelift CD--probably their best straight on rock/metal album, though their self-titled album and Dirt creative in their own respect.

Precious Roy wrote:

The whole "alternative rock"/"grunge" thing was just a repackaging of punk and hard rock/heavy metal into a marketable format that resonated with the latest generation of disaffected youth. The 80s rock movement had reached such heights of commercialization that they became the musical establishment (Van Halen, Def Leppard, etc.) with stadium tours and everyone wearing concert shirts. Alternative rock just sent the same sound back into the laboratory of small venues until it emerged in the PNW with a sound that leaned a bit more on the punk side and was a bit darker and moodier than AC/DC, Bon Jovi, etc. But it was a pretty logical evolution and not nearly as revolutionary as having bands like Zepplin and The Who emerge in the 1960s.

I do not see a lot of difference between what Nirvana did and what Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam and others like them were doing. Nirvana had more of a punk/garage band edge initially, but got more moody and produced as time went on. A pattern that just about every band of that period followed.

That is not to say that Nirvana sucked. They were good. If you listened to Smells Like Teen Spirit in the 1990s and did not turn the volume all the way up and jump around your dorm room or apartment, there was something wrong with you.

Precious Roy wrote:

The whole "alternative rock"/"grunge" thing was just a repackaging of punk and hard rock/heavy metal into a marketable format that resonated with the latest generation of disaffected youth. The 80s rock movement had reached such heights of commercialization that they became the musical establishment (Van Halen, Def Leppard, etc.) with stadium tours and everyone wearing concert shirts. Alternative rock just sent the same sound back into the laboratory of small venues until it emerged in the PNW with a sound that leaned a bit more on the punk side and was a bit darker and moodier than AC/DC, Bon Jovi, etc. But it was a pretty logical evolution and not nearly as revolutionary as having bands like Zepplin and The Who emerge in the 1960s.

I do not see a lot of difference between what Nirvana did and what Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam and others like them were doing. Nirvana had more of a punk/garage band edge initially, but got more moody and produced as time went on. A pattern that just about every band of that period followed.

That is not to say that Nirvana sucked. They were good. If you listened to Smells Like Teen Spirit in the 1990s and did not turn the volume all the way up and jump around your dorm room or apartment, there was something wrong with you.

agip wrote:

Precious Roy wrote:

The whole "alternative rock"/"grunge" thing was just a repackaging of punk and hard rock/heavy metal into a marketable format that resonated with the latest generation of disaffected youth. The 80s rock movement had reached such heights of commercialization that they became the musical establishment (Van Halen, Def Leppard, etc.) with stadium tours and everyone wearing concert shirts. Alternative rock just sent the same sound back into the laboratory of small venues until it emerged in the PNW with a sound that leaned a bit more on the punk side and was a bit darker and moodier than AC/DC, Bon Jovi, etc. But it was a pretty logical evolution and not nearly as revolutionary as having bands like Zepplin and The Who emerge in the 1960s.

I do not see a lot of difference between what Nirvana did and what Smashing Pumpkins, Pearl Jam and others like them were doing. Nirvana had more of a punk/garage band edge initially, but got more moody and produced as time went on. A pattern that just about every band of that period followed.

That is not to say that Nirvana sucked. They were good. If you listened to Smells Like Teen Spirit in the 1990s and did not turn the volume all the way up and jump around your dorm room or apartment, there was something wrong with you.

yeah ok but...it's about the songs. The craft. The melodies. Cobain had a gift from god to write a dozen great songs. Anyone could come up with a sound and an image. The hard part is writing the songs, and Cobain brought the goods. And almost no one else did in that time and genre.

seattle prattle wrote:

agip wrote:

yeah ok but...it's about the songs. The craft. The melodies. Cobain had a gift from god to write a dozen great songs. Anyone could come up with a sound and an image. The hard part is writing the songs, and Cobain brought the goods. And almost no one else did in that time and genre.

But here's the thing - a grunge rock super-star is just about a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. That's fundamental. Listen to Soundgarden early stuff and you see rebellion. IF you were making hits, you had sold out. Honestly, i think Cobain struggled with his success and a lot. Watch vids of him in front of the audience and you see he hated it and would reef on his audience, condescending, and you hear it in the lyrics over and over.

Chris Cornell was the big man, and he could handle it. Look how he took Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam under his wing when vedder came to town and the new scene to be in Pearl Jam, And watch him on stage with Eddie Vedder - Chris was the man.

When i hear Nirvana, i hear a catchy hook with some obvious roots in something like the Beatles or other well known hook, made dissonant, cranked up and repeated to death like he wanted to beat his audience with it. Seriously. A band like Soundgarden was more into free-form exploration for its own sake.

agip wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

But here's the thing - a grunge rock super-star is just about a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron. That's fundamental. Listen to Soundgarden early stuff and you see rebellion. IF you were making hits, you had sold out. Honestly, i think Cobain struggled with his success and a lot. Watch vids of him in front of the audience and you see he hated it and would reef on his audience, condescending, and you hear it in the lyrics over and over.

Chris Cornell was the big man, and he could handle it. Look how he took Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam under his wing when vedder came to town and the new scene to be in Pearl Jam, And watch him on stage with Eddie Vedder - Chris was the man.

When i hear Nirvana, i hear a catchy hook with some obvious roots in something like the Beatles or other well known hook, made dissonant, cranked up and repeated to death like he wanted to beat his audience with it. Seriously. A band like Soundgarden was more into free-form exploration for its own sake.

I guess it's how you measure the quality of a band. The songs as I defined them...or by how much you like to listen to free-form exploration or such thing.

agip wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

Fair point. I am not saying one is better than the other. I like them both for what they are.

But Cornell also made commercial hits that are way more mainstream than Cobain ever would have done: "Black Hole Sun, "Fell on Black Days" those are made for FM hits. Just beautiful. I think Nirvana was more influential and were more tightly defined in a genre, and made history for it.

then you have to ask why Teen Spirit is on lists of best songs ever recorded and Black Hole Sun isn't. If BHS is more commercial, shouldn't it be on those lists instead?

It's all so subjective I know.

Bottom line, for me I hear in Cobain's songs an immortality that I only hear in what...50 bands that have ever existed. But Soundgarden...nah nothing even close. But it's subjective. And I always have a top-40 singles sort of mentality that you may not.