What was so genius about Nirvana?

I was not much into Nirvana myself but I was 19 in 1991 when Nirvana got big. For me it was like my generation finally had a sound. The popular music from before was all stuff that still sounded like 70s rock. Noodley guitar solos and complex compositions. Rock music was played by trained professionals with expensive equipment who drove around in huge tour busses and trashed hotel rooms and had hot groupies. Rock musicians were people who went to music school and spent years learning how to play an instrument. It wasn't something most regular kids could do. Grunge at least when it started was like the revenge of regular people. All of a sudden it was cooler to play on an old cheap guitar and wear cheap noname clothes and play simple music about having a life that sucks. All of my friends started playing in crappy bands and we had a lot of fun.

PTO wrote:

You obviously haven't ever seen Zeppelin perform.

I saw Zep live and was so underwhelmed I never wanted to see them again. Humble Pie opened that night and was the highlight of the evening. Robert Plant had one of the best rock voices around. But on stage, he wrecked most songs. Dude just never knew when to shut up and let a very talented band play. Jagger suffered from the same problem.

Nothing. Nirvana sucked. Same old 3 chord recycled garbage. Nickleback of the 90s.

agip wrote:

[quote]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?

Sorry to hijack this thread and go off topic (FWIW, I think Nevermind's a top-five GOAT album), but I'm sick and tired of hearing middle-aged (just guessing) men talk about how "silly" rap has gotten. Sure there's lots of terrible rap music out there. That's what happens when a genre breaks into the mainstream. It gets absorbed into other forms of bubblegum pop.

But to dismiss it as a genre past its time reflects a total ignorance of what's going on. Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but almost everybody who seriously delves into hip hop would say we're in a golden age. Cats like Kendrick, ASAP, Danny Brown, Childish, Schoolboy and even Drake are young, articulate, hungry and incredibly introspective. And they're groundbreakers on promotion, live presence and subject matter that can sell in hip hop. This is a young genre that started from nothing--literally playing other people's records and hyping/dancing to them. The place it's reached is incredible and I'm proud to call myself a hip hop head.

Again, didn't mean to dismiss your opinion, but the whole, "rap is played out," attitude looks only at the lowest common denominator and doesn't look at all the wonderful music being released these days. Just my two cents.

Nirvana combined Black Sabbath with Black Flag and made a sound all their own. Nirvana was the culmination of the 70s-80s underground. Like the documentary, 1992 was The Year Punk Broke.

Zev wrote:

Nirvana combined Black Sabbath with Black Flag and made a sound all their own. Nirvana was the culmination of the 70s-80s underground. Like the documentary, 1992 was The Year Punk Broke.

Kurt Cobain was a big fan of the Smithereens; that's probably why the best song on Bleach is a classic pop song.

To those hating on Led Zep and Nirvana, c'mon now.

Led Zep, even if I hardly ever listen to them any more, is obviously one of the greatest bands ever, if not THE greatest. No one can deny this. The Rain Song alone is pure beauty. And they were a BAND. (and every band after them has tried to capture their Heavy and Light extremes: the metal/hard rock of Dazed and Confused and immigrant song, balanced by the acoustic songs found all over their catalogue, but especially Zep 3. No one has been able to, though Niravana sometimes in fact was able to hit both sides successfully )

Nirvana? They weren't around long enough to really rank highly on an all time great list, and yes, some of their music was sort of droning and "noise." But some of their best stuff is truly amazing. And I think something that people are forgetting about why some people really love nirvana so much: Kurt was a guy who without a doubt sang and played his balls off, bared his soul to an almost harmful degree, and put in his music his absolute darkest, and deepest fears, nightmares, and pain. . You feel all of that in his voice, in his lyrics, in his guitar. For a lot of people, even if the result wasn't always perfect or beautiful, that's art. That counts for a for a lot.

Flagpole wrote:

The 80s before Nirvana was filled with synthesizers and except for a few bands (Van Halen, Mötley Crüe, etc.), use of driving LOUD electric guitars was mostly absent. Human League, Prince (Purple Rain Prince), Tears for Fears, Simply Red dominated the radio stations.

They had top 40 and rock stations back then too, so what. Guitar rock has always been a minority on the pop charts.

Anyhow you have forgotten the scourge of the 80's, loud guitar done badly, DEF LEPPARD. Everyone neglects to remember them, but in the late 80's they were everything to MTV.

They recorded the same song 11 times and MTV made each track #1 over a span of about two years. All the countdown shows put either Hysteria or PSSOM #1. They were the theme band of the late 1980's. When the 90's rolled around, MTV started casting around for a new theme, ultimately the one that sold was two second-rate garage bands from Seattle.

Let's not forget that Cobain considered his band a cheap knock off of the pixies. It was part of his depression ... He couldn't match their genius. The pixies were making their music in the 80s when the airwaves were full of synthesizers and crap...they were light years ahead of their time.

watch this video and skip to like 31 - 32 minutes

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQmb70n5Cp0

'nirvana' is from hindustan. nirvana denotes the continuous cycle of birth, life, reincarnation. the concept of nivana is very much ingrained in east asian tradition, culture, society, and philosophy.

The difference is Nirvana was pop and Alice in Chains is rock. They both had great songs, but Nirvana was more approachable because it was simple and poppy.

Did I miss something? How is this thread three pages long with no mention of Hüsker Dü/Sugar/Bob Mould? Bob Mould is still going strong in his fifties.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsDOuq_ktns

From Wikipedia:

Hüsker Dü is widely regarded as one of the key bands to emerge from the 1980s American indie scene. Music writer Michael Azerrad asserted in his book Our Band Could Be Your Life (2001) that Hüsker Dü was the key link between hardcore punk and the more melodic, diverse music of college rock that emerged. Azerrad wrote, "Hüsker Dü played a huge role in convincing the underground that melody and punk rock weren't antithetical." The band also set an example by being one of the first bands from the American indie scene to sign to a major record label, which helped establish college rock as "a viable commercial enterprise." Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic has been quoted as saying Nirvana's musical style was "nothing new; Hüsker Dü did it before us."

overly complex music sometimes is there to hide talent. you cant hide behind simple. either you can connect with your audience or you cant. over the history of art, the greatest works are most often the easiest to replicate.

Hopkinton wrote:

PTO wrote:

You obviously haven't ever seen Zeppelin perform.

I saw Zep live and was so underwhelmed I never wanted to see them again. Humble Pie opened that night and was the highlight of the evening. Robert Plant had one of the best rock voices around. But on stage, he wrecked most songs. Dude just never knew when to shut up and let a very talented band play. Jagger suffered from the same problem.

I have no doubt as to your post all bands have bad shows . I went to see Steely Dan about 10 years ago and couldn't believe how bad they were live.

See you in April.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

To those hating on Led Zep and Nirvana, c'mon now.

Led Zep, even if I hardly ever listen to them any more, is obviously one of the greatest bands ever, if not THE greatest. No one can deny this.

I can. Watch the awesome pwnage.

Clam Evans wrote:

agip wrote:

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.

The difference is Nirvana was pop and Alice in Chains is rock. They both had great songs, but Nirvana was more approachable because it was simple and poppy.

I'll challenge that too - I'd say Nirvana was rock and Alice in Chains was (very close to) metal. Metal is a no go zone for many people like myself who grew up with classic rock and 80s rock - I can't listen to metal -I really hate it.

Songwriting isn't primary in metal - more on sound and tone and musicianship.

Nirvana wrote actual memorable songs with melody and riffs and hooks. Maybe that's what you mean by 'pop' but I consider that a minimum requirement for a song to have.

I am often running along and 'all apologies' comes into my head or 'lithium' - no Alice in Chains song is going to do that.

It's not about Nirvana being 'simple' - if it were, then there would be something 'complex' about metal - something I've never seen or heard. Metal bands just don't seem to care as much about the craft of memorable songwriting. They see hooks as lame.

agip wrote:

It's not about Nirvana being 'simple' - if it were, then there would be something 'complex' about metal - something I've never seen or heard. Metal bands just don't seem to care as much about the craft of memorable songwriting. They see hooks as lame.

a lot of metal is complex. most of the music is classical in nature. megadeth being a prime example. most complex music is not catchy. but metal is not something that sticks in you head most of the time. As for Alice in Chains, check out jar of flies.

Without Nirvana there is no radio play nor mtv play for any rock band in the 90s.

Cobain had "it" more than any other front man of that era. The music and lyrics were good and Grohl was/is a true musician.

Of course there were better musicians and songwriters in the era...but it was their "it" factor that anointed them THE grunge band and lumped so many bands in that grunge label even if they weren't grunge. It also put the final nail in the coffin of KISS inspired hair metal/cck rock.

Personally I'm a fan of all 80s and 90s rock from early Metallica/Megadeth to Poison to Nirvana/Green Day/Smashing Pumpkins. I also like lesser known bands of the era: Sonic Youth, Black Flag, Ramones then really obscure: June of '44, Sebadoh, Metroschifter, King Kong, Fugazi....basically if it has a guitar and drums I'm game.

Alan