Teens react to Nirvana (the band).

I still haven't heard anybody willing to go out on a limb and name any bands whose heyday was later than about 1975 and who were better than Nirvana. Like I said, it's easy to claim so and so sucks, but sucks compared to whom?

Well, somebody did mention AC/DC and Aerosmith. AC/DC I agree you can make an argument for. Aerosmith had a good early period, but just way too much pop crap afterwards to take them seriously.

I would add 2 post-1975 groups in the same league as Nirvana: the Clash and Cheap Trick.

But I'll stand by Nirvana as the best band overall since the golden era of classic rock. They had the best album in that time period in Nevermind, and the best song in "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I realize those picks are so mainstream as to be boring, but to me that's like saying it's boring and mainstream to say "Jimi Hendrix is the best rock guitarist ever". It's a mainstream opinion that happens to be true. Even Kelly Rowland of Destiny's Child labels "Smells Like Teen Spirit" as her all-time favorite song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx37TEWWZp0

When Bon Jovi was king wrote:

I still haven't heard anybody willing to go out on a limb and name any bands whose heyday was later than about 1975 and who were better than Nirvana. Like I said, it's easy to claim so and so sucks, but sucks compared to whom?

Here's a few. All at least equal to Nirvana.

The Smiths

Echo & The Bunnymen

The Clash

Beastie Boys

Radiohead

Devotchka (I know it's a cover, but still...)

Libertines

The Cult

Jane's Addiction

Stone Roses

Yeah Yeah Yeahs

Arcade Fire

and many more...

better than nirvana or at least in the same ballpark since 1975?

U2

Guns n Roses

Queen

Eagles

Springsteen if we are counting solo artists

Clash

Rush

AC DC

Journey

Van Halen

Police

I could go on. We can argue about what is art vs what is commerce, but each of these were arguably as important and great as nirvana.

Or drop a couple, then the others are.

Flagpole,

I agree that Prince and Elton John are geniuses, but I can't get behind your Dave Grohl nomination. Although I will agree that the whole of his contribution to the music world is noteworthy (multi-instrumentalist, singer, songwriter, etc). I just don't think he does any one thing well enough to call him a genius.

To me he's a rock solid drummer and guitar player, pretty good rock vocalist, and he can write catchy (if not derivative) pop songs. So, to me he qualifies as "really good", but falls short of genius.

I personally prefer Nirvana to Foo Fighters. The music was more unique and Kurt's voice and lyrics were oozing with raw, honest emotion. The only thing "better" about Foo Fighters music is that it's a little more technically complex, which doesn't matter a whole lot to me.

Kurt Cobain = Steve Prefontaine

Well, this is where debating the "greatness" of a band kind of breaks down into pointlessness. Some of the bands you named are really, really, good, and some are just bands you happen to like. I mean, you're really going to say that Devotchka, the Stone Roses, the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, etc are the equals of Nirvana? Granted this is all just opinion, but you can just about say you are wrong on most of those bands. I bet if you asked the Yeah Yeah Yeahs themselves how they thought they stacked up against Nirvana, they'd think it was a silly joke.

Lots of musicians can play their instruments better than Nirvana could, and lots of crappy bands can have massive commercials success (Huey Lewis anyone? Creed? Hootie and the Blowfish?). Lots of bands can be fantastically creative, but for whatever reasons (possibly unfair) they never catch on with a large audience. As far as overall impact, creativity, influence, emotional resonance, catchiness, and just generally being rad, Nirvana rules.

I don't think Nirvana was the greatest band since 1975...but I do think they were the last great rock band.

We can argue about the definition of rock, but if you go with the 'I know it when I hear it' definition...There hasn't, to my knowledge, been a great new rock band since Nirvana ended.

maybe pearl jam? Maybe the Killers? Maybe I would accept those two as great bands.

...and yes, I am insisting that a 'great band' must have some serious popularity. No obscure bands fit in what I am describing.

[quote]agip wrote:

I don't think Nirvana was the greatest band since 1975...but I do think they were the last great rock band.

Not trying to be a jerk, but as a genuine question, who do you think is the greatest band since 1975? The reason I keep harping on that is that, like I said, it's easy to say someone is not the best, or not good, or not this or that, but it automatically raises the question, well, what is?

I would agree with your "last great band" assessment, in the sense of a band where they generate interest beyond just their music (especially Kurt). Pearl Jam, for instance, are pretty cool in my eyes, and they've shown impressive longevity, gained the respect of their peers, etc. Frontman Eddie Vedder is a likeable guy. But there just isn't this frantic need to know all about their lives, their every move and thought, like there was with Kurt and Nirvana. Not that that is necessarily a good or bad thing - just the way it is.

agip wrote:

better than nirvana or at least in the same ballpark since 1975?

U2

Guns n Roses

Queen

Eagles

Springsteen if we are counting solo artists

Clash

Rush

AC DC

Journey

Van Halen

Police

I could go on. We can argue about what is art vs what is commerce, but each of these were arguably as important and great as nirvana.

Or drop a couple, then the others are.

Other than U2, The Police, The Clash and ACDC, these other bands are unworthy of even opening for Nirvana (Well Queen for the flamboyance, I guess). Bands such as Talking Heads, Sex Pistols, Echo/Bunnymen, The Cult, Stone Roses and The The were of similar strata of quality, but were either not mainstream successes or not fully committed to the rock genre. Nirvana was the last and best of the artists that accomplished both criteria.

what a stupid idea, teens react to nirvana. who cares? annoying. boring. meanwhile, i prefer chicago and alice 'n chains. much better songwriting and singing

agip wrote:

I don't think Nirvana was the greatest band since 1975...but I do think they were the last great rock band.

We can argue about the definition of rock, but if you go with the 'I know it when I hear it' definition...There hasn't, to my knowledge, been a great new rock band since Nirvana ended.

maybe pearl jam? Maybe the Killers? Maybe I would accept those two as great bands.

How about Queens of The Stone Age? That would be my top nomination.

I might also throw The White Stripes in the mix, although I think some of Jack White's post-White Stripes work is better.

I like both of these bands, but neither of them really fit the definition of "band" very well. With the White Stripes, it's hard to call 2 people a great rock 'n' roll band. And QOTSA is basically Josh Homme and whatever buddies he's hanging around with at that time - no real sense of them as a united force taking on the world. Some fantastic songs from those 2, but there are always plenty of people making great songs, and yet not living up to "last great rock band" status.

I think what the poster agip is looking for is a band with a mythology surrounding them. Nobody is really saying Nirvana were a great band in a technical sense, or that they totally invented their genre, but they were definitely mythic. Sort of like the ultimate "great rock band" - the Rolling Stones - who borrowed heavily from others, from blues artists to the Beatles, and were good but not fantastic as far as pure musical skills go, but like Nirvana, they had some really good, catchy songs, they did contribute new ideas and perfect their genre, and they achieved mythical status.

agip wrote:

better than nirvana or at least in the same ballpark since 1975?

U2

Guns n Roses

Queen

Eagles

Springsteen if we are counting solo artists

Clash

Rush

AC DC

Journey

Van Halen

Police

I could go on. We can argue about what is art vs what is commerce, but each of these were arguably as important and great as nirvana.

Or drop a couple, then the others are.

I would agree with you that all of those bands produced better music than Nirvana (but I do love 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' I will admit).

I would say that each of those bands were certainly important in their own way, but with Nirvana leading the grunge movement, they were perhaps a bit more of a trailblazer than most of those bands. Queen was insane and perhaps the best band of all time, so I can't put Nirvana ahead of them in pretty much any category though.

i kinda like running wrote:

Flagpole,

I agree that Prince and Elton John are geniuses, but I can't get behind your Dave Grohl nomination. Although I will agree that the whole of his contribution to the music world is noteworthy (multi-instrumentalist, singer, songwriter, etc). I just don't think he does any one thing well enough to call him a genius.

To me he's a rock solid drummer and guitar player, pretty good rock vocalist, and he can write catchy (if not derivative) pop songs. So, to me he qualifies as "really good", but falls short of genius.

I personally prefer Nirvana to Foo Fighters. The music was more unique and Kurt's voice and lyrics were oozing with raw, honest emotion. The only thing "better" about Foo Fighters music is that it's a little more technically complex, which doesn't matter a whole lot to me.

Technically complex music is ONE of the things that makes Dave Grohl a genius. Contrary to Top Noticer's assertion that Foo Fighters plays a bunch of 3-chord power pop stuff, that's just not true. MOST of their songs have 4 or more chords (many of them MANY more), and musically, Dave Grohl writes very much like Elton John does. The songs don't sound similar because Grohl's stuff has a serious rock edge and Elton John is a piano player, but they both RARELY stick to major chords (lots of minor chords, 7th add9, etc.), and they both use the 1 over the 3 in the bass a LOT which is a very cool thing that more songwriters should do.

i kinda like running wrote:

agip wrote:

I don't think Nirvana was the greatest band since 1975...but I do think they were the last great rock band.

We can argue about the definition of rock, but if you go with the 'I know it when I hear it' definition...There hasn't, to my knowledge, been a great new rock band since Nirvana ended.

maybe pearl jam? Maybe the Killers? Maybe I would accept those two as great bands.

How about Queens of The Stone Age? That would be my top nomination.

I might also throw The White Stripes in the mix, although I think some of Jack White's post-White Stripes work is better.

lord save me from the obscurants

QOTSA never had a hit. Never. You can't be a great rock band without a hit. So no.

White Stripes at least has maybe two hits, but come on. They aren't in the same league as any of the bands I listed. The question is not what is your favorite band.

This thread has gotten embarrassing. I love Nirvana and have since I was about twelve years old, but some of you guys might be making me rethink that.

I think Pearl Jam is a good comparison to Nirvana.

I like both.

They are the same genre and came out the same time.

Eddie Vedder has a much better voice and is a star.

The musicianship is better.

They have very good songs lyrically and melodically.

They rocked hard at concerts.

Jeremy was a better song and video than Teen Spirit.

But something about Nirvana clicked.

Something intangible.

I'm listening to this Nirvana concert from 1992 - pretty amazing music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJGl0FQK9Ew

I had forgotten the irony this band represented - everything cobain said in patter and wore was ironic and sarcastic and anti rock hero.

I suppose a rebellion against the 'serious' rock of the 80s like u2 and Journey and what have you.

but the music is deadly serious