[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by elrod-tom They're OK....I like the Pixies (who inspired Nirvana)

I agree. Surfer Rosa and Doolittle are incredible albums which for some reason get little attention in the "history of rock" press.

 

[redshifter]

nirvana was a good band, but i pretty much stopped listening after cobain's suicide. hearing his voice just made me sad. nowadays if i want some noise-rock i'll listen to pavement or sonic youth.

 

[Madcat05]

Ah The Pixies. I love to listen to the Pixies. I've mean meaning to actually buy some of their albums, all I've got is Audience recordings of their reunion tour. Still good though.

 

[viator122]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rextrade Nirvana was more of a cultural phenomenon than a musical one. Nirvana brought the whole "alternative" thing to the front of youth culture. Music-wise though, they could have never existed and pop/althernative music would be in the same place it is today--the same can't be said of the Beatles, or Led Zeppelin, if they didn't exist, music would be very differnet today. And I think that Pearl Jam, the Red Hot Chili Peppers or NWA had more of an influence on the way bands sound today than Nirvana. That's not to say Nirvana isn't a very good band.

I disagree. Think about the way music that most young people listened to sounded like in 1989 or 1990 before Nirvana "broke". Suddenly everything changed. Poison, Ratt and Motely Crue were all out of jobs within a very short period of time and top 40 "alternative rock" is still trying to recapture the energy and angst that Nirvana and other acts like Soundgarden and Pearl Jam brought to the forefront of American pop culture. I do not think that popular rock music would sound the same today if Nirvana had not existed. I believe things would have taken a very different course. Who knows if that is a good thing or a bad thing. I think most bands trying to call themselves rock bands today are bad photocopies of bad photocopies of Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. To argue about whether Pearl Jam or Nirvana had more influence is an exercise in futility. How can we say? What we can say is that the existence of these poor xerox bands is a testament to the influence of the grunge movement and Nirvana in particular (and the creative bankruptcy of the major label recording industry).

 

[EyeAmEye]

Nirvana is one of the classic examples of how easy it is for a record company to sell a talentless group to a mass audience. Kurt Cobain was one of the worst singers I've ever heard, and he could barely play the guitar. Dave Grohl is a talented guy, but nobody ever followed a band because of it's drummer. Cobain was the drawing point, and the record company and MTV sold the band to death.

 

[br--]

Nirvana was overhyped trash. The only reason why people are gushing over the band today is simply nostalgia.

 

[eyeteeth]

Quote:

Originally Posted by viator122 Think about the way music that most young people listened to sounded like in 1989 or 1990 before Nirvana "broke". Suddenly everything changed. Poison, Ratt and Motely Crue were all out of jobs within a very short period of time and top 40 "alternative rock" is still trying to recapture the energy and angst that Nirvana and other acts like Soundgarden and Pearl Jam brought to the forefront of American pop culture.

So true.
Overnight bands like Guns 'n Roses sounded idiotic, irrelevant, old fashioned and just plain embarrassing. Lousy hair metal was swept aside.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Nirvana is one of the classic examples of how easy it is for a record company to sell a talentless group to a mass audience.

You're completely wrong. The record company (DGC) shoving the band down people's throats only bothered to make 50,000 copies of the first album upon launch ( a paltry amount), they had little confidence in the band. The buzz about the band had been building for weeks, all copies sold out the first day. You couldn't even buy Nevermind for a period of a month and a half, it took them forever to get more copies in the shops. I worked in a record store during this time, I know. We had to turn away customer after customer, because we didn't have it.

Nevermind broke spontaneously, they were chosen by the people, not forced down their throats by the record company. For it's time, seeing the Smells Like video on MTV was like seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. The record companies were NOT ready for the switch to the Seattle sound, they ran out willy-nilly signing everyone and anyone, some absurd bands got major label deals that would never have been signed during normal times. It was way beyond their control.

 

[rextrade]

Quote:

Originally Posted by viator122 I disagree. Think about the way music that most young people listened to sounded like in 1989 or 1990 before Nirvana "broke". Suddenly everything changed. Poison, Ratt and Motely Crue were all out of jobs within a very short period of time and top 40 "alternative rock" is still trying to recapture the energy and angst that Nirvana and other acts like Soundgarden and Pearl Jam brought to the forefront of American pop culture.

I see what you're saying, but the reason I think that Nirvana was more cultural than musical is that you could have substituted dozens of bands for Nirvana and the same would have happened--Sonic Youth, the Pixies, Mudhoney etc. etc. Now, those other bands I mentioned didn't have the same strange marketability as Nirvana, which is why I think Nirvana was more cultural. To put it another way, Nirvana was the just the face of a whole new wave of pop music, but the lasting musical influence isn't so much with Nirvana as it is with, say Pearl Jam, whom I'm not a huge fan of, but I hear them in just about every alleged alternative radio band.

Take, say, Led Zeppelin as a contrast. People were playing white-boy blues rock long before Led Zeppelin hit, but Zeppelin's songwriting ability, Plant's howling blues imitations and Paige's fuzzed-out blues licks shaped the sound of 70s arena rock--every howling singer and distorted blues lick of the overblown 70s can be traced to Zeppelin (OK, maybe a little bit of an overstatement)˜. I can't imagine any other band existing at the time that could have had that effect if Led Zeppelin didn't win the rock start lottery.

 

[EyeAmEye]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl You're completely wrong. The record company (DGC) shoving the band down people's throats only bothered to make 50,000 copies of the first album upon launch ( a paltry amount), they had little confidence in the band. The buzz about the band had been building for weeks, all copies sold out the first day. You couldn't even buy Nevermind for a period of a month and a half, it took them forever to get more copies in the shops. I worked in a record store during this time, I know. We had to turn away customer after customer, because we didn't have it. Nevermind broke spontaneously, they were chosen by the people, not forced down their throats by the record company. For it's time, seeing the Smells Like video on MTV was like seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan. The record companies were NOT ready for the switch to the Seattle sound, they ran out willy-nilly signing everyone and anyone, some absurd bands got major label deals that would never have been signed during normal times. It was way beyond their control.

I worked in a record store as well (The Wiz). We were required to play Nevermind, and then In Utero several times a day. The albums were displayed very prominently, even several months after release. Seems since their first album didn't do too well, DGC was motivated, along with the awful MTV, to make sure everyone and his grandmother knew about Nirvana, and Smells Like Teen Spirit. It worked, and those who feel the need to be part of pop culture swallowed it, hook, line and sinker.
Besides, sales do not equal talent (look at rap music). So, my statement about Kurt Cobain stands. Nirvana is used by beginner guitarists to learn the simplistic junk Nirvana called music. Even the most unskilled musician can easily play any of Nirvana's songs. Even then, Kurt Cobain screwed up many times, showing just how pitifully bad a musician he was. He couldn't carry a note worth a damn, either.

 

[GuineaMcPig]

I'm not a huge fan of Nevermind, but I am a fan of a couple bands who were ushered into popularity by the album.

Beck's "Loser" and Radiohead's "Creep" were absolutely eaten up by US audiences and because of the success of these 2 songs, these musicians were able to begin a long career of making unique (but never quite as popular as the singles that they broke out with) music.

If Nevermind had never been recorded, record companies would have overlooked Mellow Gold and US fans would have turned a deaf ear to Pablo Honey. And if that happened, we would have no Odelay or OK Computer/Kid A. So thank you, Nirvana.

 

[eastsidemetalhd]

... did they ever release Unplugged in NY as a video or DVD? taped it off tv back in the day but that video tape is long gone to mould now.

 

[markl]

Quote:

Nirvana is used by beginner guitarists to learn the simplistic junk Nirvana called music. Even the most unskilled musician can easily play any of Nirvana's songs. Even then, Kurt Cobain screwed up many times, showing just how pitifully bad a musician he was. He couldn't carry a note worth a damn, either.

To me, this is not a valid argument. Seems to me if you are into musicianship, you are best served by classical and jazz, not rock. "Hey that guitar solo only had 10 notes, it's not *art* unless there's at least 30". "Hey that song only has 3 chords, it's not *art* unless there's at least five". It's like arguing the best poet is the guy who uses the most words or who has the best vocabulary, never mind his poems are inane, boring and pointless. It's like saying the best painter is the guy who can make it look exactly like a photograph, because it "proves" he's technically proficient. To me, rock is Outsider Art or Folk Art, not Fine Art. It's the most simplistic form of music there is, accesible to anyone.

Rock 'n roll is all about intangibles that can't be taught like feeling, attitude, and most importantly, *soul*; not skill/technical proficiency. For example, Christina Aguilera sure can sing but she uses her voice to over-emote, caterwaul, and demonstrate her histrionic "chops" at every turn and in the the end communicates absolutely *nothing*; she doesn't have a drop of *soul*. A lot of the best rock is so good precisely because it's a little rough around the edges. Should all rock musicians go through Julliard, be classically trained in formal "rock technique"? Isn't that absurd? What would that do to the art form? It would wreck it of course because that's just not what it's all about, who it's for, and who it's created by.

Would I argue that great players can't be great rock musicians? Hell no, that's like trying to argue against Jimi Hendrix. But I would argue that just because you *aren't* Jimi Hendrix, doesn't mean you can't make great rock 'n roll.

Enough said. Cheers.

 

[Jasper994]

Quote:

Originally Posted by markl To me, this is not a valid argument. Seems to me if you are into musicianship, you are best served by classical and jazz, not rock. "Hey that guitar solo only had 10 notes, it's not *art* unless there's at least 30". "Hey that song only has 3 chords, it's not *art* unless there's at least five". It's like arguing the best poet is the guy who uses the most words or who has the best vocabulary, never mind his poems are inane, boring and pointless. It's like saying the best painter is the guy who can make it look exactly like a photograph, because it "proves" he's technically proficient. To me, rock is Outsider At or Folk Art, not Fine Art. It's the most simplistic form of music there is, accesible to anyone. Rock 'n roll is all about intangibles that can't be taught like feeling, attitude, and most importantly, *soul*; not skill/technical proficiency. For example, Christina Aguilera sure can sing but she uses her voice to over-emote, caterwaul, and demonstrate her histrionic "chops" at every turn and in the the end communicates absolutely *nothing*; she doesn't have a drop of *soul*. A lot of the best rock is so good precisely because it's a little rough around the edges. Should all rock musicians go through Julliard, be classically trained in formal "rock technique"? Isn't that absurd? What would that do to the art form? It would wreck it of course because that's just not what it's all about, who it's for, and who it's created by. Would I argue that great players can't be great rock musicians? Hell no, that's like trying to argue against Jimi Hendrix. But I would argue that just because you *aren't* Jimi Hendrix, doesn't mean you can't make great rock 'n roll. Enough said. Cheers.

Bravo good Sir...

 

[Masonjar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Absorbine_Sr My Generation >>> Anarchy In The UK >>>> Smells Like Teen Spirit When music needs a good kick in the balls, it gets it. The question is, who's next? (no pun intended)

we're about due.

I don't think there's really been anything close since "Teen Spirit" (as far as kick-in-the-balls value)..

The problem is, there isn't anything bubbling in the underground that could make that kind of impact. But, on the other hand, whodda thunk the band that recorded BLEACH would change the face of rock.

Radiohead have certainly done some amazing things, but they haven't had a "Teen Spirit" either.

Most of the new bands take themselves too seriously. Or they're too safe or too marketed. Unless some band is lurking in a dark corner somewhere, I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

-jar