Nirvana

dimejinky99

They were/are the biggest, they are most definitely not the best. Nor would they have been had they hung around I dont think. Green day come to mind..endlessly repeating themselves. Nirvana would have done this or become a weird sonic youth wanna be noise band.

siltirocker

dimejinky99 wrote: »

They were/are the biggest, they are most definitely not the best. Nor would they have been had they hung around I dont think. Green day come to mind..endlessly repeating themselves. Nirvana would have done this or become a weird sonic youth wanna be noise band.

No they weren't dude. Pearl Jam have out sold them since '93.

dimejinky99

Perhaps, my point was biggest rarely equates better. It does in this instance but johnny 17 year old Nirvana fan nowadays thinks they were best and its not the case.

I'd just love everyone to see Pearl jam play just one time..thatd change their outlook on a lotta things musically.

qwertplaywert

dimejinky99 wrote: »

Green day come to mind..endlessly repeating themselves.

I'd hardly say thats far. While Green Days material has gone very far downhill from the Dookie days, they have clearly changed their sound.

triv88

siltirocker wrote: »

Nevermind was released in 1991.


I do love Nirvana, i really do. But if you took Nevermind out of the occasion, Nirvana is nothing .

Wow,You never heard of "In Utero",the follow up to "nevermind" .... "all apologies" "dumb" "very ape" "heartshaped box".....That was Nirvanas attempt at making an anti commericial album to negate the "commericial success" of "nevermind" which they never wanted,to give the fingers up to people who got swept up in the media scrum of "nirvana will never make a popular record again" or "if you took Nevermind out of the occasion, Nirvana is nothing" type sweeping statements

If you listen to "in Utero" or read reviews for this album your opinion may differ

anti-venom

Iolar wrote: »

The greatest Grunge band ever?discuss

Nah! Why would you want to pigeonhole Nirvana with such a restrictive and limiting bull**** term like 'Grunge'? They were one of the best ROCK bands of all time imo. Cobain had no equals in that scene; too talented for that.

nyarlothothep

yes, but only because I prefer them to all other grunge bands

siltirocker

triv88 wrote: »

Wow,You never heard of "In Utero",the follow up to "nevermind" .... "all apologies" "dumb" "very ape" "heartshaped box".....That was Nirvanas attempt at making an anti commericial album to negate the "commericial success" of "nevermind" which they never wanted,to give the fingers up to people who got swept up in the media scrum of "nirvana will never make a popular record again" or "if you took Nevermind out of the occasion, Nirvana is nothing" type sweeping statements

If you listen to "in Utero" or read reviews for this album your opinion may differ

Read reviews? Dude the only review you should read is the one's in the back of your head. Not that that's neither here nor there.

In Utero is a great album it really is, but it is not a patch on what the other major grunge band were releasing n '93/'94. Pearl Jam's Vs. , Soundgarden's Superunknown, Alice In Chains' Dirt.

As regards the statment in bold. Im going to have to staight-up disagree with you there. Just cause Cobain said it doesn't mean it was true, even Grohl has spoken negatively about Cobain on that subject. Single after single, Music video after music video, extended MTV unplugged set, first grunge band with a major label, first grunge band with a VHS release.:o You wouldn't find Pearl Jam or Mudhoney doing any of that stuff. First with a merchandise mailing list, last with an independent owned fan-club/mail-list.

Catari Jaguar

triv88 wrote: »

Wow,You never heard of "In Utero",the follow up to "nevermind" .... "all apologies" "dumb" "very ape" "heartshaped box".....That was Nirvanas attempt at making an anti commericial album to negate the "commericial success" of "nevermind" which they never wanted,to give the fingers up to people who got swept up in the media scrum of "nirvana will never make a popular record again" or "if you took Nevermind out of the occasion, Nirvana is nothing" type sweeping statements

If you listen to "in Utero" or read reviews for this album your opinion may differ

Couldn't agree more. Came on to post that In Utero is way better than Nevermind. Kids today eh?.. Broaden yizzer musical horizons!


Sad too that the band are best known for "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Kurt made that as the "ultimate pop song". It definitely was but became so popular it screwed up their credibility in the long run.

Catari Jaguar

siltirocker wrote: »

Just cause Cobain said it doesn't mean it was true, even Grohl has spoken negatively about Cobain on that subject. Single after single, Music video after music video, extended MTV unplugged set, first grunge band with a major label, first grunge band with a VHS release.:o You wouldn't find Pearl Jam or Mudhoney doing any of that stuff. First with a merchandise mailing list, last with an independent owned fan-club/mail-list.

Yes, they're commercial. That's been said all through the thread. If they didn't release such a poppy record like Nevermind then they wouldn't have been so crazy popular and "in" and the demand wouldn't have been there for all that. In 1993/1994 Kurt was so off his tits and OD'ing every 5 seconds that I doubt he had much input into anything...

Unplugged, imo, is amazing (one of the best albums ever) and fair fcuks to them for making it. Proves their worth as a band.

I wish people on this forum would stop equalling musical greatness to popularity, tickets sold, t-shirts sold, albums sold, mosts threads written about them etc.

Yes, Nirvana are a great grunge band, as are AIC, Pearl Jam and others listed here. Good songs, bad songs, mistakes, sell out tendencies blah blah. It's all opinion and taste in the end.

Would Nirvana be so successful today if Kurt Cobain hadn't died suddenly at the peak of his career? Maybe that's the question to "discuss"...

Johnny Giles

Nothing to discuss. I feel Nirvana only helped inflict further damage on young people.

7 Year Bitch were better.

o1s1n

Johnny Giles wrote: »

Nothing to discuss. I feel Nirvana only helped inflict further damage on young people.

7 Year Bitch were better.

What kind of damage? The 'OMFG THINK OF THE CHILDERS!!! THIS SAYTANIC MUSIX CORRUPTS DER MINDS!!!'

OR

young impressionable youths listening to crap music and forming misguided opinions?

Johnny Giles

The kid shot himself in the face?

Bob the Seducer

endasmail wrote: »

can ya explain that statement?
seen as CORE was released in 1992 i think and NEVERMIND was released 1993
how do ya reckon they were a rip?

I think you're getting your Nirvana albums mixed up, In Utero came out in 93, Nevermind was 91 (and as a slight aside, Nirvana's first album, Bleach came out in 1989)
I've nothing bad to say about STP, I like some of their stuff too, I definitely wouldn't include them with the likes of Bush, Creed, Nickelback...

Catari Jaguar

Johnny Giles wrote: »

The kid shot himself in the face?

Possibly... How he managed to lift never mind aim a shotgun with that amount of opiates in his system I'll never know.

He was a depressed and troubled man. If anything he serves as a poster boy to encourage young kids to get help with depression/ suicidal thoughts/ drug abuse.

symbolic

Grunge... love it!

Just my two cents...

It doesn't bother me that the average guy on the street thinks Grunge = Nirvana.. but it always baffles me when people who have the chance to listen to the likes of Alice In Chains' Dirt and their MTV Unplugged offering that they would still rate Nirvana so highly. But i guess that's what makes the world go round!

But anyway, I beg you, immerse yourself in Alice In Chains, if you haven't already tried! (but then that's probably me just thinking I know best)

Maybe we should just change this into a recommend a Grunge band thread, it may be more productive.

Green River...anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB8l3-mGeSg

siltirocker

symbolic wrote: »

Grunge... love it!

Just my two cents...

It doesn't bother me that the average guy on the street thinks Grunge = Nirvana.. but it always baffles me when people who have the chance to listen to the likes of Alice In Chains' Dirt and their MTV Unplugged offering that they would still rate Nirvana so highly. But i guess that's what makes the world go round!

But anyway, I beg you, immerse yourself in Alice In Chains, if you haven't already tried! (but then that's probably me just thinking I know best)

Maybe we should just change this into a recommend a Grunge band thread, it may be more productive.

Green River...anyone?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kB8l3-mGeSg

The originals!!! The King Stone Gossard, the punk Mark Arm, the MAN Stevie Turner, the groover Jeff Ament and, , ,eh, , , the other two.

siltirocker

Lil Kitten wrote: »

Yes, they're commercial. That's been said all through the thread. If they didn't release such a poppy record like Nevermind then they wouldn't have been so crazy popular and "in" and the demand wouldn't have been there for all that. In 1993/1994 Kurt was so off his tits and OD'ing every 5 seconds that I doubt he had much input into anything...

Unplugged, imo, is amazing (one of the best albums ever) and fair fcuks to them for making it. Proves their worth as a band.

I wish people on this forum would stop equalling musical greatness to popularity, tickets sold, t-shirts sold, albums sold, mosts threads written about them etc.

Yes, Nirvana are a great grunge band, as are AIC, Pearl Jam and others listed here. Good songs, bad songs, mistakes, sell out tendencies blah blah. It's all opinion and taste in the end.

Would Nirvana be so successful today if Kurt Cobain hadn't died suddenly at the peak of his career? Maybe that's the question to "discuss"...

Dude, i've haven't ragged on the quality of the stuff. Just the previous poster's 'Nirvana anti-commercial' stance.

As regards the statment in bold i doubt it. They weren't selling out venues anymore, Cobain was in bits, etc. Michael Stipe, Grohl and Smear all have said they assumed Nirvana was done after the next tour. Nirvana have sold more since Cobain died too.I don't reckon they would have, i think they would of went a bit how Alice In Chains went in the mid/late 90's IMO.

stateofflux

i don't think you can say that any one band was 'the best' grunge band....grunge was a record industry label to market and categorize early 90's alternative music....to increase cd sales...

a lot of of the bigger bands were coming from completely different influences....you can't compare nirvana and pearl jam.....one comes from late 70's punk and early u.s. hardcore the other comes from more classic hard rock rock and blues artists like SRV, doors, hendrix ....etc...i think all the top bands had amazing stuff....nirvana, alice in chains, sound garden, pearl jam etc

i agree with the comments on stone temple pilots ...their first album was very derivative.....but their second album purple really showed something individual and frankly kicks ass.....

Grunge was an amazing time for music......something like that probably won't come around again...i hope it does tho....cos their ain't no scene today.....everyone wants to copy rather than create......

Patricide

Nirvana were a fantastic band. A lot of people will disregard them for many reasons. Such as Kurt's suicide, claiming its the only thing there remembered for other than teen spirit. Another reason there disregarded is that a lot of people would have listened to them when getting into music and are therefore at this stage sick to the teeth of them and moved on from them.

Although I think there a great band, I certainly wouldn't call them the best grunge band. For one thing there will never be a definitive best but for another I see Nirvana as more of a heavy dirty pop band than anything else. When you actually go through there songs there very accessible, memorable and they have a LOAD of hooks. I dunno about anyone else but to me when you take away the distortion there defiantly not your traditional grunge or even rock band.

dimejinky99

Nirvana were ultimately a Beatles/Pixies cover band. There's a huge pop sensibility there. But that's ok, Pearl jam were basically a Who/Zeppelin covers band. It's all the same in the end, we all borrow from those who have gone before.

r.h.c.podge

One opf the bast bands in mainstream music but not in grunge 3 best bands in grunge: the melvins, dead kennedys, the germs

Motley Crue

I've already spoken on this website about my feelings for Kurt Cobain so best to leave that lie, as for Nirvana and their output musically as a trio (or indeed later on as a four or five piece) and their members I'm afraid they're a band that has never really made me feel anything other than disinterest.

icanplaydrums

At the end of the day, whether or not they are the best grunge band ever is debatable to say the least. But I listen to a lot of different bands and genres and Nirvana is one of the few bands I could listen to all day. Especially their early stuff (Bleach, some of the stuff on Incesticide) They have very few bad songs IMO. Nevermind might be smashed for being very mainstream and it's not my favorite album but still every song on that is killer and there's no filler whatsoever.

Malice

r.h.c.podge: Please don't bump old threads. This one is nearly two years old. If you want to discuss Nirvana do so in a new thread (although I imagine the same arguments will be put forth by mostly the same posters).