bluefox4000 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 I agree with the above statements. i'm just gonna add. i may not be huge on Nirvana....they all but murdered hair pop/rock on their own. that automatically makes them good with me, lol loath Hair pop/rock cause it wasn't metal. Mick 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I agree with the above statements. i'm just gonna add. i may not be huge on Nirvana....they all but murdered hair pop/rock on their own. that automatically makes them good with me, lol loath Hair pop/rock cause it wasn't metal. Mick Only a lot of it was metal and you hear that when you stop looking at the image lmao 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fridge Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 Alice In Chains, for Dirt alone. This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I agree with the above statements. i'm just gonna add. i may not be huge on Nirvana....they all but murdered hair pop/rock on their own. that automatically makes them good with me, lol loath Hair pop/rock cause it wasn't metal. Mick Only a lot of it was metal and you hear that when you stop looking at the image lmao i guess. metal lite we'll compromise, lol nah it doesn't even deserve that. Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Segue Myles Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) I agree with the above statements. i'm just gonna add. i may not be huge on Nirvana....they all but murdered hair pop/rock on their own. that automatically makes them good with me, lol loath Hair pop/rock cause it wasn't metal. Mick Only a lot of it was metal and you hear that when you stop looking at the image lmao i guess. metal lite we'll compromise, lol nah it doesn't even deserve that. Mick To me much of it is terrific playing with rather trite songwriting. Like Dokken. I love the fun of it all but they were metal musicians writing run of the mill AOR. Edited June 16, 2018 by Segue Myles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemiBeers Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) Nevermind isn't anywhere close to the best album in the combined discographies of these bands. it's great but not anywhere close to the best #rerushedbait :laughing guy: Mick Side 2 is too samey. Side 1 is too overplayed and overrated (seriously, they're pretty much just some catchy pop punk tunes with an edge). If you don't live under a rock, listen to Drain You and Something In The Way, then you don't really need to hear the album in full. And really you could drop Drain You.What's wrong with catchy pop punk tunes with an edge? They've not overstuffed over produced rock songs? Nothing wrong, but not as special as Rolling Stone would have folks believe.The go to Rolling Stone magazine argument is so tiresome. Okay, replace Rolling Stone with the general views of popular cultural critics. Just because the argument is tiresome doesn't make it wrong. My personal problem with Nirvana is simple, but two fold. 1. Musically speaking, they aren't really special. 2. They are frequently and often consistently treated as though 1 is entirely false. I realize Nirvana themselves have nothing to do with 2, but it nevertheless impacts my view towards them. I can enjoy their music when the mood strikes me. They have some great songs, and they have at least as many rather plain songs that tend to read as, albeit enthusiastic, filler to me ears. To me, in the history of pop and rock music, they are par for the course of bands which have achieved long term success, and maybe a little less than average. So when I read of the seemingly vast majority opinion than they are among the greatest bands of all time, or that Nevermind is one of the greatest albums of all time, or (especially) that Cobain was one of the greatest guitarists of all time, these ideas all run wildly contrary to my outlook on popular music. And when I go back to the music to investigate what causes so many people to think these things, I often conclude their cultural impact has outshined their musical quality in the construction of their legacy. They were a big hit that flipped pop culture on its head, to such a degree as had not been seen since Beatlemania, and that grants them greatness to many people whether or not their music was itself great. And I do hold that, had Nirvana only attained as much popularity and success as their Seattle contemporaries, say Soundgarden or Alice In Chains, they would not be so widely considered as one of the all time greats.You have no idea. You can argue with an imagined outcome all you want. What happened is what happened. Personally, I couldn't care less what a critic thinks or album sales or what a fan base thinks. All I know is when Nevermind hit it was electric. Song after song was a gut punch to what was popular at the time. Rock music was re-energized. I thought The Ramones did that first in the 70s, and for some reason they aren't considered on the same level as Nirvana. I'm not a Ramones fan, but they are a way more influential band than Nirvana. Not even close. Ramones had a big influence on punk rock. But Nirvana was much more influential not only for popular rock but on pop culture as a whole. The Ramones influence never went as far and wide as Nirvana's did. Also, when it comes to album sales, Nirvana blows them away. They reached many more people. Who's talked about more these days as well? I'm pretty sure it's Nirvana. Their impact and influence was much greater. f**k! I just defended Nirvana. I think it's time I leave this forum for a while lol.Oh we're talking about 'culture'? :eyeroll: I thought this was about music. If it's about music, Nirvana is shit. Enjoy your culture. I guess culture meant that they started selling shitty looking flannel shirts at the GAP. Edited June 16, 2018 by HemiBeers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HemiBeers Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 I agree with the above statements. i'm just gonna add. i may not be huge on Nirvana....they all but murdered hair pop/rock on their own. that automatically makes them good with me, lol loath Hair pop/rock cause it wasn't metal. MickHmmm, didn't GnR kinda kick hair metal's ass and brought it back to the dirty ally? Nirvana didn't do this single-handedly. There was a growing alt scene in the late 80s. Add to the fact that hair-metal kinda f***ed itself up on it's own. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluefox4000 Posted June 16, 2018 Share Posted June 16, 2018 (edited) I agree with the above statements. i'm just gonna add. i may not be huge on Nirvana....they all but murdered hair pop/rock on their own. that automatically makes them good with me, lol loath Hair pop/rock cause it wasn't metal. MickHmmm, didn't GnR kinda kick hair metal's ass and brought it back to the dirty ally? Nirvana didn't do this single-handedly. There was a growing alt scene in the late 80s. Add to the fact that hair-metal kinda f***ed itself up on it's own. i agree.....but whether we admit or not....nirvana was that killing blow. Mick Edited June 16, 2018 by bluefox4000 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goose Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 Nevermind isn't anywhere close to the best album in the combined discographies of these bands. it's great but not anywhere close to the best #rerushedbait :laughing guy: Mick Side 2 is too samey. Side 1 is too overplayed and overrated (seriously, they're pretty much just some catchy pop punk tunes with an edge). If you don't live under a rock, listen to Drain You and Something In The Way, then you don't really need to hear the album in full. And really you could drop Drain You.What's wrong with catchy pop punk tunes with an edge? They've not overstuffed over produced rock songs? Nothing wrong, but not as special as Rolling Stone would have folks believe.The go to Rolling Stone magazine argument is so tiresome. Okay, replace Rolling Stone with the general views of popular cultural critics. Just because the argument is tiresome doesn't make it wrong. My personal problem with Nirvana is simple, but two fold. 1. Musically speaking, they aren't really special. 2. They are frequently and often consistently treated as though 1 is entirely false. I realize Nirvana themselves have nothing to do with 2, but it nevertheless impacts my view towards them. I can enjoy their music when the mood strikes me. They have some great songs, and they have at least as many rather plain songs that tend to read as, albeit enthusiastic, filler to me ears. To me, in the history of pop and rock music, they are par for the course of bands which have achieved long term success, and maybe a little less than average. So when I read of the seemingly vast majority opinion than they are among the greatest bands of all time, or that Nevermind is one of the greatest albums of all time, or (especially) that Cobain was one of the greatest guitarists of all time, these ideas all run wildly contrary to my outlook on popular music. And when I go back to the music to investigate what causes so many people to think these things, I often conclude their cultural impact has outshined their musical quality in the construction of their legacy. They were a big hit that flipped pop culture on its head, to such a degree as had not been seen since Beatlemania, and that grants them greatness to many people whether or not their music was itself great. And I do hold that, had Nirvana only attained as much popularity and success as their Seattle contemporaries, say Soundgarden or Alice In Chains, they would not be so widely considered as one of the all time greats.You have no idea. You can argue with an imagined outcome all you want. What happened is what happened. Personally, I couldn't care less what a critic thinks or album sales or what a fan base thinks. All I know is when Nevermind hit it was electric. Song after song was a gut punch to what was popular at the time. Rock music was re-energized. I thought The Ramones did that first in the 70s, and for some reason they aren't considered on the same level as Nirvana. I'm not a Ramones fan, but they are a way more influential band than Nirvana. Not even close. Ramones had a big influence on punk rock. But Nirvana was much more influential not only for popular rock but on pop culture as a whole. The Ramones influence never went as far and wide as Nirvana's did. Also, when it comes to album sales, Nirvana blows them away. They reached many more people. Who's talked about more these days as well? I'm pretty sure it's Nirvana. Their impact and influence was much greater. f**k! I just defended Nirvana. I think it's time I leave this forum for a while lol.Oh we're talking about 'culture'? :eyeroll: I thought this was about music. If it's about music, Nirvana is shit. Enjoy your culture. I guess culture meant that they started selling shitty looking flannel shirts at the GAP.Which thankfully pushed out the day-glo and spandex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todem Posted June 18, 2018 Share Posted June 18, 2018 Hair Metal ran it's course, just like "90's Grunge did too". I have a lot more fun listening to the likes of Dokken, Crue, Ratt etc than going back and listening to Pearl Jam and Nirvana. The music is fun. And reminds of a time when life was simpler. 90's rock had some fantastic albums and when the mood fancies me, I do still listen to many of those gems. I think the 80's and then early to mid 90's was an incredible time for rock music. Yin and Yang. The two different era's are fascinating. Let's not forget the alternative rock scene of the 80's too. Some gems in there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now