90's Grunge/Hard Rock Heavyweight Poll

[HemiBeers]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

[HemiBeers]

Soundgarden although I'd listen to any of these on a given day.

 

Check that, Nirvana...one of the most overrated bands ever. There I said it.

 

it was bold.......and i won't TOTALLY disagree.

 

Mick

Even Cobain was quoted that they were trying to rip off The Pixies...who were far more accomplished and interesting to listen to.

Wow I'm surprised that someone didn't take the bait on this and replied "oh yeah! Well Soundgarden is just a Sabbath rip-off!"

 

There I did it for you. And Soundgarden is much more diverse than Sabbath ever was. Cornell vs special ed Ozzy? pfffft not even close.

Edited June 13, 2018 by HemiBeers

[HemiBeers]

Butch Vig was more important to Nirvana's success than the members of the band. Until he produced and cleaned up Nevermind, they were just another dog-shit band.

 

Play some earlier youtube videos of Nirvana pre-Nevermind...just dog-shit. I would have walked out after 10 minutes.

[bluefox4000]

Soundgarden although I'd listen to any of these on a given day.

 

Check that, Nirvana...one of the most overrated bands ever. There I said it.

 

it was bold.......and i won't TOTALLY disagree.

 

Mick

Even Cobain was quoted that they were trying to rip off The Pixies...who were far more accomplished and interesting to listen to.

Wow I'm surprised that someone didn't take the bait on this and replied "oh yeah! Well Soundgarden is just a Sabbath rip-off!"

 

There I did it for you. And Soundgarden is much more diverse than Sabbath ever was. Cornell vs special ed Ozzy? pfffft not even close.

 

and i'll respond in my best impression of TRF.

 

OHHHHHHHHHHH WHY YOU!!!!!!!!! OZ IS TOTALLY BETTER CAUSE.........70'S MUSIC!!!!!!!!

 

ithat's my loving send up to TRF, lol.

 

Mick

[Todem]

Pearl Jam.

 

Ten is the best album of the early nineties and Eddie Vedder is hands down my favourite vocalist of all these bands.

 

It is the only great album they ever made. With Vs the next. All downhill after that. And it went down hill fast for me.

 

I did love them live up till Yield........then their concerts became a chore for me.....I actually walked out on them on the Binaural tour. Standing around for 2-3 minutes between songs discussing what to play next.....like I was at a f***ing band practice.

 

Not my cup of tea at that point.

 

Ten is an amazing album to this day and is still magical. The band hated how produced it sounded......but to this day it is that slicker production that makes it so damn good. The harmonies sounded crisp, the drums were crisp and the guitars were audible. I never liked Brendon O’Brians production with them.

 

They wanted to sound like Neil Young.....it turned me off.

 

Also.....Temple Of The Dog is easily the second best album of the grunge period......hands down a work of art.

 

I love Vitalogy. Resonant songs.

 

I actually love Vitalogy's tunes in the live setting. I do not like them in the studio.

 

I stopped listening to Pearl jam after Binaurel. It was such a huge POS album.....turned me off permanently from them...as well as walking out on them that tour.

 

Here are my Pearl Jam album rankings:

 

Ten

Vs

No Code

Yield

Vitalogy

Binaurel

 

 

Never listened to another PJ album since Binaurel.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Todem

[Entre_Perpetuo]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

 

And since someone brought it up, confession time.

 

I vastly prefer Green Day to Nirvana. Like it's not even close. Green Day hit that most perfect sweet spot of pop songwriting and punk style to be both accessible and personal. I'm not saying they're the technically better band, certainly many people find them even more derivative and average than I find Nirvana, but I think they both do roughly the same thing, but Green Day has less filler and is more fun to listen to.

 

Some Rush fan I am, lol.

[bluefox4000]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

 

And since someone brought it up, confession time.

 

I vastly prefer Green Day to Nirvana. Like it's not even close. Green Day hit that most perfect sweet spot of pop songwriting and punk style to be both accessible and personal. I'm not saying they're the technically better band, certainly many people find them even more derivative and average than I find Nirvana, but I think they both do roughly the same thing, but Green Day has less filler and is more fun to listen to.

 

Some Rush fan I am, lol.

 

i do too.

 

Nothing Nirvana did is particularly exciting to me. and before some board purist gets on me. no that does NOT mean i think they were bad or not important. it's just that my tastes do not connect to them as much.

 

Mick

[HemiBeers]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

 

And since someone brought it up, confession time.

 

I vastly prefer Green Day to Nirvana. Like it's not even close. Green Day hit that most perfect sweet spot of pop songwriting and punk style to be both accessible and personal. I'm not saying they're the technically better band, certainly many people find them even more derivative and average than I find Nirvana, but I think they both do roughly the same thing, but Green Day has less filler and is more fun to listen to.

 

Some Rush fan I am, lol.

 

i do too.

 

Nothing Nirvana did is particularly exciting to me. and before some board purist gets on me. no that does NOT mean i think they were bad or not important. it's just that my tastes do not connect to them as much.

 

Mick

I equate Nirvana to the Sex Pistols. Give both their due, but come on man, total flash in the pans.

 

When on vacation a few years ago we spent a day in Seattle and went to the Mopop museum (ESB museum I think at the time). They had a Nirvana exhibit and the people acted like they found the holy-land. Ooooo....there's Cobains shity Mosrite guitar! There's Cobains shitty sweater! Pfffft the guitar exhibit had Clapton's Layla Strat....not even a close comparison. By the way, we found this place an insufferable tourist trap and our worst thing to visit in Seattle. Spent maybe an hour of being unimpressed (other than the classic guitar exhibit). Probably like the Rock and Rock HOF...which I will never go to.

[goose]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

 

And since someone brought it up, confession time.

 

I vastly prefer Green Day to Nirvana. Like it's not even close. Green Day hit that most perfect sweet spot of pop songwriting and punk style to be both accessible and personal. I'm not saying they're the technically better band, certainly many people find them even more derivative and average than I find Nirvana, but I think they both do roughly the same thing, but Green Day has less filler and is more fun to listen to.

 

Some Rush fan I am, lol.

 

i do too.

 

Nothing Nirvana did is particularly exciting to me. and before some board purist gets on me. no that does NOT mean i think they were bad or not important. it's just that my tastes do not connect to them as much.

 

Mick

I equate Nirvana to the Sex Pistols. Give both their due, but come on man, total flash in the pans.

 

When on vacation a few years ago we spent a day in Seattle and went to the Mopop museum (ESB museum I think at the time). They had a Nirvana exhibit and the people acted like they found the holy-land. Ooooo....there's Cobains shity Mosrite guitar! There's Cobains shitty sweater! Pfffft the guitar exhibit had Clapton's Layla Strat....not even a close comparison. By the way, we found this place an insufferable tourist trap and our worst thing to visit in Seattle. Spent maybe an hour of being unimpressed (other than the classic guitar exhibit). Probably like the Rock and Rock HOF...which I will never go to.

The museum typifies the worst of Seattle pretentiousness. Pike Place and the wharf is where it's at.

[bluefox4000]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

 

And since someone brought it up, confession time.

 

I vastly prefer Green Day to Nirvana. Like it's not even close. Green Day hit that most perfect sweet spot of pop songwriting and punk style to be both accessible and personal. I'm not saying they're the technically better band, certainly many people find them even more derivative and average than I find Nirvana, but I think they both do roughly the same thing, but Green Day has less filler and is more fun to listen to.

 

Some Rush fan I am, lol.

 

i do too.

 

Nothing Nirvana did is particularly exciting to me. and before some board purist gets on me. no that does NOT mean i think they were bad or not important. it's just that my tastes do not connect to them as much.

 

Mick

I equate Nirvana to the Sex Pistols. Give both their due, but come on man, total flash in the pans.

 

When on vacation a few years ago we spent a day in Seattle and went to the Mopop museum (ESB museum I think at the time). They had a Nirvana exhibit and the people acted like they found the holy-land. Ooooo....there's Cobains shity Mosrite guitar! There's Cobains shitty sweater! Pfffft the guitar exhibit had Clapton's Layla Strat....not even a close comparison. By the way, we found this place an insufferable tourist trap and our worst thing to visit in Seattle. Spent maybe an hour of being unimpressed (other than the classic guitar exhibit). Probably like the Rock and Rock HOF...which I will never go to.

 

I won't get to deep here but i wouldn't turn Kurt into a hero.

 

dude needed help. and sadly couldn't get it or just wasn't receptive to it.

 

Mick

Edited June 13, 2018 by bluefox4000

[HemiBeers]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

 

And since someone brought it up, confession time.

 

I vastly prefer Green Day to Nirvana. Like it's not even close. Green Day hit that most perfect sweet spot of pop songwriting and punk style to be both accessible and personal. I'm not saying they're the technically better band, certainly many people find them even more derivative and average than I find Nirvana, but I think they both do roughly the same thing, but Green Day has less filler and is more fun to listen to.

 

Some Rush fan I am, lol.

 

i do too.

 

Nothing Nirvana did is particularly exciting to me. and before some board purist gets on me. no that does NOT mean i think they were bad or not important. it's just that my tastes do not connect to them as much.

 

Mick

I equate Nirvana to the Sex Pistols. Give both their due, but come on man, total flash in the pans.

 

When on vacation a few years ago we spent a day in Seattle and went to the Mopop museum (ESB museum I think at the time). They had a Nirvana exhibit and the people acted like they found the holy-land. Ooooo....there's Cobains shity Mosrite guitar! There's Cobains shitty sweater! Pfffft the guitar exhibit had Clapton's Layla Strat....not even a close comparison. By the way, we found this place an insufferable tourist trap and our worst thing to visit in Seattle. Spent maybe an hour of being unimpressed (other than the classic guitar exhibit). Probably like the Rock and Rock HOF...which I will never go to.

 

I won't get to deep here but i wouldn't turn Kurt into a hero.

 

dude needed help. and sadly couldn't get it or just wasn't receptive to it.

 

Mick

since he bailed out of rehab to kill himself...i lean towards not receptive.

[HemiBeers]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

 

And since someone brought it up, confession time.

 

I vastly prefer Green Day to Nirvana. Like it's not even close. Green Day hit that most perfect sweet spot of pop songwriting and punk style to be both accessible and personal. I'm not saying they're the technically better band, certainly many people find them even more derivative and average than I find Nirvana, but I think they both do roughly the same thing, but Green Day has less filler and is more fun to listen to.

 

Some Rush fan I am, lol.

 

i do too.

 

Nothing Nirvana did is particularly exciting to me. and before some board purist gets on me. no that does NOT mean i think they were bad or not important. it's just that my tastes do not connect to them as much.

 

Mick

I equate Nirvana to the Sex Pistols. Give both their due, but come on man, total flash in the pans.

 

When on vacation a few years ago we spent a day in Seattle and went to the Mopop museum (ESB museum I think at the time). They had a Nirvana exhibit and the people acted like they found the holy-land. Ooooo....there's Cobains shity Mosrite guitar! There's Cobains shitty sweater! Pfffft the guitar exhibit had Clapton's Layla Strat....not even a close comparison. By the way, we found this place an insufferable tourist trap and our worst thing to visit in Seattle. Spent maybe an hour of being unimpressed (other than the classic guitar exhibit). Probably like the Rock and Rock HOF...which I will never go to.

The museum typifies the worst of Seattle pretentiousness. Pike Place and the wharf is where it's at.

chihuly garden and glass museum...awesome.

[ReRushed]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

No.

[ReRushed]

Butch Vig was more important to Nirvana's success than the members of the band. Until he produced and cleaned up Nevermind, they were just another dog-shit band.

 

Play some earlier youtube videos of Nirvana pre-Nevermind...just dog-shit. I would have walked out after 10 minutes.

I don't disagree with some of this. Vig definitely contributed to Nevermind's success. But I credit the vastly improved songwriting more. And Dave Grohl's drumming.

[LedRush]

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?

But isn't that Green Day?

 

And since someone brought it up, confession time.

 

I vastly prefer Green Day to Nirvana. Like it's not even close. Green Day hit that most perfect sweet spot of pop songwriting and punk style to be both accessible and personal. I'm not saying they're the technically better band, certainly many people find them even more derivative and average than I find Nirvana, but I think they both do roughly the same thing, but Green Day has less filler and is more fun to listen to.

 

Some Rush fan I am, lol.

 

I agree completely.

[custom55]

That bass though

 

http://youtu.be/RXA3U6wLEN4

Edited June 14, 2018 by custom55

[invisible airwave]

PJ for life.

 

I’d add Smashing Pumpkins there.

[Digital Dad]

Alice In Chains.

 

But they're metal, so is Soundgarden. Both got more in common with Sabbath than whatever "grunge" is supposed to be. The other three are rock bands.

 

i'm of of the opinion that "grunge was a marketing label. nothing more.

 

i could be off base. but that's how it's always come across to me.

 

Mick

 

Mudhoney

Dwarves

Melvins

 

Thats grunge.

[Segue Myles]

Pearl Jam

Alice In Chains

Mother Love Bone

Stone Temple Pilots

Temple Of The Dog

Soundgarden

 

My favourite bands of that era.

[bluefox4000]

Alice In Chains.

 

But they're metal, so is Soundgarden. Both got more in common with Sabbath than whatever "grunge" is supposed to be. The other three are rock bands.

 

i'm of of the opinion that "grunge was a marketing label. nothing more.

 

i could be off base. but that's how it's always come across to me.

 

Mick

 

Mudhoney

Dwarves

Melvins

 

Thats grunge.

 

those i agree on. these others listed are just hard rock and metal.

 

but yea i forgot bands like mudhoney.

 

the real friggin' deal.

 

Mick

[Texas King]

Alice In Chains.

 

But they're metal, so is Soundgarden. Both got more in common with Sabbath than whatever "grunge" is supposed to be. The other three are rock bands.

 

i'm of of the opinion that "grunge was a marketing label. nothing more.

 

i could be off base. but that's how it's always come across to me.

 

Mick

 

Melvins

 

Thats grunge.

 

Melvins are metal with experimental elements, they were never grunge.

[Texas King]

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.

[Todem]

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.

 

I just thought back then and still do now....that Nirvana f***ing sucks. They had a couple of great tunes and the rest was pure shite for me.

 

Then again I can't stand punk rock so that is probably why I feel that way about them. They are simply BS music for me.

Edited June 15, 2018 by Todem

[J2112YYZ]

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.

[Entre_Perpetuo]

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.

 

Yeah this. I mean, punk would've come around whether or not The Ramones had perfectly birthed it with their debut, and it would've come around probably in much the same way. The way Nevermind shifted the cultural landscape though, sure they put the tombstone on hair metal's grave, but their influence went so far beyond music it's just not a fair comparison. In a rock history class, The Ramones are going to be a big part of the discussion of the inception of punk rock music, which would probably take a day to discuss as a topic. Nirvana are going to have a day unto themselves, and the other grunge bands are either going to be left out or talked about tomorrow.