Nirvana

[anagramking]

As I said before, I've usually had discussions about Nirvana with people that did not like Rush. But here, I got to hear from Rush fans, and that's cool.

 

Damn, I understand that they changed it. I get it. But do you guys like the changes that happened? Is it good that soloing is frowned upon today? I agree that soloing for the sake of soloing is silly, but to not really have much, if any, of it at all, that's another story.

 

Test, I never said I knew why he did what he did. But he wanted that aura reserved for the prematurely dead, and even alluded to it in interviews. That indicates planned and twisted, I think. One doesn't need to be a shrink to see that part. To understand the other stuff, a degree would probably help a lot, of course.

 

And he did admit that Smells Like Teen Spirit was a ripoff of the Pixies, by the way. Many who heard the song for the first time never would have made the connection, becasue they didn't know much about the Pixies, if anything. And that's where this "revolution" exploded, off this one pilfered track. One would hope he cut the Pixies in on the proceeds, but I doubt it.

 

As for music for the boomers, that's an entirely different thread. I just made the observation of what a lot of them went through in the bad times of the late 80s to mid 90s, in response to what you had said about them earlier. But what I figured I wanted to listen to, back in the 80s, was stuff like Rush. Grunge seemed so incongruous with what Rush (and prog) was about, and I wasn't going to get into it, no matter how popular it got, and no matter how much the musical landscape was changed by it.

 

 

[rushgoober]

Nirvana are almost definitely the most overrated band of all time. People love to cite them as being hugely influential and changing music - well, maybe, but they changed it into WHAT?

 

Edited October 12, 2005 by rushgoober

[Indica]

While we are talking about depressing music, (sorry if I changed the subject a bit) I saw U2 last night, who is probably one of the biggest bands in the world right now. Anyway, 3-4 of their songs were so depressing that they brought tears to my eyes. I'm not a depressed person either, I cried maybe 2 times in the last 5 years, for good reason too, not just because I was listening to a sad song or anything, but not 1 not 2 but 3 times last night tears came to my eyes during "Still havent found what I'm looking for" "One" and "Sunday Bloody Sunday", when he was saying "wipe your tears away" I was just doing that, ironicly. I've heard people say they shed tears during a Rush concert but their music never hit me like that, hell, like I said I rarely shed a tear for any reason for years, since I was a little kid. My point is, a lot of music is depressing, a lot of popular music is depressing, people must relate to it or something. I don't know. This has never happened to me before so I instantly thought of this conversation.

 

Nirvana has some songs that aren't depressing too though, but he must have been a depressed person to write so many sad songs so that's how his music came out. You try shooting up herion to take away your pain because nothing else helps and see how it changes you emotionally. I bet it does. I was pissed when he killed himself but I can't say I didn't see it coming.

 

As far as Nirvana being the cause of people not soloing, I still don't see that. Half their songs don't have solos but some do, he sucked at soloing but his songs didn't really need solos to be honest. It's hard to blame it on Kurt that everyone tried to copy off him and write good songs without ripping leads through them. There are still a lot of bands that still rip but I feel a lot of people didn't like that part of rock music anyway. In music, things seem to come back around, and I think that part of music is already coming back around (soloing). Another thing is, if people don't like the fact that there are less soloing than in the 70's and 80's then those should be the people who are running out and buying a guitar, learning scales and modes and making their own music in the way they like it, counting on everyone else to do it isn't getting anyone anywhere. Grab a guitar and learn some solos and write ya own music. There, problem solved. It has to start somewhere. Git er Done!!!!!

Edited October 12, 2005 by Indica

[anagramking]

I went to U2 here back in May. I know what you're talking about. As melancholy as those songs you mentioned might be, they're not that way through a self indulgent point of view.

 

As for grabbing a guitar and getting er done, that was actually funny. I have my own talents, and guitar is not one of them, as I learned early on in life. I do feel for all my friends who really learned how to play and saw the market for that skill collapse overnight. But they went on to other things, so not to worry. I think it will come back eventually, as you suggest. I do think you're right that many people don't like or care about that kind of skill, anyway. Rolling Stone magazine and Blender don't get into it, so you can't expect the market for it to explode anytime soon.

 

 

[Moonraker]

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 12 2005, 10:15 AM)

As I said before, I've usually had discussions about Nirvana with people that did not like Rush. But here, I got to hear from Rush fans, and that's cool. Damn, I understand that they changed it. I get it. But do you guys like the changes that happened? Is it good that soloing is frowned upon today? I agree that soloing for the sake of soloing is silly, but to not really have much, if any, of it at all, that's another story. Test, I never said I knew why he did what he did. But he wanted that aura reserved for the prematurely dead, and even alluded to it in interviews. That indicates planned and twisted, I think. One doesn't need to be a shrink to see that part. To understand the other stuff, a degree would probably help a lot, of course. And he did admit that Smells Like Teen Spirit was a ripoff of the Pixies, by the way. Many who heard the song for the first time never would have made the connection, becasue they didn't know much about the Pixies, if anything. And that's where this "revolution" exploded, off this one pilfered track. One would hope he cut the Pixies in on the proceeds, but I doubt it. As for music for the boomers, that's an entirely different thread. I just made the observation of what a lot of them went through in the bad times of the late 80s to mid 90s, in response to what you had said about them earlier. But what I figured I wanted to listen to, back in the 80s, was stuff like Rush. Grunge seemed so incongruous with what Rush (and prog) was about, and I wasn't going to get into it, no matter how popular it got, and no matter how much the musical landscape was changed by it.

Personally I do enjoy the depressive nature that the music brought out. I was never the biggest Nirvana fan, but Nirvana did open the doors for a lot of bands to incorperate that style into their repetoire. It is a lot easier for me to connect to music that more resembles the way I feel, and a lot of the times, that gloomy, depressive sound really speaks volumes. If you dig deep enough, there is a lot of incredibly beautiful, albiet depressive music out there, a key example could be Still by Nine Inch Nails, which is probably the one of the most beautiful things I have ever heard in my life. Though thats a different topic. While Nirvana's sound may not be my personal favorite among the artists in that era, they get some respect from me for allowing artists who followed the chance to add that sound and become big enough to continue to make music.

[PuppetKing2112]

I am a fan of Nirvana. A guy I have played with has many of the same gripes about them as AK. "Kurt Cobain killed rock guitar, he killed solos, he made people lazy about music" etc.

 

Kurt Cobain did not kill anything. He did not TELL people to go ripping him off and being lazy. He did not try to make sure that soloing is frowned upon.

 

Sometimes, it's not about how technically skilled you are (look at Dream Theater's immense level of suckitude as an example), or what chords you play, but what you say WITH those chords. Slagging Nirvana for being depressing music is like slagging Bob Marley for being happy, uplifting music. It's what Kurt was feeling, and that's what he wrote about. If he wrote about things that he was not feeling, he could not have sung with the conviction that he did.

 

Here's why Nirvana was so popular: Look back to early 1990/91...what was the popular rock music? Hair metal. And that genre had run its course by the late 80s, and had just grown stale by 1991. Nirvana sounded fresh because they were different from those bands. Nirvana's actual originality is debatable, but they were definitely a breath of fresh air from the stagnant hard-rock scene of the time. This has been happening since the beginning of popular music. In the early 1960s, the popular music was teen idols like Fabian and Frankie Avalon, and then the Beatles and the Stones came along and absolutely shook the scene to its foundations, because they were not the same as everyone else. By the 1970s, the hippie dream was over, and so it was time for a new trend, and that's where heavy metal and prog rock came along. By the late 70s, the golden age of arena rock was over, so punk came along to replace it. That had run its course by the early 80s, so we got hair etal. And then that genre was basically dead by 1991, so grunge came along to replace it. By that scale, it's about time for something like that to happen any day now, because so-called "alternative" music is getting itself stuck into a Gang-of-Four-worshipping rut as of late.

 

 

Listen to Nirvana's Unplugged album and try to tell me you STILL don't see the "inherent musical value."

[Mustard Death]

QUOTE (progrush2112 @ Oct 12 2005, 01:04 PM)

Never really got into Nirvana. Heard "Smells Like Teen Spirit" though.

Really? I've totally never heard that song.

[anagramking]

QUOTE (PuppetKing2112 @ Oct 12 2005, 06:30 PM)

I am a fan of Nirvana. A guy I have played with has many of the same gripes about them as AK. "Kurt Cobain killed rock guitar, he killed solos, he made people lazy about music" etc. Kurt Cobain did not kill anything. He did not TELL people to go ripping him off and being lazy. He did not try to make sure that soloing is frowned upon. Sometimes, it's not about how technically skilled you are (look at Dream Theater's immense level of suckitude as an example), or what chords you play, but what you say WITH those chords. Slagging Nirvana for being depressing music is like slagging Bob Marley for being happy, uplifting music. It's what Kurt was feeling, and that's what he wrote about. If he wrote about things that he was not feeling, he could not have sung with the conviction that he did. Here's why Nirvana was so popular: Look back to early 1990/91...what was the popular rock music? Hair metal. And that genre had run its course by the late 80s, and had just grown stale by 1991. Nirvana sounded fresh because they were different from those bands. Nirvana's actual originality is debatable, but they were definitely a breath of fresh air from the stagnant hard-rock scene of the time. This has been happening since the beginning of popular music. In the early 1960s, the popular music was teen idols like Fabian and Frankie Avalon, and then the Beatles and the Stones came along and absolutely shook the scene to its foundations, because they were not the same as everyone else. By the 1970s, the hippie dream was over, and so it was time for a new trend, and that's where heavy metal and prog rock came along. By the late 70s, the golden age of arena rock was over, so punk came along to replace it. That had run its course by the early 80s, so we got hair etal. And then that genre was basically dead by 1991, so grunge came along to replace it. By that scale, it's about time for something like that to happen any day now, because so-called "alternative" music is getting itself stuck into a Gang-of-Four-worshipping rut as of late. Listen to Nirvana's Unplugged album and try to tell me you STILL don't see the "inherent musical value."

First you said that people were ripping of Nirvana, then you say their own originality is debatable. I'm not sure that's consistent. The alternative underground already existed. Cobain was the one that made it popular, and admittedly ripped of the Pixies to do it. I could see how that could play on somebody's conscience. Once the cycle of hair bands died out, the underground finally made it to center stage. The underground really started with punk. There were various other manifestations through the 80s. Punk never really died, but it did change from the beginning. There was the British version, and the American version. And the groups were relatively short lived, usually. Other forms occurred, like new wave. People talk about 80s music that wasn't mainstream. When hair metal died, this underground scene exploded and enveloped the industry. Cobain was the most visible guy, after having ripped off the Pixes to put this scene on the map. And then people started paying attention to the rest of the scene. And it got big. The catalyst was Nirvana. And so whatever premium that had been placed on musicianship before was cast aside. Mediocrity ruled.

 

I understand your argument about Dream Theater. I agree with that. And the Beatles proved your point. Not their early stuff, but starting in the middle of their existence.

 

 

 

 

[PuppetKing2112]

Fair enough. But I still say listen to Unplugged in New York before passing final judgment on Kurt's talents.

[anagramking]

QUOTE (PuppetKing2112 @ Oct 12 2005, 11:39 PM)

Fair enough. But I still say listen to Unplugged in New York before passing final judgment on Kurt's talents.

I heard one song of it on the radio, and that didn't impress me. What should I be paying attention to when I get the chance to try the CD? What did they do on this effort that they failed to do in the studio?

 

 

 

[PuppetKing2112]

See, without all the guitar distortion (it's on acoustic guitars), the songs get the chance to show themselves. they do some inspired covers too...A Bowie song, a Vaselines song, a few Meat Puppets songs, and a Lead Belly song. The band is great throughout...I guess that is the real test of hard rock songs...can they hold up without the distortion and screaming? In this case, yes they can. It's my favorite Nirvana album actually...

[PuppetKing2112]

And don't take that as me saying their studio recordings are bad, because they aren't. I'm saying these versions seem less like hard rock songs than like singer-songwriter type stuff. Tell you what...if you have AIM, I can send you the whole CD if you want. Let me know.

[pedro2112]

I don't give a rats ass about Cobain's lyrics. However, Nirvana rocked, and it was a million times better than most of the other shit that the record companies were putting out at the time. Did I like the change? Heck ya! We never would have had Counterparts without the grunge movement. Grunge had some of the best rock songs and albums ever made. Soundgarden's "Superunknown" is one of the top 10 rock albums of all time. Alice in Chains had more talent in their band than every single hair metal band combined.

 

Anagram, I cannot believe someone as sharp as you cannot see that Nirvana saved rock and roll.

[Test4VitalSigns]

QUOTE (pedro2112 @ Oct 13 2005, 12:07 AM)

I don't give a rats ass about Cobain's lyrics. However, Nirvana rocked, and it was a million times better than most of the other shit that the record companies were putting out at the time. Did I like the change? Heck ya! We never would have had Counterparts without the grunge movement. Grunge had some of the best rock songs and albums ever made. Soundgarden's "Superunknown" is one of the top 10 rock albums of all time. Alice in Chains had more talent in their band than every single hair metal band combined. Anagram, I cannot believe someone as sharp as you cannot see that Nirvana saved rock and roll.

[anagramking]

QUOTE (pedro2112 @ Oct 13 2005, 12:07 AM)

I don't give a rats ass about Cobain's lyrics. However, Nirvana rocked, and it was a million times better than most of the other shit that the record companies were putting out at the time. Did I like the change? Heck ya! We never would have had Counterparts without the grunge movement. Grunge had some of the best rock songs and albums ever made. Soundgarden's "Superunknown" is one of the top 10 rock albums of all time. Alice in Chains had more talent in their band than every single hair metal band combined. Anagram, I cannot believe someone as sharp as you cannot see that Nirvana saved rock and roll.

Counterparts and grunge? I do like Counterparts a lot. And I think the one song where I did notice that connection was Between the Sun and Moon. I'm not so sure about others on that CD, though.

 

I'm not so sure that anybody really "saved" rock and roll. There's a reason all those old acts do so great on their reunion tours. The Stones still sell out big venues with huge ticket prices. If Pink Floyd reunited with Roger Waters, it would be insane. A Floyd cover group from Australia makes good money, even. Paul McCartney is still packing them in. I even went to see CSN at Marcus Amphitheater in Milwaukee, and it was absolutely pouring rain. They still drew surprisingly well there, considering the conditions, and that it was the 4th of July. And it's not just baby boomers going to these shows. Something has been missing in rock for a lot of people for a long time. Grunge failed to fill this void for many people. Hair bands before that failed, as well. Part of it is because grunge and hair metal are both largely (and very obvously) derivative forms of music.

 

By the way, Alice in Chains, while coming out of Seattle around the same time as the other groups, seemed to be more rooted in metal than in underground alternative. I remember hearing Man in the Box about a year before Smells Like Teen Spirit. The common city of origin lumped them in with grunge automatically.

Edited October 13, 2005 by anagramking

[rushgoober]

QUOTE (pedro2112 @ Oct 12 2005, 09:07 PM)

I don't give a rats ass about Cobain's lyrics. However, Nirvana rocked, and it was a million times better than most of the other shit that the record companies were putting out at the time. Did I like the change? Heck ya! We never would have had Counterparts without the grunge movement. Grunge had some of the best rock songs and albums ever made. Soundgarden's "Superunknown" is one of the top 10 rock albums of all time. Alice in Chains had more talent in their band than every single hair metal band combined. Anagram, I cannot believe someone as sharp as you cannot see that Nirvana saved rock and roll.

sorry, but rock and roll for the most part died in the mid 70's and nothing has saved it since. every decade since has gotten worse...

Edited October 13, 2005 by rushgoober

[Mustard Death]

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 13 2005, 02:07 AM)

By the way, Alice in Chains, while coming out of Seattle around the same time as the other groups, seemed to be more rooted in metal than in underground alternative. I remember hearing Man in the Box about a year before Smells Like Teen Spirit. The common city of origin lumped them in with grunge automatically.

Alice in Chains were not metal.

[anagramking]

QUOTE (Mustard Death @ Oct 13 2005, 08:13 PM)

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 13 2005, 02:07 AM) By the way, Alice in Chains, while coming out of Seattle around the same time as the other groups, seemed to be more rooted in metal than in underground alternative.  I remember hearing Man in the Box about a year before Smells Like Teen Spirit.  The common city of origin lumped them in with grunge automatically. Alice in Chains were not metal. From MTV's website:   QUOTE In many ways, Alice in Chains was the definitive heavy metal band of the early '90s. Drawing equally from the heavy riffing of post-Van Halen metal and the gloomy strains of post-punk, the band developed a bleak, nihilistic sound that balanced grinding hard rock with subtly textured acoustic numbers. They were hard enough for metal fans, yet their dark subject matter and punky attack placed them among the front ranks of the Seattle-based grunge bands. While this dichotomy helped the group soar to multi-platinum status with their second album, 1992's Dirt, it also divided them. Guitarist Jerry Cantrell always leaned toward the mainstream, while vocalist Layne Staley was fascinated with the seamy underground. Such tension drove the band toward stardom in their early years, but following Dirt, Alice in Chains suffered from near-crippling internal tensions that kept the band off the road for the remainder of the '90s and, consequently, the group never quite fulfilled their potential.

[NeilPeartFan2112]

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 13 2005, 10:07 PM)

QUOTE (Mustard Death @ Oct 13 2005, 08:13 PM) QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 13 2005, 02:07 AM) By the way, Alice in Chains, while coming out of Seattle around the same time as the other groups, seemed to be more rooted in metal than in underground alternative.  I remember hearing Man in the Box about a year before Smells Like Teen Spirit.  The common city of origin lumped them in with grunge automatically. Alice in Chains were not metal. From MTV's website:   QUOTE In many ways, Alice in Chains was the definitive heavy metal band of the early '90s. Drawing equally from the heavy riffing of post-Van Halen metal and the gloomy strains of post-punk, the band developed a bleak, nihilistic sound that balanced grinding hard rock with subtly textured acoustic numbers. They were hard enough for metal fans, yet their dark subject matter and punky attack placed them among the front ranks of the Seattle-based grunge bands. While this dichotomy helped the group soar to multi-platinum status with their second album, 1992's Dirt, it also divided them. Guitarist Jerry Cantrell always leaned toward the mainstream, while vocalist Layne Staley was fascinated with the seamy underground. Such tension drove the band toward stardom in their early years, but following Dirt, Alice in Chains suffered from near-crippling internal tensions that kept the band off the road for the remainder of the '90s and, consequently, the group never quite fulfilled their potential. I've learned to not trust what MTV says, or to watch any of the foolish programming that they air on that station. Yes, you could say I strongly dislike MTV.

[anagramking]

QUOTE (NeilPeartFan2112 @ Oct 13 2005, 10:09 PM)

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 13 2005, 10:07 PM) QUOTE (Mustard Death @ Oct 13 2005, 08:13 PM) QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 13 2005, 02:07 AM) By the way, Alice in Chains, while coming out of Seattle around the same time as the other groups, seemed to be more rooted in metal than in underground alternative.  I remember hearing Man in the Box about a year before Smells Like Teen Spirit.  The common city of origin lumped them in with grunge automatically. Alice in Chains were not metal. From MTV's website:   QUOTE In many ways, Alice in Chains was the definitive heavy metal band of the early '90s. Drawing equally from the heavy riffing of post-Van Halen metal and the gloomy strains of post-punk, the band developed a bleak, nihilistic sound that balanced grinding hard rock with subtly textured acoustic numbers. They were hard enough for metal fans, yet their dark subject matter and punky attack placed them among the front ranks of the Seattle-based grunge bands. While this dichotomy helped the group soar to multi-platinum status with their second album, 1992's Dirt, it also divided them. Guitarist Jerry Cantrell always leaned toward the mainstream, while vocalist Layne Staley was fascinated with the seamy underground. Such tension drove the band toward stardom in their early years, but following Dirt, Alice in Chains suffered from near-crippling internal tensions that kept the band off the road for the remainder of the '90s and, consequently, the group never quite fulfilled their potential. I've learned to not trust what MTV says, or to watch any of the foolish programming that they air on that station. Yes, you could say I strongly dislike MTV. I don't care about what MTV shows, either. I could find more if anybody wants. As I said before, Man in the Box preceded Smells Like Teen Spirit by one year, and Alice In Chains opened for Van Halen when they released the album with that song.

[Mustard Death]

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 13 2005, 11:07 PM)

QUOTE (Mustard Death @ Oct 13 2005, 08:13 PM) QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 13 2005, 02:07 AM) By the way, Alice in Chains, while coming out of Seattle around the same time as the other groups, seemed to be more rooted in metal than in underground alternative.  I remember hearing Man in the Box about a year before Smells Like Teen Spirit.  The common city of origin lumped them in with grunge automatically. Alice in Chains were not metal. From MTV's website:   QUOTE In many ways, Alice in Chains was the definitive heavy metal band of the early '90s. Drawing equally from the heavy riffing of post-Van Halen metal and the gloomy strains of post-punk, the band developed a bleak, nihilistic sound that balanced grinding hard rock with subtly textured acoustic numbers. They were hard enough for metal fans, yet their dark subject matter and punky attack placed them among the front ranks of the Seattle-based grunge bands. While this dichotomy helped the group soar to multi-platinum status with their second album, 1992's Dirt, it also divided them. Guitarist Jerry Cantrell always leaned toward the mainstream, while vocalist Layne Staley was fascinated with the seamy underground. Such tension drove the band toward stardom in their early years, but following Dirt, Alice in Chains suffered from near-crippling internal tensions that kept the band off the road for the remainder of the '90s and, consequently, the group never quite fulfilled their potential. MTV?   Are you kidding me?

[anagramking]

QUOTE (Mustard Death @ Oct 15 2005, 12:05 AM)

MTV? Are you kidding me?

I got the point already. But how grunge can Alice in Chains be if Man in the Box preceded Smells like Teen Spirit by a year?

[Mustard Death]

Are you f***ing kidding or what?

 

Nirvana weren't the first God damn grunge band.

[JakeofThePlace]

Nirvana-

 

 

I was first introduced to Nirvana through a mixed CD my uncle made for me at twelve. I really loved "Litium". I had no idea what the song was, but eventually found out. After that he gave me the "Nevermind" album. Which I loved the just, primal fury, and anger that flowed out of Cobain's mouth, and the guitar. OH OH and the drumming. Yes it is all mindlessly simple. But that is the point. It was loud and it was, mad.

 

 

I then started branching out into the nirvana only to be indulge into it's later "Folky Grunge" sound. I loved it.

[anagramking]

QUOTE (Mustard Death @ Oct 15 2005, 12:57 AM)

Are you f***ing kidding or what? Nirvana weren't the first God damn grunge band.

So who was the first "grunge" band? Isn't grunge really an extension of the alternative underground that started with punk? And what is your definition of "grunge?" Is it just pertaining to bands that came out of Seattle in the early 90s?