Is nirvana as revolutionary as we think?

[Batman]

I love Nirvana, but are they really that revolutionary?

for me its hard to say. They definitely changed music. You don't here anyone (except the darkness) playing 80s heavy metal-esque stuff. But then again, do you really hear most bands sounding like Nirvana either? I don't think so. So did they really revolutionize music?

DONT LET YOUR OPINIONS ON WHETHER NIRVANA WAS A GOOD BAND OR NOT GET IN YOUR WAY OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION. JUST SAY IF THEY REVOLUTIONIZED MUSIC.

[_Jayson_]

I think they did revolutionize the mainstream perspective of grunge, and started the whole grunge era. But there were plenty of grunge bands before Nirvana.

[XXX]

Nope. They were a popular Grunge band, that's all.

[Foxy]

No. I don't think they 'revolutionised' anything. It was grunge, and lots of groups did similar tracks to Nirvanas before they did and were never called revolutionary.

Their music wasn't particularly amazing, if you are talking about revolutionarys we should be looking at The Beatles, Elvis etc, true greats of the music industry.

(BTW I don't actually like Elvis or The Beatles anymore than Nirvana)

[_jr_]

I missed the Nirvana boat. I hear things like 'the voice of a generation', etc, but I can't really comment. Wasn't my generation.I know there was much gnashing of teeth when he passed away.

[MindCrime]

I'd have to say no, they didn't forever change the face of music, they only made Alternative mainstream for the 90's. They didn't receive all this critical acclaim until after he died, before then, Nirvana was just a typical hot band at the time. In fact if I remember correctly, I think Pearl Jam was more popular for the time being.

[_Annabelle_]

They kind of revolutionized things in the sense that they caused a great change in the type of hard rock (I wouldn't say music overall) of the American mainstream.

Nirvana (though not the first) popularized 'alternative' rock by bringing it to the mainstream and paving the way for many similiar bands to dominate the charts.

Perhaps they were more revolutionary in a commercial way rather than in a musical one but they were figureheads of the movement anyhow.

[Aunt_Acid]

I can't stand Nirvana. I respect that hopped aboard a train that was sort of new and they did it because they liked the music, not just to be a popular band, but in the end of the day, that's all they were. Grunge was just a fad that died out, and there was nothing special or revolutionary about them. They wrote songs like everyone else, and they haven't changed anything about music. They have done nothing that could be considered revolutionary. Just wait until Scott and Jill get to this thread..

[Danielj]

I really enjoy their music and yes they revolutionised music. They killed music. I mean there are a FEW, bands that are different nowadays, but ultimately There was a timeline.

-Nirvana-94

-..........

-..........

-Audioslave-2003

-...............................

I like 'em but they really kind of killed rock.

Everyone tries to be a bit like them, but Nirvana were the best at it.

[behindblueeyez]

Simply, no. I never really understood the hype about Nirvana.

[rkfan413]

I don't understand why people think that Nirvana is so great. In my opinion, there music isn't that spectacular. I think they were just a fad.

[scott]

*Look out everybody, here comes the angry bus*

Okay SLTS, was a piece of crap, but Nirvana kind of did a sacrificial bunt for 90s alt rock, now no good bands came out after Nirvana (though the few good bands that did come out, did owe a lot of their success to the big N (example- Seether))though Nirvana sacrificing themselves by releasing a track that would be easily accepted into the mainstream allowed so many great bands to be accepted into society(even though a few had been operating for years, and would chart every now and then, there wasn't a breakout grunge hit until SLTS hit the charts) there was Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, and every other grungy alt rocker that came out of the Seattle scene owes a huge amount of their prosperity to Nirvana.

Unfortunately 'Nevermind' was what defined Nirvana and what all the new bands use as a template (like Nickelback, Switchfoot, and all those other crap-o-la bands) but the true masterpiece that Nirvana put out was the highly (highly!) underrated 'In Utero' which has shined a definate influence on the better bands to come out since Nirvana (once again, I'll point to Seether)

If In Utero had the same 'impact' that Nevermind had, then we would all be listening to some very different (and better!) music right now.

[Carl]

Here's my case for why Nirvana revolutionized music:

In 1991, Top-40 or Contemporary Hit Radio (CHR) was a very popular format. It was real easy to program - you just played what was popular. The airwaves were lush with the sounds of Roxette, Amy Grant and Color Me Badd. It was safe and effective, you could play it at work and no one would complain.

When "Smells Like Teen Spirit" became a huge hit, most CHR stations stayed away or added it as a quirky novelty, unaware that it would soon destroy their format. Soon, there wasn't enough Mariah Carey to satisfy demand. Stations had to add some Hip Hop (Boyz II Men, Mary J Blige) or give in to the Grunge (Nirvana, Pearl Jam, STP). Some stations resisted by digging into their archives and adding songs from the '80s and even some Disco, but there was no escape.

Nirvana gave rise to the Modern Rock format and along with Hip Hop, killed CHR radio. That's revolutionary.

[Jillianne]

the highly (highly!) underrated 'In Utero' which has shined a definate influence on the better bands to come out since Nirvana (once again, I'll point to Seether)

If In Utero had the same 'impact' that Nevermind had, then we would all be listening to some very different (and better!) music right now.

I completly agree, In Utero was a brilliant album, Nirvana's best..

But I think what annoys people about Nirvana, is all the posers who think SMLT is the greatest song ever..

I'm not kidding myself, I know its pretty bad..

But what is annoying is all the wasters saying 'Oh SMLT is the greatest song ever' when really, they don't know jack about Nirvana or any kind of music..

These threads get right on my nerves..

[TheCyberdemon]

I use my copy of "In Utero" as a coaster, and the case to prop up my cable box.

[Aunt_Acid]

CD, I'm dissapointed in you. Why would you waste your money on In Utereo when you could hear the same thing by repeatedly flushing your toilet?

[Danielj]

I can't stand Seether scott.

[TheCyberdemon]

It's my dad's.

[Demosthenes X]

Nirvana was hardly the first grunge band, as I think we've established. They were, however, the first to get any major coverage, and they were certainly the first "pop" grunge band. They revolutionized music: unless you think enthralling an entire generation isn't revolutionary. They took Michael Jackson out of the number one spot on the charts.

Whether or not you even LIKE Nirvana, that says something about their music. They were revolutionary because they weren't like the rest of the popular bands back then.

(BTW, someone mentioned Pearl Jam... Ten did outsell Nevermind in the end, and they were more popular than Nirvana around the time of Kurt's death).