Batman Posted July 5, 2007 Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 I think it's nearly impossible to not be overrated when there is death involved, but it's hard for me to call one of my favorite bands overrated. And I do think they were incredibly important, and I do think "In Utero" is an underrated album. But for me, it's a tough call. I'm not sure. I'll pick "other". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted July 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2007 hey where did my poll go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 can't you do it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Overrated... They're not AS good as other bands that were around at the same time. Even their lyrics were nothing to write home about, there have been better. They may have started a new era in music, but they are more of a 'fashion statement' with people saying "I like Nirvana" only because it's the done thing to like Nirvana. True, though... In Utero is vastly underrated. It's my favourite by them. I can listen to In Utero indefinitely, but Nevermind only has two or three tracks that are repeatedly listenable and it's more of a 'pop' album than its successor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted July 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 alright, I think I got hte poll up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 I'd be very surprised if anyone would actually choose "underrated" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 You can't argue with what Nirvana did, and to call the over rated would be a musical crime IMO. Sure, they had contemporaries that music snobs like us can point to and say were better. (Like Soundgarden for example, who I always thought was far superior.) Even Pearl Jam to some extent, even thought they achieved commerical success as well. But, bringing the Seattle grunge scene to the masses and completly overturning pop music with one fail guitar rift on "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is something that can't be ignored. It's the historical equivalent of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, it brought in a whole new age and completly changed the world, and for that fact alone I don't think Nirvana can really ever be under rated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Surely, the fact that their disproportionate acclaim and success was founded upon the one catchy guitar riff you mentioned is precisely why they are distinctly overrated. Without "Smells Like Teen Spirit", most of the music-loving general public wouldn't have given them a second glance. Mudhoney were Seattle's grunge pioneers. Nirvana scandalously purloined The Pixies for "Teen Spirit", and Killing Joke for "Come As You Are". Contrary to popular belief, "light and shade" within post-punk rock music was hardly a novelty...Screaming Trees were a better band musically and lyrically, but when push comes to shove, Mark Lanegan was nowhere near as cute and marketable as Kurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Sure, they had contemporaries that music snobs like us can point to and say were better. (Like Soundgarden for example, who I always thought was far superior.) Even Pearl Jam to some extent, even thought they achieved commerical success as well. that's an interesting thing to say... do you mean commercial succes contradicts 'good' music? (or did I understand that completly wrong!?) But, bringing the Seattle grunge scene to the masses and completly overturning pop music with one fail guitar rift on "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is something that can't be ignored. It's the historical equivalent of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, it brought in a whole new age and completly changed the world, and for that fact alone I don't think Nirvana can really ever be under rated. I don't question Nirvana's huge influence in Grunge/ Alternative Rock / 90s music in general, but I understood the thread as the quality of their music... I for one think of Nirvana as the Sex Pistols were for Punk music: certainly very important for the genre, but they surely weren't the best band around... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Contrary to popular belief, "light and shade" within post-punk rock music was hardly a novelty...Screaming Trees were a better band musically and lyrically, but when push comes to shove, Mark Lanegan was nowhere near as cute and marketable as Kurt. That's exactly it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted July 6, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 I'd be very surprised if anyone would actually choose "underrated" My opinion on this matter changes weekly, and sometimes my opinion is that it's so widely accepted by music critics that Nirvana is overrated, that they become underrated. I guess my perspective really depends on who I've been hanging out with, Nirvana fans or Nirvana haters. And I'm friends with plenty of both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 that's an interesting thing to say... do you mean commercial succes contradicts 'good' music? (or did I understand that completly wrong!?) No, what I meant to say with that little section was that Pearl Jam also achieved main stream exposure and got pretty rich and famous in the process, unlike someone such as Soundgarden who didn't recieve as much exposure. Commericial success has very little to do with what I think is good music, Granted, I don't listen to the radio anymore, but that's just because I enjoy my CD's more. I like a lot of main stream bands, like Weezer or My Chemical Romance, who are both beloved by top 40 stations. I don't question Nirvana's huge influence in Grunge/ Alternative Rock / 90s music in general, but I understood the thread as the quality of their music... I for one think of Nirvana as the Sex Pistols were for Punk music: certainly very important for the genre, but they surely weren't the best band around... That's almost exactly what I was trying to say. Nirvana's music was not the best of the Seattle grunge scene, I'm not arguing that. The only point I was trying to make was that, even though their music might not have been the best, what they did makes the rock legends, and it's not even a question to me. Anytime you do something that influential, I don't think you can ever be over rated. They completly changed pop music, that's not easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 alright! I agree with that thanks for replying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 No, what I meant to say with that little section was that Pearl Jam also achieved main stream exposure and got pretty rich and famous in the process, unlike someone such as Soundgarden who didn't recieve as much exposure. I am likely to be completely wrong here, but I never though of Soundgarden as not having had enough exposure. Sure, it was less than that received by Pearl Jam, which was less than what was received by Nirvana, but they did pretty well for themselves, in any case. I don't think Nirvana was the first grunge band either... perhaps the first to get a killer riff and the first to be signed on to a major label with that killer riff. Nevermind was on Geffen Records... it was bound to get publicity. But IMO the songs just aren't ALL that good. What I mean is, perhaps they were better than their predecessors... but they weren't as good as their successors, or the bands that came soon after. So why do THEY get ALL this publicity? Like I said, a lot people claim to like Nirvana without knowing what they're talking about. They have more fans than they should have. (I just noticed I used the plural when referring to Nirvana in the last sentence... I am a confused Indian child ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Bah, I just had a long resposnse that I'm having to re-type. Here's the summary: Nirvana had to have something that set them apart from those other lables and their other contemparies. Sure, they probably weren't as good as their successors, but you know about their successors because of Nirvana. Without Nirvana you (probably) wouldn't have ever had: Sound Garden, Pearl Jam, Temple of the Dog*, Jane's Addiction and Toad the Wet Sproket, and the Red Hott Chili Peppers. Which would lead to these bands (again, probably) not ever being found out: The Foo Fighters (definietly), Live, Radiohead, The Stone Temple Pilots, The Gin Blossoms, Everclear, The Calling, Candlebox, Bush, Blind Melon, The Black Crowes, and Weezer. Again, that's all speculative, but I think it's logical to think that if Nirvana hadn't come around there's a very good chance we wouldn't know about those bands. Sure, some of them might have achieved mainsteam exposure, but Nirvana paved the way, much like Jackie Robinson probably wasn't the best black player in the negro leagues, but he's who everyone remembers because he was the first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Hey, we would TOO have had the Chili Peppers! They're much older... them and Jane's Addiction. They don't need Nirvana. Bloodsugarsexmagik made it big the same year as Nevermind. As for Jane's Addiction - Ritual De Lo Habitual was out in 1990 and Nothing's Shocking in 1988. Of course, you're right about the Foo Fighters, but with the likes of Gin Blossoms, I don't think they're all that 'found out' anyway. Ditto Blind Melon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Maybe not by name, but I bet casual music fans would both know "No Rain" and "Follow You Down" (or maybe "Hey Jealousy", I'm not really sure which was a bigger hit.) You're probably right about RHCP and JA, but I think they gained from the Nirvana success as much as anyone. I mean, I was only about 5 at the time so I don't really remember, but I'm sure Nirvana vaulted those bands into the stratosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Without Nirvana you (probably) wouldn't have ever had: Sound Garden, Pearl Jam, Temple of the Dog*, Jane's Addiction and Toad the Wet Sproket, and the Red Hott Chili Peppers.. This falls down on the fact that at least 50% of these bands predate Nirvana by several years; namely Soundgarden (formed '84, first release '87), Jane's Addiction (formed 1984, first album released in '88) and Red Hot Chili Peppers ( formed 1983, had released nigh on half-a-dozen albums by the time Nirvana came along). Who the heckity-heck are Toad The Wet Sprocket anyway? Which would lead to these bands (again, probably) not ever being found out: The Foo Fighters (definietly), Live, Radiohead, The Stone Temple Pilots, The Gin Blossoms, Everclear, The Calling, Candlebox, Bush, Blind Melon, The Black Crowes, and Weezer. Possibly true in some cases, but then....Grohl had been in a few bands before Nirvana, so there might have been a Foo Fighters without Nirvana, it's just that they would have remained more obscure. Radiohead? Influenced by Nirvana? That surprises me, really. Odd times, maybe, but Radiohead were going to happen with or without Nirvana... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 No, no no no, no no no no no! I mean, I might be a bit shaky on my arguments about the Gin Blossoms, but of this I am sure. Jane's Addiction went twice platinum with Nothing's Shocking as well as Ritual De Lo Habiutal. After these two, their next album was in 2003... Strays. Therefore, their platinumosity was independent of anything Nirvana did since Nevermind was released in 1991. Same with the Chili Peppers. Bloodsugarsexmagic was out in the same year as Nevermind and had comparable success. It's supposed to be their best album, the way Nevermind is said to be Nirvana's. In fact, One Hot Minute did quite miserably. So what if it had Jane's Addiction's Dave Navarro and a song dedicated to Kurt Cobain? That didn't help it much after Mother's Milk and BSSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 The fact that those bands existed before Nirvana wasn't the argument I was trying to make. What I was trying to say was that there's a very good chance those bands would have never either achieved the success they have now, or would have never been formed or gotten famous in the first place, or would have had a much harder time doing so. For example, it's perfectly logical to say that the Foo Fighters could have formed had Nirvana not existed. But, they probably wouldn't be famous. I wouldn't say that Radiohead was influenced by Nirvana, but I think that it was a natural progression for the masses to go from grunge type music to the electronica-indie sound of Radiohead. Without Nirvna there as a buffer they probably would have lost a significant portion of their audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 No, no no no, no no no no no! I mean, I might be a bit shaky on my arguments about the Gin Blossoms, but of this I am sure. Jane's Addiction went twice platinum with Nothing's Shocking as well as Ritual De Lo Habiutal. After these two, their next album was in 2003... Strays. Therefore, their platinumosity was independent of anything Nirvana did since Nevermind was released in 1991. Same with the Chili Peppers. Bloodsugarsexmagic was out in the same year as Nevermind and had comparable success. It's supposed to be their best album, the way Nevermind is said to be Nirvana's. In fact, One Hot Minute did quite miserably. So what if it had Jane's Addiction's Dave Navarro and a song dedicated to Kurt Cobain? That didn't help it much after Mother's Milk and BSSM. You're right, JA was a hit before Nirvana was around. And that kinda kills my RHCP argument too, because JA to RHCP is a pretty natural progression. Drat my young age, if only I were around to listen to the radio at the time you guys were... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 I like how much wiser I was at 7 to your 5 hmf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 I think you're giving Nirvana way too much credit. On the basis that "they were there first", why not give all the plaudits to RHCP and Jane's Addiction for creating the territory that enabled Nirvana to thrive? Then, perhaps, you could also credit Husker Du, The Relacements, The Pixies, Dinosaur Jr., Black Flag, all those other bands that paved the way for Nirvana... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 ^ I thought you'd mention Killing Joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 I think you're giving Nirvana way too much credit. On the basis that "they were there first", why not give all the plaudits to RHCP and Jane's Addiction for creating the territory that enabled Nirvana to thrive? Then, perhaps, you could also credit Husker Du, The Relacements, The Pixies, Dinosaur Jr., Black Flag, all those other bands that paved the way for Nirvana... Well naturally this is all cylical. Who's to say Pearl Jam couldn't have kicked off the grunge revolution too? It's all speculative, but this is just how I think it would have played out. That argument can just as easily be something like "Well give credit to Motzart, that guy revolutionized music and created an atmosphere where modern musicians could thrive." All music is interlaced, everyone takes from everyone else. I think the fact that they were first is a very important fact. They're Jackie Robinson man, it's the perfect analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now