Farin Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 (edited) the whole musical development in the last 100 years has been a natural progression, there have been no bands/musicicans/artists (at least I can't think of any) that completely 'invented' a new music... Grunge had Heavy Metal and Punk, who had 60s (Blues, Psychedelic, whatever) Rock, who had 50s Rock'n'Roll who had Blues who had African/Caribean roots, who (I think I'm way beyond the 20th century now... ) EDIT: I knew you'd agree with me Edited July 7, 2007 by Guest a tad too slow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Me and you Farin, we think alike! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 great minds and all that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Naturally... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted July 7, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Also, sometimes I think Nirvana are slightly underrated because it seems like almost everyone agrees that they were not the best band in the Seattle grunge scene, when in my opinion they really blow all the other bands out of the water. I think Nirvana is much better than Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Green River, The Screaming Trees, and Mudhoney. I don't think it's a coincidence that they were more popular, and I don't think that takes away any of their credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 I think there are a LOT more people who think they WERE the best thing to emerge from the Seattle scene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 I think the fact that they were first is a very important fact. They're Jackie Robinson man, it's the perfect analogy. The perfect analogy, perhaps, if they had been "first", but they weren't...The only thing they were first at, was "being Nirvana"; they weren't "first" at anything else at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farin Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 not even there, there was a 1960s UK prog Rock band called 'Nirvana'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Good point, that man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lonelyday Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 I'm thinking perhaps they're accurately rated. I mean, for each fan who seems to think they were the best grunge band out there and that they paved the way for other bands there seems to be another person who can rattle off the names of other bands they believe are better than Nirvana so to prove that they are overrated. So through this if there are that many people who agree that they are overrated you can't accurately come to the conclusion that they ARE in fact overrated as through argument how high they rate seems to come at a balance between the two sides. Does that make sense? I'm kinda confusing myself ...also Slowhand I think it's funny that you keep referring to yourself and other songfactors as musical snobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 I don't say they are overrated based on how many people like them... or not that alone... I think they are overrated because they generate more discussion than they are worth. Good example this thread, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted July 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 Any band with a lead singer who dies young will do that, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Levis Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 Blind Melon is underrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted July 9, 2007 Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 ...also Slowhand I think it's funny that you keep referring to yourself and other songfactors as musical snobs. I don't think of myself as a musical snob per se, but I think all of us here are to some extent. The basic fact is that 90% of people listen to what is played on the radio, and 90% of what's on the radio is crap. They like it though, and I don't. It seems snobbish to me to feel that way. And I do voice my displeasure when something I don't like comes on the radio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batman Posted July 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 9, 2007 Blind Melon is underrated. I think they're pretty accurately rated. But still, I guess that pokes a hole in my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted July 14, 2007 Report Share Posted July 14, 2007 ...there seems to be another person who can rattle off the names of other bands they believe are better than Nirvana so to prove that they are overrated. I know what you mean; that demonstrates the difference between subjectivity and objectivity. Personally, the list of bands I rattled off was not really of artists I consider better than Nirvana- I'd far sooner listen to Nirvana than Black Flag or The Replacements, for example- but was an attempt to substantiate the point that Nirvana were far from doing anything "revolutionary" or even original. They didn't "create a musical landscape that enabled others to thrive" (in the way the Pistols did, for example), they stepped into one that already existed (albeit away from the mainstream, to a certain extent), then contributed to (and capitalised on) its sudden fashionability. Which is why I think to some extent they struck lucky in becoming the "chosen ones" to epitomise the zeitgeist and, in Kurt's case, to become the poster-boy for self-pitying, pseudo angst-ridden slacker-teens the world over, and why I think they're over-rated. Looking at it another way: Kurt Cobain is the highest-earning "dead artist" in the world, his estate allegedly raking in $250 million a year, (or some ridiculous figure), which I suspect may surpass the lifetime earnings of the entirety of bands/artists that influenced or inspired him (including Black Sabbath and REM!). (Or maybe not: somebody fetch my calculator ). Probably also exceeds the combined incomes of Elvis Presley and John Lennon. And for what? Arguably, a maximum of three good albums. I'm counting "Nevermind", "In Utero" and "Unplugged": "Bleach" was a bog-standard punk-rock album, surpassed by countless bands operating in the field at that time, "Incesticide" is a disjointed collection of varying quality: out-takes, cover versions, etc. So, yeah... three good albums...yet easily out-earning the likes of Elvis, Lennon, Hendrix...Sounds over-rated, if you ask me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Floydaholic Posted July 16, 2007 Report Share Posted July 16, 2007 They weren't very musically talented, but they were the voice for a generation, and still have an impact on today's music, so I'd say that they are rated correctly. 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