When Nirvana hit big, I was a teenager, so naturally I thought they were the coolest thing ever. Now, though, when I listen to it I kind of feel embarrassed that I ever thought they were sooooo great.
Am I just approaching middle age and thus getting old? Or was Nirvana more about Cobain's "cult of personality".
I don't know. When I listen to Nirvana now, it just sounds childish. Sure, some songs are OK but was Nirvana really THAT great?
ok im addicted to reply to post so ill through in my opinon nirvana are NOT good but different strokes for different folks im into the rap and the dance bit of tiesto and tupac yano chilling and kenny rogers you cant beat that, but my friend used to always listen to nirvana when we played cards in his house and mad wierd songs now maybe ive got these titltes wrong but i guess you'll now what im talking about " rape me" <<< 
?( and "parrot wants a cracker" <<<<<double ?( ?( but im guessing mr cobain is loved as alot of people do like his music so as i said before different strokes for different folks different courses for different horses and allthat 
Originally posted by hackbinder
I don't know. When I listen to Nirvana now, it just sounds childish. Sure, some songs are OK but was Nirvana really THAT great?
I'm 34 now and Kurt killed himself when I was a senior in high school.
I still love listening to Nirvana and whenever I hear Smells Like Teen Spirit I still get that urge to mosh around. Thus I no longer allow it on my iPod as it annoys my fellow train riders. ♦
On the other hand if you argued that Nirvana was a great band because of the personality of Kurt Cobain and not so much because of the quality of their music I don't think I would try to argue against you!
they were good theres no denying it. things always have a bigger impact on you at the time rather than afterwards!
Nirvana were great for a short time, but I've never agreed with people who they would have gone on to achieve more. IMO, Nevermind was always going to be their peak and had they kept going they would by now be something of a joke.
Also, we wouldn't have had Foo Fighters who, while not as cool, or important, have a back catalogue I'm far more likely to play than Nirvana's.
I think Nirvana was running over EV. However they do have some great songs which I enjoy listening to. They just don't feel like a "solid reg" since i started to make comparisons to poker, but they have my respect.
as I see it "Smells like a teen spirit" is an anthem for a whole generation... (not my generation tho )
Nirvana is a great band and they introduced the world to Grunge (sub genre of alternative rock)
Nevermind was always going to be their peak and had they kept going they would by now be something of a joke.
most of the time this... But what if's are never my favorite thing to think about ♦
I guess they were "lucky" enough to stop at their peak - I'm guessing that lots of songs gained more meaning after Kurt Cobains death, simply because all that melancholy seems to make more sense coming from a deceased fella.
Kurt Cobain was a genius pure and simple.
Yes there were off the wall songs, and he was clearly a nutter.
But Nirvana inspired most of an entire generation.
They can never be over-hyped and Nevermind never gets old in my opinion.
I am 34, and still carry it round on my ipod, and turn the radio up when they come on
I think you are getting old mate. Musically they are still what they say on the tin to me
Originally posted by NightFrostaSS
ROFL. that was hilarious.
Personally i'm not a fan of Nirvana. Some songs are pretty decent. But they are extremely overrated. That kind of alternative rock is not really my music taste though. I'd barely call them a rock band if i'm honest. I couldn't count the bands that deserve the 50M record sales more then they do on all my fingers and toes ♦
well considering theyre a grunge band and not a rock band, calling em a rock band would be wrong 
They were not a "grunge" band. "Grunge" was a media creation, just like "The Seattle Sound" which was another term thrown about at the time to describe Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and the like. I think Nirvana considered themselves a punk band.
Originally posted by conall88
well considering theyre a grunge band and not a rock band, calling em a rock band would be wrong
Seems somewhat pedantic. "Rock" would be the broader genre - encompassing Rock n Roll, Alt Rock, Grunge, Punk Rock, Prog Rock, Metal, Post Rock, Soft Rock etc etc.Hackbinder raises an interesting point. Between the media, the fans and the bands themselves we end up with hundreds of subgenres/pigeonholes for each band.
I think there's little point in arguing who goes where when for one the boundaries aren't really that clear and for two - we can find multiple genres in individual songs let alone whole albums/careers.
Can you really say that "Territorial Pissings" belongs in the same genre as "Come As You Are" ?
... and a very good one about multiple genres in one album. I think the best genre for Nirvana is punk, but not punk as in a style of music, but punk as it was first conceived.. as a do-it-yourself attitude. Punk, in the late seventies and early eighties was not just 3 chord eighth notes strummed downwards in 4/4 time with some guy screaming about the government in the background. Punk was an attitude that you didn't need to be pretty or talented to be successful, in fact, those things were seen as constraints to creativity! You just needed the balls to put your vision onto wax. That's why at the beginning, so many different types of bands were considered punk: Ramones, Clash, Television, Talking Heads, Minutemen.
Grunge was a label put on Seattle bands at first in the early nineties because the music did not sound like Guns and Roses so it wasn't Rock. It was too slow to be considered Punk (see the above first description for what constituted "punk" as a musical style in the late eighties / early nineties). And all the band members looked dirty... Hence - "Grunge"!
Nirvana was big when I was in high school, at the time I just thought it was cool music to listen to. Later I read Kurt Cobain's biography and what he achieved musically is quite amazing when you realize just how little effort he put into it.
you cant really compare Kurt to other musicians who actually put in the effort and work hard at it, if he took his music half seriously he would have been one of the greats. He had the gift of Mozart coupled with the attitude of Sid Vicious.
Look what a great drummer and songwriter Dave Grohl turned out to be, If Nirvana got their shit together who knows what they could have achieved.
To be honest i wouldnt like nirvana as much as i do now if it wasnt for the mtv unplugged in new york session he did just before he died.
Originally posted by delete461
He had the gift of Mozart coupled with the attitude of Sid Vicious.
Cobains gifts as songwriter are clear, lyrically and melodically. His guitar playing was competent.
Mozart however was undeniably a prodigy, he was composing from age 5 and was able to write the whole of Miserere out from memory on hearing it only once as a 12/13 year old.
I don't think the two are comparable
