ThomasMeadow Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 with out useing words like "gay" and what not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnezz Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 because they are gay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Really Nirvana were a good band. But they were hyped beyond a point where any band could take it. There also was no dip. Cobain burned out flying at the top of the tree. So he's picture perfect and the myth that grows will never fade. They are a bit like GNR in that they sold 10 million records in a year. What can you say after that? All bands are just bands. Nirvana were probably not as ambitious as people think. They rode the wave, then checked out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndiannaRose Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Really Nirvana were a good band. But they were hyped beyond a point where any band could take it. There also was no dip. Cobain burned out flying at the top of the tree. So he's picture perfect and the myth that grows will never fade. They are a bit like GNR in that they sold 10 million records in a year. What can you say after that? All bands are just bands. Nirvana were probably not as ambitious as people think. They rode the wave, then checked out.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>You just read my mind. Seriously, a lot of you guys that say "they're gay", "they suck", or "they look like Baboon nipples" never care to explain why you think so. I always take this comments lightly as there's almost no brain juice behind them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThomasMeadow Posted July 14, 2005 Author Share Posted July 14, 2005 i didnt start this to be pro or anti, just wanted thoughts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndiannaRose Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 i didnt start this to be pro or anti, just wanted thoughts.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Yeah I know, I wasn't talking about you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eschman Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 My reasons for disliking Nirvana1. I find Cobain to be one of the worst singers in rock history. Many say his voice worked with his style of music, but I just think it was off key, and he wasn't a good screamer.2. Other bands from the same era whose lead singer did not die are much better, but they don't get as much credit, because they "got old". Bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, and lesser known bands like Mudhoney were much better, but get no props.3. Cobain's success lead to Courtney Love's success, and if anyone is a worse rocker than Cobain...4. Cobain is fake. His image was all "I don't want the spotlight, I'm pissed off. I'm the anti rocker" then he did everything he could to stay in the spotlight. Where as Eddie Vedder avoided being a "big rock star" Pearl Jam didn't even promote their second album, and it rocked ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabre Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 It's not that I hate nirvana, I just hate that grunge, headlined by nirvana lead to the downfall of good old rock n' roll.But Cobain was fake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrari Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 There were some contradictions in Cobain's personality and about stardom.But Nirvana wasn't over rated at all. Maybe the grunge bands were over rated like Pearl Jam. Not Nirvana. Great rock music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IndiannaRose Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Maybe the grunge bands were over rated like Pearl Jam.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelica Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 There were some contradictions in Cobain's personality and about stardom.But Nirvana wasn't over rated at all. Maybe the grunge bands were over rated like Pearl Jam. Not Nirvana. Great rock music.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Pearl Jam are if anything, *underrated*. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Third Man Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 (edited) Cobain's attitude that he never wanted to be famous. A person with that mindset shouldn't do interviews with MTV, shouldn't sign multi-million dollar contracts and shouldn't be a Rockstar. Just my 2 pence.EDIT: I also find his voice makes me want to rip out my ears with a rusty butter knife Edited July 14, 2005 by Glick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 (edited) grunge doesn't really exist...its just rock n roll music, people tryna make a movement outta nothing...however, one thing that puts nirvana above most bands on the planet is...passion. textbook talent to my mind, doesn't matter as much as passion and intensity...which they had in abundance...ALL members...Dave Grohl - best drummer in the worldKurt Cobain - there are no words to describe how cool and true he wasKrist Novoselic - solid bass player, solid as they comePat Smear - he's from the Germs for godssake!! that alone makes him christ...but listen to him play, he's intense...swirlin around stage like a dervishthey deserve their level of being rated...problem is its for the wrong reasons...people see them in some emo context when they're more part of like, alternative music scene, rock n roll/punk rock and taking its elements into mainstream rock...in many ways, they killed gnr off in the sense that they stood for somethin different and people responded to the nirvana end at that time in history...plus when the spaghetti incident came out it was like, oh, gnr are bandwagon jumping, doing punk covers cuz punk is being bought back...which is bullshit cuz they planned the spaghetti incident for AGES...before "grunge" (whatever that is) exploded.btw i like both gnr and nirvana and this is in no way a comparison of the two cuz thats just ridiculous, they're too different.there was a reason why kurt signed to a major record label and that was distribution...u can't, have ur message get anywhere till u get heard and on these alternative labels u get marginalised and poorly distributed...its just that he didn't anticipate desire or expect it to get as big as it did, thats not hypocrisy. in the words of the great man himself "we signed to a major record label for distribution...99% of what goes on in major record label is a bunch of bullshit". i agree with him. Edited July 14, 2005 by rocketsredglare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 Nirvana just weren't anything special when it comes to the music itself. They weren't particularly great players, all their stuff was bare and basic beyond being basic.Beyond In Utero I don't see where else they might've gone with it...An album after 1994 would've been a flop for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 musically they were intense man...orignal, catchy, GREAT lyrics, ambiguous, pondered over to this day...i dont see why everybody dislikes basic music, it's primal, it has energy...its not everybodys cup of tea of be like, ballad-makers...and i think after In Utero it WOULDA got really interested cuz Kurt said "this is the final chapter for us, in three chord rock n roll"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringo Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 they sounded different so everyone liked them.......they were great song writers and came up with good stuf so more people liked them. but kurt cobain was just plain horrible at guitar and they destroyed 80's metal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 did he leave any demos of new material behind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 nah....and he wasn't horrible at guitar, just different and outside of the realm of musical technicality...listen to Thurston Moore and Keith Levene...they're examples of experimental guitarists like kurt...the grindy under-tuned thing was on purpose...to create a specific sound. but i guess if u think it's horrible then thats ur opinion and ur entitled to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Careful_With_That_Axe Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 (edited) most of you nirvana bashers are fucking morons.... they are not my favourite band, i hardly like them, but if you remove the HYPE all thats left is a great rock n roll band.its just rock n roll.and who cares if they destroyed 80's metal.. it was ridiculously shit, id rather listen to britney spears and robbie williams. Edited July 14, 2005 by Careful_With_That_Axe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBrownstone531 Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 What really bothers me about Nirvana is that they kinda ushered in an era of style over substance in rock, and they took away some of the fun in music. Say what you want about 80s metal/hard rock/whatever, but some of those bands like Def Leppard, Queensryche, and GNR had a lot of talent, and only a few were able to have their ability shine through the image. Nirvana came along and, in my opinion, just made three minutes of noise with unintelligible vocals. I thought it sucked, and that they were more popular because of their attitude and image than their music. Look at what passes for popular rock today and you can see that trend has continued. And their music was so whiny and depressing. Some of those 80s rock songs were cheesy and kinda lame, but I'm sure most of you still smile and sing along whenever you hear "Talk Dirty to Me" or "Pour Some Sugar on Me" (and as a bonus, chicks dug them). All the Nirvana songs I've ever heard on the radio (I admit to not being really familiar with all their stuff) are like, "I suck, you suck, life sucks, this sucks, everything sucks." Like Vince Neil said on a VH1 show, "Why would I want to listen to music about how fucked up my life is?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabre Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 What really bothers me about Nirvana is that they kinda ushered in an era of style over substance in rock, and they took away some of the fun in music. Say what you want about 80s metal/hard rock/whatever, but some of those bands like Def Leppard, Queensryche, and GNR had a lot of talent, and only a few were able to have their ability shine through the image. Nirvana came along and, in my opinion, just made three minutes of noise with unintelligible vocals. I thought it sucked, and that they were more popular because of their attitude and image than their music. Look at what passes for popular rock today and you can see that trend has continued. And their music was so whiny and depressing. Some of those 80s rock songs were cheesy and kinda lame, but I'm sure most of you still smile and sing along whenever you hear "Talk Dirty to Me" or "Pour Some Sugar on Me" (and as a bonus, chicks dug them). All the Nirvana songs I've ever heard on the radio (I admit to not being really familiar with all their stuff) are like, "I suck, you suck, life sucks, this sucks, everything sucks." Like Vince Neil said on a VH1 show, "Why would I want to listen to music about how fucked up my life is?"<{POST_SNAPBACK}>That's why I hate Nirvana. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketsredglare Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 (edited) style over substance??? what style? lmao they were all about the music...read his journals, he's music obssessed... Edited July 14, 2005 by rocketsredglare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 I saw that book at the store the other day...kinda weird to read somebody's journals...kinda weird to keep journals in the first place... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucketslash Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 (edited) Most people keep a journal,just most don`t sell themI agree that nirvana was a little overrated,but they were good for it and pretty much lived up to the hypePJ was more overrated,they`ve gone the longest and STILL don`t have as many hits as sound garden,and even audioslave`s catching up to pjoverall-Soundgarden should`ve taken nirvana`s place(which it eventually did,and lived up to the hype)Temple of the Dog ashould`ve gone longer(good combo,and i think tog broke the mainstream before pj or soundgarden)Nirvana was very good,(to the point where axl during the uyi tour had slash jam a bit to teen spirit,more on that later)pearl jam was good,but soundgarden deserved that top spot of the grunge monement(and badmotorfinger by soundgarden didn`t deserve the overshadowing of nevermind,it was great) Edited July 14, 2005 by Bucketslash Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moreblack Posted July 14, 2005 Share Posted July 14, 2005 PJ was more overrated,they`ve gone the longest and STILL don`t have as many hits as sound garden,and even audioslave`s catching up to pj<{POST_SNAPBACK}>PJ didn't have any more hits because they stopped promoting their albums to get away from the mainstream didn't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.