Gracii Guns Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Why oh why are Nirvana still so popular? I have Nevermind and From the Muddy Banks of the Whishkah albums, and all their songs sound the same! Is it because Kurt's dead? There were way better grunge bands back then, such as Pearl Jam and STP (dare i say it), but people worship Nirvana like food. Thier logo has become iconic and Nevermind "a classic album". Please,...someone agree with me!hope everybodys Christmas and New Years were great too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridin' the Nightrain Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 By far the most overrated band in my mind. Grunge was never amazing at the best of times, and Nirvana were so painfully boring and simple that it boggles my mind how they were even signed, let alone got so big.I guess they were the right band at the right time when people just wanted something different. Doesn't change the fact they're utter shit.My tolerance for Nirvana fans is so incredibly low. They annoy the fuck out of me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adnan Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 That title goes to Led Zeppelin. Nirvana are overrated though. They produced an absolutely stunning album in In Utero, but nothing else that good. They were a good band, but 90's alt-rock produced several better bands including but not limited to Green Day, Stone Temple Pilots, and Rage Against the Machine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Songbird Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 By far the most overrated band in my mind. Grunge was never amazing at the best of times, and Nirvana were so painfully boring and simple that it boggles my mind how they were even signed, let alone got so big.I guess they were the right band at the right time when people just wanted something different. Doesn't change the fact they're utter shit.My tolerance for Nirvana fans is so incredibly low. They annoy the fuck out of me.A band isn't shit because YOU say so.. That title goes to Led Zeppelin. Nirvana are overrated though. They produced an absolutely stunning album in In Utero, but nothing else that good. They were a good band, but 90's alt-rock produced several better bands including but not limited to Green Day, Stone Temple Pilots, and Rage Against the Machine.Well, In Utero was their last album, but I'm sure they would have made something even better.I do, however, agree that Nirvana is overrated. I will never think they were shit, though, cuz I like their music A LOT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gracii Guns Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) THANKYOU!!!! I'D KISS YOU ALL IF I COULD!!! Edited January 2, 2007 by Gracii Guns Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Yeah, yeah, I'm tired of discussing this. We already have ten threads or so, with exactly this subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gracii Guns Posted January 2, 2007 Author Share Posted January 2, 2007 sorry, i dont post in My World much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridin' the Nightrain Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 By far the most overrated band in my mind. Grunge was never amazing at the best of times, and Nirvana were so painfully boring and simple that it boggles my mind how they were even signed, let alone got so big.I guess they were the right band at the right time when people just wanted something different. Doesn't change the fact they're utter shit.My tolerance for Nirvana fans is so incredibly low. They annoy the fuck out of me.A band isn't shit because YOU say so.. 'Course they are. My opinion = fact. Didn't you know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raw Power Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Yeah, Nirvana is a bit overrated, but they are still great. Nirvana was imo the best grunge band. I've never liked Alice In Chains, Pearl Jam etc. that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 (edited) Whilst overrated, I suppose it drew people to that style rather than rap, etc.Soundgarden were better. Oh, and AIC Edited January 2, 2007 by The Sandman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Songbird Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 By far the most overrated band in my mind. Grunge was never amazing at the best of times, and Nirvana were so painfully boring and simple that it boggles my mind how they were even signed, let alone got so big.I guess they were the right band at the right time when people just wanted something different. Doesn't change the fact they're utter shit.My tolerance for Nirvana fans is so incredibly low. They annoy the fuck out of me.A band isn't shit because YOU say so.. 'Course they are. My opinion = fact. Didn't you know?Nop, I didn't. I'm so sorry Almighty Ridin' the Nightrain', formerly known and Slash's Appetite. I shall burn all my Nirvana albums now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridin' the Nightrain Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 You've seen the error of your ways, so I shall forgive you child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Songbird Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 You've seen the error of your ways, so I shall forgive you child.haha yay thank you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adnan Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Whilst overrated, I suppose it drew people to that style rather than rap, etc.Soundgarden were better. Oh, and AICSTP? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Whilst overrated, I suppose it drew people to that style rather than rap, etc.Soundgarden were better. Oh, and AICEric Clapton?No, but Stone Temple Pilots were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krissirge Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 i think the critisicm should be pointed not at the band,but Cobain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicious Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 these get started once a month here there was 2 in one week last monththis thread should be closed or merged. i'm tired of debating this all the time. use the search feature and read my posts and you'll see why you're wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDRM Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 That title goes to Led Zeppelin. What, the, fuckand yes i must agree they are VERY overrated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gina9 Posted January 2, 2007 Share Posted January 2, 2007 Same on again? Do you have anything better to do than bashing Nirvana? There was a similar thread some weeks ago.Anyway, Nirvava isn't overrated. You can't see this because you are young, in their era you were a baby. For example, I don't like many of the Beatle's songs, find them boring and childish, but I understand why the effect they have to a whole generation that grows up with their music and still loves them. My kids will probably find gnr overrated. You can like sth or not, but you can't judge if they are overrated or not. There must be a reason that they were so popular in the past, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankwhite Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 (edited) they are popular still because of their passion. their energy. a three piece band (for the a long while) yet they came off blistering. they were real, as in human beings, they didnt give interviews that placated their audience, kurt cobain was an amazing lyricist. he wrote lyrics that hinted at things, suggestive lyrics, imagery, not outright statements for the most part and when they were outright they were outright in parody and in satire. they made masterfully catchy songs. but the energy is the main thing, the songs were simple and because of that, with the right kind of aggression, they came across as capable of making a bridge quiver. they were just brilliant in ways that i cannot sum up. they played sloppy a lot sure, but thats rock n roll, they handed out a well needed fuck you to the note perfect long guitar solo's and gave you these anti-solo's layered on top of that rhythmic bass/drum catchiness that i previously mentioned. and they were the kids, they looked like the kids, they dressed like the kids, whether they spoke for them is a buncha corny ass bullshit but as a band, fuckin forget about it, few can ever hold a candle to em. i wasnt around for the beatles nirvana or guns n roses, but i love and appreciate em still. its called having an open mind. i think that people that say the beatles are boring/childish whatever or like...y'know, not passionate enough should watch Paul Mccartney throwing himself, balls and all, into performing im down at shea stadium, positively pouring with sweat but just launching himself into the song. THAT is rock n roll! Edited January 3, 2007 by frankwhite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axingn'r Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 It was an incredible band. Not overrated at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest knerken Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 they are popular still because of their passion. their energy. a three piece band (for the a long while) yet they came off blistering. they were real, as in human beings, they didnt give interviews that placated their audience, kurt cobain was an amazing lyricist. he wrote lyrics that hinted at things, suggestive lyrics, imagery, not outright statements for the most part and when they were outright they were outright in parody and in satire. they made masterfully catchy songs. but the energy is the main thing, the songs were simple and because of that, with the right kind of aggression, they came across as capable of making a bridge quiver. they were just brilliant in ways that i cannot sum up. they played sloppy a lot sure, but thats rock n roll, they handed out a well needed fuck you to the note perfect long guitar solo's and gave you these anti-solo's layered on top of that rhythmic bass/drum catchiness that i previously mentioned. and they were the kids, they looked like the kids, they dressed like the kids, whether they spoke for them is a buncha corny ass bullshit but as a band, fuckin forget about it, few can ever hold a candle to em. i wasnt around for the beatles nirvana or guns n roses, but i love and appreciate em still. its called having an open mind. i think that people that say the beatles are boring/childish whatever or like...y'know, not passionate enough should watch Paul Mccartney throwing himself, balls and all, into performing im down at shea stadium, positively pouring with sweat but just launching himself into the song. THAT is rock n roll!You are my hero, frankwhite. I wish all posts on this forum was as great as this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
young_person Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 I like to give a listen to Nirvana every once in a while... But, yes they are a bit overrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vicious Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 i think the critisicm should be pointed not at the band,but Cobainhow should he be criticised if his band got VERY popular? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Is0tope Posted January 3, 2007 Share Posted January 3, 2007 they are popular still because of their passion. their energy. a three piece band (for the a long while) yet they came off blistering. they were real, as in human beings, they didnt give interviews that placated their audience, kurt cobain was an amazing lyricist. he wrote lyrics that hinted at things, suggestive lyrics, imagery, not outright statements for the most part and when they were outright they were outright in parody and in satire. they made masterfully catchy songs. but the energy is the main thing, the songs were simple and because of that, with the right kind of aggression, they came across as capable of making a bridge quiver. they were just brilliant in ways that i cannot sum up. they played sloppy a lot sure, but thats rock n roll, they handed out a well needed fuck you to the note perfect long guitar solo's and gave you these anti-solo's layered on top of that rhythmic bass/drum catchiness that i previously mentioned. and they were the kids, they looked like the kids, they dressed like the kids, whether they spoke for them is a buncha corny ass bullshit but as a band, fuckin forget about it, few can ever hold a candle to em. i wasnt around for the beatles nirvana or guns n roses, but i love and appreciate em still. its called having an open mind. i think that people that say the beatles are boring/childish whatever or like...y'know, not passionate enough should watch Paul Mccartney throwing himself, balls and all, into performing im down at shea stadium, positively pouring with sweat but just launching himself into the song. THAT is rock n roll! Great post. 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.