Other bands you just don't "get"

backseatLover12

To all those who don't get the Chili Peppers.

They are not meant to be taken seriously, it's all in fun, it's all craziness. It's all in nudity and wearing socks on their dicks. People really don't get what comedians these guys are, let alone the fantastic groove?

HermanBloom

I just want to thank all those that pointed out Radiohead on this forum. They are a pretentious pile of crap. The Bends was good and then they did this we're going to experiment and make noise and be smarter than everyone, even though they aren't; it's like British comedy: I get it, it's just not funny.

I think it was VH1 who had a top 100 songs of the 90s and Creep was on the show. Thom Yorke was interviewed and he claimed he was in a coffee shop and Creep was on and it took him 3 minutes to recognize the song. First, he's full of crap, and second that is so beyond ridiculous that you would rip on one of your only decent songs and have that attitude of I'm so cool I will diss my own song. Without Creep, you would never even be known.

Other bands I get but think suck:
U2
Nine Inch Nails
All rap
Sublime
Tons of other; I just don't have time

BrokenGlass

I will never understand the passion and reverence people have for Nirvana, and that really bothers me. I am 55 years old and an ardent fan and student of music, and there are plenty of artists that I don't personally care to listen to, but can still appreciate their contribution to rock history and the reason they have legions of fans. For example, I appreciate and respect Led Zeppelin, but I personally don't like listening to them for more than a couple of songs at a time. I appreciate and respect Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix, but I find the times I actually want to hear their music few and far between.

Now here's my deal with Nirvana. I've tried REALLY HARD to get it, and I just don't. I've watched the Reading show and the Paramount Theater show, and the experience just confirmed in my mind that I will never understand the appeal. I don't see anything revolutionary about them, and the conventional wisdom that they changed the direction of rock and roll seems way overstated to me. I just hear thrash music and dumb lyrics that are generally inaudible or impossible to understand. And when I see "greatest guitarists" lists that include Kurt Cobain, I am stupified. When everything on your guitar and amp is turned up to 10, you can make lots of interesting noises, but I never heard anything that even qualified him to be on a list of "good guitarists".

I got the Sex Pistols. I got the Dead Kennedys. I just don't get Nirvana.

Discuss.

pdalowsky

BrokenGlass wrote:

I will never understand the passion and reverence people have for Nirvana, and that really bothers me. I am 55 years old and an ardent fan and student of music, and there are plenty of artists that I don't personally care to listen to, but can still appreciate their contribution to rock history and the reason they have legions of fans. For example, I appreciate and respect Led Zeppelin, but I personally don't like listening to them for more than a couple of songs at a time. I appreciate and respect Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix, but I find the times I actually want to hear their music few and far between.

Now here's my deal with Nirvana. I've tried REALLY HARD to get it, and I just don't. I've watched the Reading show and the Paramount Theater show, and the experience just confirmed in my mind that I will never understand the appeal. I don't see anything revolutionary about them, and the conventional wisdom that they changed the direction of rock and roll seems way overstated to me. I just hear thrash music and dumb lyrics that are generally inaudible or impossible to understand. And when I see "greatest guitarists" lists that include Kurt Cobain, I am stupified. When everything on your guitar and amp is turned up to 10, you can make lots of interesting noises, but I never heard anything that even qualified him to be on a list of "good guitarists".

I got the Sex Pistols. I got the Dead Kennedys. I just don't get Nirvana.

Discuss.

Im no Nirvana superfan however I will say I enjoy their music.

I think that could be due to the fact that Nirvana erupted at the time my interest in music did. the 90's was me era......so its perfectly possible that that heightens their appeal to me

I will agree I don't hear anything amazingly ground breaking about them

BinFrog

BrokenGlass wrote:

Now here's my deal with Nirvana. I've tried REALLY HARD to get it, and I just don't. I've watched the Reading show and the Paramount Theater show, and the experience just confirmed in my mind that I will never understand the appeal. I don't see anything revolutionary about them, and the conventional wisdom that they changed the direction of rock and roll seems way overstated to me. I just hear thrash music and dumb lyrics that are generally inaudible or impossible to understand. And when I see "greatest guitarists" lists that include Kurt Cobain, I am stupified. When everything on your guitar and amp is turned up to 10, you can make lots of interesting noises, but I never heard anything that even qualified him to be on a list of "good guitarists".

First off: Kurt was a good guitar player, and a perfect fit for the band he was in and the style of music he played. Nothing more. I agree he does not deserve to be on the all time great lists.

But I think you need to re-think Nirvana, what they meant, and ignore some of the things that fans and the media have said about them. Their place in history has changed over time in the eyes of the media and general public. some stuff has been overstated. Some stuff has been altered over the years. Some stuff is just plain wrong.

Nirvana did not start any sort of revolution. While it's true they took over the #1 spot on the charts and Michael Jackson slipped from the top spot, that's not the story. They were the symbols of everything that was wrong with hair metal and indulgent rock, but they were only the nail in the coffin. They didn't start any sort of alternative music revolution. The alt music scene had already kicked off with bands like REM, Jane's Addiction, The Pixies, The Cure, Sonic Youth and The Smiths.

But while Kurt was always the first to say Teen Spirit was just a Pixies rip off, the fact remains that Nirvana was able to break through in a way that NO alternative band (let alone The Pixies) could. Nevermind, and SLTSpirit, completely encapsulated what was going on in the alternative music scene and brought it to the mainstream. Whether you want to blame it on slick production, clever marketing, or other reasons the fact remains: Nevermind is the defining album of a generation, a scene, a musical movement, and legions of music fans who were hungry for something real...something grittier. I have no doubt that the alt scene was on the verge of exploding anyway, and another band would have done it if Nirvana didn't. But that doesn't change the fact that Nirvana was that band. They just were.

They were not revolutionary. But Kurt was a musical genius in that he was able to craft songs in the style he loved (abrasive, dissonant, angry, nonsensical) and somehow make it appealing to the masses. And the best part is: he did it without having any thoughts of it being huge. As he said after Bleach: they just hoped their next album would sell as many copies as a Sonic Youth album. That's why Nevermind works. Yeah a lot of the lyrics are kind of silly and nonsensical, but I don't see their music working any other way. Kurt was able to get deep in some songs when he wanted to, but he had an uncanny ability to write stream of consciousness lyrics that were brilliant alongside the music. Simple music with simple lyrics, neither which would have worked without the other. Eddie wouldn't work as a lyricist in Nirvana, and Kurt could never be a guitar player in, say...Rush.

As a 15 year old kid when Nevermind broke through, I was mesmerized. You couldn't put a finger on it, but something was happening and I wanted in. I had seen Outshined and Man In The Box on MTV and was intrigued, but when Teen Spirit debuted and then just caught fire, you could just feel change. You could feel the energy. You just knew it was important...somehow.

Kurt wasn't the voice of a generation, but his music certainly might have been. Disaffected and jaded teenagers, looking up to a guy playing fairly simple guitar parts and singing angry, sometimes weird lyrics....it was a perfect fit. Kurt may have hated being up on that pedestal, but we all loved seeing him up there and he seemed like the perfect (anti)fit...until the end came.

PJStatTracker

pdalowsky wrote:

BrokenGlass wrote:

I will never understand the passion and reverence people have for Nirvana, and that really bothers me. I am 55 years old and an ardent fan and student of music, and there are plenty of artists that I don't personally care to listen to, but can still appreciate their contribution to rock history and the reason they have legions of fans. For example, I appreciate and respect Led Zeppelin, but I personally don't like listening to them for more than a couple of songs at a time. I appreciate and respect Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendrix, but I find the times I actually want to hear their music few and far between.

Now here's my deal with Nirvana. I've tried REALLY HARD to get it, and I just don't. I've watched the Reading show and the Paramount Theater show, and the experience just confirmed in my mind that I will never understand the appeal. I don't see anything revolutionary about them, and the conventional wisdom that they changed the direction of rock and roll seems way overstated to me. I just hear thrash music and dumb lyrics that are generally inaudible or impossible to understand. And when I see "greatest guitarists" lists that include Kurt Cobain, I am stupified. When everything on your guitar and amp is turned up to 10, you can make lots of interesting noises, but I never heard anything that even qualified him to be on a list of "good guitarists".

I got the Sex Pistols. I got the Dead Kennedys. I just don't get Nirvana.

Discuss.

Im no Nirvana superfan however I will say I enjoy their music.

I think that could be due to the fact that Nirvana erupted at the time my interest in music did. the 90's was me era......so its perfectly possible that that heightens their appeal to me

I will agree I don't hear anything amazingly ground breaking about them

They just get the credit for ushering in the 'grunge' era. Music aside, their attitude and style were markedly different than other huge bands at the time. Guns n' Roses were the biggest band at the time and the two couldn't be any different. They erupted, which helped give rise to all the other 'grunge' bands. Many of those bands already existed, but Nirvana gets credit for paving the road.

While I personally love Nirvana, I think that movement was coming with or without them so I never feel like the credit is completely deserved. I've never understood considering Kurt one of the great guitarists of all time, and I can't ever justify including them on a list of the greatest bands of all time. Their catalog is just too small

PJStatTracker

BinFrog just posted a much better version of what I was essentially trying to say while I was writing it, hahaha.

BinFrog

PJStatTracker wrote:

and I can't ever justify including them on a list of the greatest bands of all time. Their catalog is just too small

I think they easily belong on the all time great band list. Yes their catalog is small, but it's huge. 3 full albums and a great b-sides collection. There are several bands who can be on the all time list that didn't have a massive output. Some that come to mind:

The Police (5 albums)
Pixies (essentially 4 albums and an EP before their recent album)
Jane's Addiction (3 albums before the initial split)
GnR (3 real albums, an EP, and a cover album)

curmudgeoness

backseatLover12 wrote:

To all those who don't get the Chili Peppers.

They are not meant to be taken seriously, it's all in fun, it's all craziness. It's all in nudity and wearing socks on their dicks. People really don't get what comedians these guys are, let alone the fantastic groove?

No, I get the comedy -- I think they're funny and charismatic, and I'll watch an interview with them any time. But their songs all sound alike to me.

Zod

Dave Matthews: He has a cult following, but I don't really dig the music. Mostly his vocals.... So I never got that.

curmudgeoness

BrokenGlass wrote:

I got the Sex Pistols. I got the Dead Kennedys. I just don't get Nirvana.

Discuss.

In all seriousness, and with no insult intended, I think it might be an age/ generational thing.

I'm 44; I was in grad school when Nevermind broke, and it was powerful and inescapable. I think the music you listen to in your teens - early 20's will make a bigger impact on you. You would have been in your late teens when the Sex Pistols were a "thing" -- I was in elementary school. If you were mid-30's when Nirvana broke, you would have been well past the angst and anger of you, you know?

Zod

BrokenGlass wrote:

Now here's my deal with Nirvana. I've tried REALLY HARD to get it, and I just don't. I've watched the Reading show and the Paramount Theater show, and the experience just confirmed in my mind that I will never understand the appeal. I don't see anything revolutionary about them, and the conventional wisdom that they changed the direction of rock and roll seems way overstated to me. I just hear thrash music and dumb lyrics that are generally inaudible or impossible to understand. And when I see "greatest guitarists" lists that include Kurt Cobain, I am stupified. When everything on your guitar and amp is turned up to 10, you can make lots of interesting noises, but I never heard anything that even qualified him to be on a list of "good guitarists".

I liked Nirvana and it was probably for the same reasons I like older punk music from the late 70s/early 80s. It was raw, simple, and sounded good to my ears.

So coming from my position that I like Nirvana's music, I think there influence has always been overstated. The rock bands that followed never really stated Nirvana as an influence and you never saw too many bands trying to clone their music. Pearl Jam seemed to be way more influential. So many bands tried to copy their style or go down the same path.

What Nirvana did do was get a bigass spotlight put on them. It put the spotlight back on organic Rock music (opposed to the hair metal glam of the late 80s). So many good bands came out of the early 90s. Would we have ever heard them if the spotlight on Nirvana hadn't been so bright? While I don't consider their music to be all that influential, I think their contribution to Rock music was huge. With one song we got a whole movement.

Driftin'Along

BinFrog wrote:

PJStatTracker wrote:

and I can't ever justify including them on a list of the greatest bands of all time. Their catalog is just too small

I think they easily belong on the all time great band list. Yes their catalog is small, but it's huge. 3 full albums and a great b-sides collection. There are several bands who can be on the all time list that didn't have a massive output. Some that come to mind:

The Police (5 albums)
Pixies (essentially 4 albums and an EP before their recent album)
Jane's Addiction (3 albums before the initial split)
GnR (3 real albums, an EP, and a cover album)

All the bands you mentioned do not belong on the all time list either with the exception of Guns N Roses and I like the other bands more personally. I agree with the previous poster about Nirvana getting too much credit. I do like some of their songs but the "real" music wave was set in motion before Nirvana put out Nevermind for sure.

BinFrog

Zod wrote:

So coming from my position that I like Nirvana's music, I think there influence has always been overstated. The rock bands that followed never really stated Nirvana as an influence and you never saw too many bands trying to clone their music. Pearl Jam seemed to be way more influential. So many bands tried to copy their style or go down the same path.

I think there were a ton of artists influenced by them, and some clones (Silverchair, Bush, Seether, Puddle of Mudd come to mind)

Rivers Cuomo says he started playing music because of Nirvana and Kurt.

Zod

BinFrog wrote:

Zod wrote:

So coming from my position that I like Nirvana's music, I think there influence has always been overstated. The rock bands that followed never really stated Nirvana as an influence and you never saw too many bands trying to clone their music. Pearl Jam seemed to be way more influential. So many bands tried to copy their style or go down the same path.

I think there were a ton of artists influenced by them, and some clones (Silverchair, Bush, Seether, Puddle of Mudd come to mind)

Rivers Cuomo says he started playing music because of Nirvana and Kurt.

huh.. I like some of those bands alot more than the one's pearl jam influenced.. lol.

BinFrog

Driftin'Along wrote:

BinFrog wrote:

PJStatTracker wrote:

and I can't ever justify including them on a list of the greatest bands of all time. Their catalog is just too small

I think they easily belong on the all time great band list. Yes their catalog is small, but it's huge. 3 full albums and a great b-sides collection. There are several bands who can be on the all time list that didn't have a massive output. Some that come to mind:

The Police (5 albums)
Pixies (essentially 4 albums and an EP before their recent album)
Jane's Addiction (3 albums before the initial split)
GnR (3 real albums, an EP, and a cover album)

All the bands you mentioned do not belong on the all time list either with the exception of Guns N Roses and I like the other bands more personally. I agree with the previous poster about Nirvana getting too much credit. I do like some of their songs but the "real" music wave was set in motion before Nirvana put out Nevermind for sure.

The Police absolutely belong on the all time list.

Driftin'Along

I think they easily belong on the all time great band list. Yes their catalog is small, but it's huge. 3 full albums and a great b-sides collection. There are several bands who can be on the all time list that didn't have a massive output. Some that come to mind:

The Police (5 albums)
Pixies (essentially 4 albums and an EP before their recent album)
Jane's Addiction (3 albums before the initial split)
GnR (3 real albums, an EP, and a cover album)[/quote]

All the bands you mentioned do not belong on the all time list either with the exception of Guns N Roses and I like the other bands more personally. I agree with the previous poster about Nirvana getting too much credit. I do like some of their songs but the "real" music wave was set in motion before Nirvana put out Nevermind for sure.[/quote]


The Police absolutely belong on the all time list.[/quote]
Eh...how long is that list?

BinFrog

Driftin'Along wrote:

Eh...how long is that list?

Top 25-30 bands of all time.

Driftin'Along

BinFrog wrote:

Driftin'Along wrote:

Eh...how long is that list?

Top 25-30 bands of all time.

I don't know about that. But to each their own. That's the beauty of this thread. So far, not much hositility, except for the Robert Plant being a douchebag argument earlier.

BinFrog

BinFrog wrote:

Driftin'Along wrote:

Eh...how long is that list?

Top 25-30 bands of all time.

Regardless of the fact that some of their lesser known songs are absolutely amazing (Omega Man, Canary In A Coalmine, Regatta de Blanc, Does Everyone Stare, Secret Journey, Murder By Numbers just to name a few), their list of singles that continue to be played on the radio is huge, and as impressive as almost any band except maybe a few of the really big guns:

So Lonely
Walking On The Moon
Every Breath You Take
Roxanne
Don't Stand So Close To Me
Message In A Bottle
Spirits In The Material World
Invisible Sun
Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic
De Do Do Do De Da Da Da
Synchronicity II
King of Pain
Wrapped Around Your Finger
Driven To Tears
Can't Stand Losing You
This Bed's Too Big Without You