Nirvana's effect

musicismylife78musicismylife78 Posts: 6,116
edited August 2007 in Other Music
Despite the Antinirvana hatred on this board, no one can deny that Smells like Teen Spirit was THE SONG of the ninties, and that Nirvana was at the very least the most important band of that decade.

Kurt and his lyrics and Nirvana in general touched many people, myself included.

But 15 plus years after Neverminds release, what effect has the most important band of the ninties had on popular music?

They changed everything when they came out, changing the face of popular music and pop culture. But now nearly 20 years later, in my mind, rock music in general is as stale, boring, repetative and bland as anything that was going on pre Nirvana.

What is Nirvana's lasting impact? And why is such an important band, known for revolutionizing rock music, now almost forgotten?
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,853
    Despite the Antinirvana hatred on this board, no one can deny that Smells like Teen Spirit was THE SONG of the ninties

    I thought that "I wish I was a little bit taller, I wish I was a baller...." by Skee-lo was the song of the nineties.

    but yeah Nirvana is awesome
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024Philly 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • pjoasisrulepjoasisrule Posts: 3,412
    I thought that "I wish I was a little bit taller, I wish I was a baller...." by Skee-lo was the song of the nineties.

    but yeah Nirvana is awesome

    "Name my kids ghetto names, Lil Mookie, Big Al, Lorraine"
    Alpine Valley 2000
    Summerfest 2006

    "Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
  • However many Nirvana haters we have on this board, surely they're far out-numbered by the amount of people stuck in the early 90's who call today's music "stale, boring, repetitive and bland"...I hope I'll never ever say that today's music sucks compared to a certain point in time, cuz then I'll be creatively dead and artistically closed down for sure.

    It's not easy being open-minded. Everyone likes to think they are, but most are not. As I get older, I notice fewer and fewer truly open-minded people my age...most will just listen to the same 30 cd's they bought in their teens and talk about how great it was back then...it's sad, stale, boring, repetitive, and bland.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    Despite the Antinirvana hatred on this board, no one can deny that Smells like Teen Spirit was THE SONG of the ninties,....

    i agree. and that is all i am gonna say on the matter. :)
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • And why is such an important band, known for revolutionizing rock music, now almost forgotten?

    WTF? Most overrated band ever maybe, but they are about the last band to come to mind as forgotten.
  • Saturnal wrote:
    However many Nirvana haters we have on this board, surely they're far out-numbered by the amount of people stuck in the early 90's who call today's music "stale, boring, repetitive and bland"...I hope I'll never ever say that today's music sucks compared to a certain point in time, cuz then I'll be creatively dead and artistically closed down for sure.

    It's not easy being open-minded. Everyone likes to think they are, but most are not. As I get older, I notice fewer and fewer truly open-minded people my age...most will just listen to the same 30 cd's they bought in their teens and talk about how great it was back then...it's sad, stale, boring, repetitive, and bland.


    thats odd. I thought it was reguarded as fact not only by fans and critics but by members of the grunge scene (ie Kurt, Chris, Layne, Jerry etc...) that grunge was a needed kick in the pants of rock music and music in general. It turned millions of kids onto alt rock. It was different. Rock wasnt the top of the charts in the 80's. It was michael jackson and Madonna. It was spandex and big hair and power ballads. It was music about scoring chicks and groupies and partying.

    You need to open you eyes. I was young in 1991, but I knew fully well what the hell was going on. You obviously havent got a goddamn clue.

    Ed, Kurt, and all the others I mentioned were obviously influenced by earlier bands, but they universally hated the hair metal trash of the 80's. Music inthe 80's sucked. So instead of bashing me, why not bash Ed and everyone else because thats what they said, I am merely concurring with their statements.

    Jon Bon Jovi, Kiss, Motley Crue, Poison, are a hell of a lot different than Pearl Jam and Nirvana and Soundgarden and Alice. And if you cant see that, you might want to get your head out of the sand.

    I was alive and concious in 1991-1994. And I remember turning on MTV and them actually playing Alice, or STP or Pearl Jam. I remember turning on the alt rock station which lets not forget came about BECAUSE of Nirvana, and you could hear great music.

    Now, what do we have Three days grace, Nickelback, Hinder, 3 doors down, puddle of mudd its hair metal hair rock designed for the meat headed rocker who doesnt like a sidedish of substance with their RAWK!

    You want to honestly tell me that rock music on the radio and mainstream rock is worthwhile? You want to honestly say that Nirvana didnt change and rearrange rock when Nevermind hit? You want to honestly argue that many bands that I just bashed, have nirvana as their influence

    I mean HONESTLY?
  • DOSWDOSW Posts: 2,014
    Saturnal wrote:
    However many Nirvana haters we have on this board, surely they're far out-numbered by the amount of people stuck in the early 90's who call today's music "stale, boring, repetitive and bland"...I hope I'll never ever say that today's music sucks compared to a certain point in time, cuz then I'll be creatively dead and artistically closed down for sure.

    He clearly means today's mainstream music, which is most definitely stale, boring, repetitive, and bland when compared to the mainstream rock music of the early-mid 90's. Why are you so quick to judge him and label him as closed-minded?
    Saturnal wrote:
    It's not easy being open-minded. Everyone likes to think they are, but most are not.

    Judging by your post, I can see that's very true.
    It's a town full of losers and I'm pulling out of here to win
  • thats odd. I thought it was reguarded as fact not only by fans and critics but by members of the grunge scene (ie Kurt, Chris, Layne, Jerry etc...) that grunge was a needed kick in the pants of rock music and music in general. It turned millions of kids onto alt rock. It was different. Rock wasnt the top of the charts in the 80's. It was michael jackson and Madonna. It was spandex and big hair and power ballads. It was music about scoring chicks and groupies and partying.

    You need to open you eyes. I was young in 1991, but I knew fully well what the hell was going on. You obviously havent got a goddamn clue.

    Ed, Kurt, and all the others I mentioned were obviously influenced by earlier bands, but they universally hated the hair metal trash of the 80's. Music inthe 80's sucked. So instead of bashing me, why not bash Ed and everyone else because thats what they said, I am merely concurring with their statements.

    Jon Bon Jovi, Kiss, Motley Crue, Poison, are a hell of a lot different than Pearl Jam and Nirvana and Soundgarden and Alice. And if you cant see that, you might want to get your head out of the sand.

    I was alive and concious in 1991-1994. And I remember turning on MTV and them actually playing Alice, or STP or Pearl Jam. I remember turning on the alt rock station which lets not forget came about BECAUSE of Nirvana, and you could hear great music.

    Now, what do we have Three days grace, Nickelback, Hinder, 3 doors down, puddle of mudd its hair metal hair rock designed for the meat headed rocker who doesnt like a sidedish of substance with their RAWK!

    You want to honestly tell me that rock music on the radio and mainstream rock is worthwhile? You want to honestly say that Nirvana didnt change and rearrange rock when Nevermind hit? You want to honestly argue that many bands that I just bashed, have nirvana as their influence

    I mean HONESTLY?
    Rock music on the radio or "mainstream rock" doesn't matter anymore. You don't need another "movement" to make it possible for people to hear great music. All you need is an internet connection.

    I was just responding to you saying rock music today is stale, boring, etc. It's never been stale...it's only been unpopular from time to time.

    Music in the 80's, 90's, whenever has never sucked...there's always crummy acts out there, and there's always great ones out there existing at the same time.

    My point is that we should separate good music from popular music....they rarely have anything in common.
  • Saturnal wrote:
    Rock music on the radio or "mainstream rock" doesn't matter anymore. You don't need another "movement" to make it possible for people to hear great music. All you need is an internet connection.

    I was just responding to you saying rock music today is stale, boring, etc. It's never been stale...it's only been unpopular from time to time.

    Music in the 80's, 90's, whenever has never sucked...there's always crummy acts out there, and there's always great ones out there existing at the same time.

    My point is that we should separate good music from popular music....they rarely have anything in common.


    disagree radically on the last point.

    Grunge was one time when the good music and pop music collided and were one

    the british invasion with the beatles and the stones was another

    the whole hippie rock scene in the 60's with jimi, and the doors and janis and the jefferson airplane, dylan and simon and garfunkel

    the whole singer songwriter movement in the 70's Dylan continued, uncle neil, joni mitchell, james taylor, jackson browne

    the whole working class music of the 80's-uncle bruce and john mellencamp

    the punk scene in 77-clash, damned, ramones, sex pistols

    the indie rock scene of the 2000's-artic monkeys, arcade fire, broken social scene, bloc party, bright eyes, interpol, damien rice etc...


    riot grrl scene of the 90's-bikini kill, bratmobile, heavens to betsy, sleater kinney


    So I completely disagree with you.

    There are times when the mainstream rock scene sucks, and when the mainstream rock scene well....rocks.

    Back in 1991-kids were by the millions all hyped up on Nirvana PJ, Soundgarden and Alice. They were popular bands. That was the mainstream rock scene

    Now what mainstream rock acts are popular? Linkin Park, Nickelback, Three Days Grace, Hinder etc... big difference in my view

    Was rock different in 1980 vs 1991? As I said, is Poison, Ratt, Styx, Jon Bon Jovi, different from Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Soundgarden and Alice? In style? sonically? Lyrically? as people and rock stars?
  • Saturnal wrote:
    Rock music on the radio or "mainstream rock" doesn't matter anymore. You don't need another "movement" to make it possible for people to hear great music. All you need is an internet connection.

    I was just responding to you saying rock music today is stale, boring, etc. It's never been stale...it's only been unpopular from time to time.

    Music in the 80's, 90's, whenever has never sucked...there's always crummy acts out there, and there's always great ones out there existing at the same time.

    My point is that we should separate good music from popular music....they rarely have anything in common.


    your assertion that music in the 80's never sucked, is something kurt personally said he disagreed with. Its a quotable from him. Look it up.
  • markymark550markymark550 Posts: 5,138
    thats odd. I thought it was reguarded as fact not only by fans and critics but by members of the grunge scene (ie Kurt, Chris, Layne, Jerry etc...) that grunge was a needed kick in the pants of rock music and music in general. It turned millions of kids onto alt rock. It was different. Rock wasnt the top of the charts in the 80's. It was michael jackson and Madonna. It was spandex and big hair and power ballads. It was music about scoring chicks and groupies and partying.

    You need to open you eyes. I was young in 1991, but I knew fully well what the hell was going on. You obviously havent got a goddamn clue.

    Ed, Kurt, and all the others I mentioned were obviously influenced by earlier bands, but they universally hated the hair metal trash of the 80's. Music inthe 80's sucked. So instead of bashing me, why not bash Ed and everyone else because thats what they said, I am merely concurring with their statements.

    Jon Bon Jovi, Kiss, Motley Crue, Poison, are a hell of a lot different than Pearl Jam and Nirvana and Soundgarden and Alice. And if you cant see that, you might want to get your head out of the sand.

    I was alive and concious in 1991-1994. And I remember turning on MTV and them actually playing Alice, or STP or Pearl Jam. I remember turning on the alt rock station which lets not forget came about BECAUSE of Nirvana, and you could hear great music.

    Now, what do we have Three days grace, Nickelback, Hinder, 3 doors down, puddle of mudd its hair metal hair rock designed for the meat headed rocker who doesnt like a sidedish of substance with their RAWK!

    You want to honestly tell me that rock music on the radio and mainstream rock is worthwhile? You want to honestly say that Nirvana didnt change and rearrange rock when Nevermind hit? You want to honestly argue that many bands that I just bashed, have nirvana as their influence

    I mean HONESTLY?
    All of that is just a trivial and off-topic rant. You make it sound like he disparaged and trivialized the grunge and alternative movement as not important in rock. He didn't make any statements about the music not being important. He was talking about the person who fails to adapt and change when it's needed. Surely with your revolution rants and threads, you should understand who he's talking about.

    Those bands you listed aren't my cup of tea either. But don't listen to ROCK 103 FM or whatever to tell you which bands to listen to. There's good music out there, you just have to want to find it. Again, with your calls for people to stop being lazy and rise up, you should appreciate what he's saying there.
  • catefrancescatefrances Posts: 29,003
    your assertion that music in the 80's never sucked, is something kurt personally said he disagreed with. Its a quotable from him. Look it up.

    who cares what kurt said? make up your own mind. i remember the 80s and yes there was music that sucked. in fact i know i was listening to some of it.
    hear my name
    take a good look
    this could be the day
    hold my hand
    lie beside me
    i just need to say
  • Today's radio is not the same as FM stations in the late 80s and early 90s, especially with the internet involved. A band doesn't need airplay on Clear Channel or MTV to make it big anymore, unlike the 90s and before.
    I share a cigarette with negativity.
  • JSBEJSBE Posts: 1,077
    Saturnal wrote:
    music in the 80's, 90's, whenever has never sucked...there's always crummy acts out there, and there's always great ones out there existing at the same time.

    it is such a simple concept, right? i don't know why some people just don't get it.
    Saturnal wrote:
    My point is that we should separate good music from popular music....they rarely have anything in common.

    i don't think we need to go so far as to separate (i don't get why everything needs to be categorized and compartmentalized), just let people like what they like and go with it, but i totally understand what you are trying to say. when it all comes down to it, an individual's definition of "good" and "popular" are vastly different - what is "good" to me, you might think suck and vice versa.
  • nickcat0nickcat0 Posts: 75
    There's only really 2 types of music .......... stuff you like and stuff you don't ....... the concept of good and bad is so subjective .

    As for the original question , well the Seattle scene did kill off the hair metal bands , those that survived had to adapt their ways .

    I was never a big fan of Nirvana , I liked some of their songs but always prefered Soundgarden , PJ and AIC .

    My problem with Nirvana /Cobain were the lyrics . I never found them to be that profound , in fact much of Teen Spirit is random words used because they rhyme . Then , when they do make sense , I find the idea of a 24 year old man singing about teenage angst , slightly disturbing . In 1991 Chris Cornell and Eddie Vedder were singing "Hungerstrike" ; Cobain was singing about the fact that his mummy and daddy weren't kind to him . For fucks sake , grow up .

    Finally on a personal note , which has nothing to do with the music , I find Cobain's neglect of his parental duties repugnant .
    Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
    9/9/06
    Everton 3 RS 0
  • PearlerPearler Posts: 191
    nickcat0 wrote:
    Cobain was singing about the fact that his mummy and daddy weren't kind to him . For fucks sake , grow up .
    A great percentage of the PJ catalogue is about daddy being a prick.

    Fact remains...Nirvana suck. Nothing but junkie fodder.
  • Speaking as a child of the 90s

    Nirvana opened doors. They were iconic in a way that no other grunge band was, which had its good and bad moments.

    Admittedly I rarely listen to nevermind these days, though I still churn out Bleach and In utero on occasion, but at the time, it was the record that changed my perception of what was out there musically.

    Ten changed my perception full stop, but I dont know if I would have heard it if Nirvana's nevermind didn't get the ball rolling.

    Grunge blew away bad 80s hair metal, something has to come from somewhere to blow away the crappy bands of today. the trouble is, most mainstream stuff imitates, not initiates. you have to go outside the obvious to find decent music, but not many people can be bothered to do so.
  • muppetmuppet Posts: 980
    I think every decade always has it's fair share of good and bad music. The 80s had hair metal, yeah but it also had a number of artists at their peak. Queen, U2, Bruce Springsteen.

    A lot of people say they miss "the good old days" but the "good old days" had a lot of shit too, and yeah that does include the grunge 'momvemet.' It's also annoying to read some stuffy old music critics who believed that every last shred of musical talent died out in the 60s/70s.

    I think there's a pretty good U2 lyric (no wait, don't run away) that sums it all up. I may have completely missed the point of it but still.

    "Don't believe in the 60's
    The golden age of pop
    You glorify the past
    When the future dries up"

    Anyway, Nirvana. Great band but I'm in the "Wouldn't-Be-As-Famous-If-Kurt-Didn't-Die" camp. I think they're a bit overrated and to say that they changed the face of music and pop culture is taking it a little bit far, I think. But they were still an amazingly talented band.

    To the person who said Kurt Cobain should have grown up...well, I think it could be argued that a lot of the grunge music was about angst. I know angst has a lot of bad connotations, especially with this 'emo scene' we've got. There's a lot of lyrics about rebelling against authority and painful childhood memories. I think it was just a common theme, and Pearl Jam certinally had their fair share of music like that. That's why I personally don't see this "Pearl Jam has always being a political band" argument but let's not go there.

    Oh, and I wouldn't say Nirvana is forgotten. I'd say they'll be regarded as one of the "immortal" bands sooner or later, if not already.
  • There's good music out there, you just have to want to find it.

    Right, that's really what I'm getting at.
  • JSBE wrote:
    i don't think we need to go so far as to separate (i don't get why everything needs to be categorized and compartmentalized), just let people like what they like and go with it, but i totally understand what you are trying to say. when it all comes down to it, an individual's definition of "good" and "popular" are vastly different - what is "good" to me, you might think suck and vice versa.

    Right, I also try not to categorize things and what not. I was just saying we should separate "rock music" from "popular rock music" when having discussions like this because otherwise we end up making blanket statements that aren't true like "rock music today is bland, etc.".

    And I agree that "good" is not always different from "popular". Sometimes they are the same.
  • NickyNoochNickyNooch Posts: 629
    You mean "Rump Shaker" wasn't the song of the 90s?

    9/17/95-New Orleans,LA 8/14/00-New Orleans,LA 4/8/03-New Orleans,LA 4/13/03-Tampa,FL 10/8/04-Kissimmee,FL 8/5/07-Chicago,IL 6/16/08-Columbia,SC 6/23/09-(EV Solo)Atlanta,GA 5/1/10-New Orleans,LA 9/21/12-Pensacola,FL 11/1/13-New Orleans,LA 4/11/16-Tampa,FL  4/23/16-New Orleans,LA


  • disagree radically on the last point.

    Grunge was one time when the good music and pop music collided and were one

    the british invasion with the beatles and the stones was another

    the whole hippie rock scene in the 60's with jimi, and the doors and janis and the jefferson airplane, dylan and simon and garfunkel

    the whole singer songwriter movement in the 70's Dylan continued, uncle neil, joni mitchell, james taylor, jackson browne

    the whole working class music of the 80's-uncle bruce and john mellencamp

    the punk scene in 77-clash, damned, ramones, sex pistols

    the indie rock scene of the 2000's-artic monkeys, arcade fire, broken social scene, bloc party, bright eyes, interpol, damien rice etc...


    riot grrl scene of the 90's-bikini kill, bratmobile, heavens to betsy, sleater kinney


    So I completely disagree with you.

    There are times when the mainstream rock scene sucks, and when the mainstream rock scene well....rocks.

    Back in 1991-kids were by the millions all hyped up on Nirvana PJ, Soundgarden and Alice. They were popular bands. That was the mainstream rock scene

    Now what mainstream rock acts are popular? Linkin Park, Nickelback, Three Days Grace, Hinder etc... big difference in my view

    Was rock different in 1980 vs 1991? As I said, is Poison, Ratt, Styx, Jon Bon Jovi, different from Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Soundgarden and Alice? In style? sonically? Lyrically? as people and rock stars?
    I'm not saying good music is never popular, I'm just saying we should specify what we're talking about here. In your original post, you didn't specify "popular rock music", you just said "rock music". I'm just saying we should identify what we're talking about with more specifics here, that's all.

    And above all that...who cares if mainstream music is artistically alive and growing? Typically, by the time something pure and good gets popular, it's on its way down anyway. There's always something good that's alive and well, and you just have to find it. Nowadays that's so easy with myspace and the internet in general...I literally have a backlog of bands I want to check out now.
  • InHiding19InHiding19 Posts: 2,385
    I will agree that most of mainstream rock is crap these day with bands like Creed and nickleback, but there are some awesome indie bands out there. Just to name a few Wilco, Kings of Leon, Black Angels, Interpol, moe., Sam Roberts, My Morning Jacket, Mute Math, the Kaiser Chiefs, and a shit ton more!!!
    Out of the Blue and Into the Black................Uncle Neil Philly 08 here I come!!!!
  • lockedlocked Posts: 4,038
    he's not my messiah...

    that's for sure..!
    "This here's a REQUEST!"
    EV intro to Chloe Dancer / Crown of Thorns
    10/25/13 Hartford
  • i listened to a friends band today, its freakin sweet.

    Totally blew me away...

    Nirvana did that too, as did a lot of bands.

    they would have been as famous without Kurt's death, though the fame would have dwindled as time went on. Like the pj boys...

    I think if Kurt were alive now he would be a reclusive singer songwriter, very grassroots sort of stuff, bit like John Frusciante is doing. Lots of interesting collaborations. I know he was meant to record with Micheal Stipe b4 he died, but just think of how many more there would have been...
  • kurts death has little to do with it. He was continually refered to as a genius and the spokesman of generation x long before he committed suicide.

    I hate how people always act like those people who die young are overrated.

    Jimi, Jim, Janis, Stevie, Keith moon, james dean, tupac etc... all died young, but its hard to deny their talent and ability and power

    Again, I think this is all a Nirvana vs pearl Jam thing. For years this board has had an underlying hatred of Nirvana. The only reasoning I can come up with is that Kurt and Nirvana are continually refered to as one of the most important bands ever. yet very few critics or top 10 lists would list Pearl Jam or Ed as one of the most important bands ever or one of the most important frontmen ever.
  • Personally, and this isn't because Pearl Jam is "omg teh greatest band evar," I think Pearl Jam is the better overall band to come from Seattle. Nirvana was basically Kurt's vehicle, whereas Pearl Jam seems to be more than just Ed's baby.
    Now what mainstream rock acts are popular? Linkin Park, Nickelback, Three Days Grace, Hinder etc... big difference in my view

    Which, for the most part, are all influenced sonicaly by the big 4 from Seattle. There are some bright spots in mainstream rock, though: Queens of the Stone Age, The White Stripes, Modest Mouse, Arcade Fire, Franz Ferdinand, Arctic Monkeys, etc.
    I share a cigarette with negativity.
  • Personally, and this isn't because Pearl Jam is "omg teh greatest band evar," I think Pearl Jam is the better overall band to come from Seattle. Nirvana was basically Kurt's vehicle, whereas Pearl Jam seems to be more than just Ed's baby.

    I agree, Nirvana could've been Kurt Cobain and any 2 other people...it wouldn't have mattered. Not to say the others weren't good, because they were...but the whole creative direction for Nirvana depended on Cobain. Pearl Jam is much more democratic.
  • glasshouseglasshouse Posts: 1,762
    Whether Nirvana changed anything at all, or whether they were the most significant band of the 90’s (with which I whole heartedly disagree) – are totally irrelevant to me.

    Their music have never meant anything to me and I have always perceived them as a trailer trash outcast band embraced by the same millions of people embracing pop culture today. Pop culture = motherfucking joke. Nirvana have never been anything more than pop – don’t kid yourself in thinking they were a revolutionary rock group.

    I repeat, their music means nothing to me. Zero.
    Athens, Greece: 2006/09/30

    "Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world." Herman Melville : Moby Dick
  • glasshouseglasshouse Posts: 1,762
    yet very few critics or top 10 lists would list Pearl Jam or Ed as one of the most important bands ever or one of the most important frontmen ever.

    typical Nirvana cocksucker we have here. typical. boo
    Athens, Greece: 2006/09/30

    "Call me Ishmael. Some years ago- never mind how long precisely- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world." Herman Melville : Moby Dick
Sign In or Register to comment.