Is Nirvana the most important band since the Beatles

BinFrog

Ms. Haiku wrote:

Perry Farrell's band Janes' Addiction mostly because Perry Farrell was in it. It just hit me how incredibly important he was for people my age to have access to acts like PJ.

90's alt rock owes a ton to Jane's.

BinFrog

Arctangent wrote:

yeah, 'cos they all carried on pushing those musical bounderies after the beatles split, didn't they? mull of kintyre anyone?

The whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

marker_in_the_sand

I think it can be true...
Without Nirvana many other bands would not exist/be famous.

I don't want to say that Nirvana is that good, but it is a quite important band.
Anyone who doesn't like the beatles can say they suck but in reality they can't avoid that the Beatles also made their music as it is (in most situations)

Same with Nirvana here...
there could be a better band to have this job
but you know... who cares.
Everyone likes smells like teen spirit on a party (at least... I think so?)

You may don't like it because Kurt didn't like PJ but...
without Nirvana even Pearl Jam would not be what it is right now...

Arctangent

BinFrog wrote:

The whole was greater than the sum of its parts.

as far as i'm concerned that's not saying much.

marker_in_the_sand wrote:

I think it can be true...
Without Nirvana many other bands would not exist/be famous.

and who on earth would we not have had without nirvana? anyone really worth bothering with?

Binaural

Cheguevara6 wrote:

frankly I think all the Nirvana and Kurt hatred on the board is anger that Pearl Jam and Eddie werent and arent revered and hailed as much as Nirvana and Kurt were.

As I said, Pearl Jam is important, a hugely important band. That goes without saying. But come on people, lets not kid ourselves. The effect Nirvana and Kurt had on everything was pretty amazing.

Take it from eddie himself, "I dont think anyone of us, would be here if it wasnt for Kurt Cobain".

Pearl Jam should be praised by critics and fans in the future, but I think Nirvana should be classified as ushering in the rock revolution of the early 90's.

And sure Eddie was called a spokesman of a generation too, there is no question Ten, Vs and Vitalogy had a major impact in the 90's.

I don't know about everyone else, but my dislike of Nirvana is based upon the fact that I thought they were so overrated it was criminal and also that Kurt was leaving the band so this whole "They would have done great things" illusion is annoying.
But hey if you like them then power to you, but stilll, they were and still are overhyped.

Arctangent

Binaural wrote:

I don't know about everyone else, but my dislike of Nirvana is based upon the fact that I thought they were so overrated it was criminal and also that Kurt was leaving the band so this whole "They would have done great things" illusion is annoying.
But hey if you like them then power to you, but stilll, they were and still are overhyped.

they were ok, although kurt stole most of his songwriting tricks from the pixies, didn't he? reading some of the books written about him he seemed to feel hemmed in by the quiet/loud/quiet verse/chorus/verse thing and maybe thought that he couldn't actually break away from that and try different things as it was so ingrained in him.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Musically, they aren't that important. Culturally, they're hugely important, but still nowhere near as important as The Sex Pistols back in 1976.

This is the most important moment in rock history, by far, since The Beatles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTM3CdzB4Vs

gabers

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Musically, they aren't that important. Culturally, they're hugely important, but still nowhere near as important as The Sex Pistols back in 1976.

This is the most important moment in rock history, by far, since The Beatles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTM3CdzB4Vs

I agree with the first part of your statement. However, I'd say the Clash had a bigger musical impact than the Sex Pistols. The Sex Pistols kicked the door to punk and the Clash made it so very important. We can always go down the slippery slope of "if there were no Sex Pistols there would be no Clash". You could say Elvis would have never been the King if it wouldn't have been for old R&B. Old R&B derived from jazz, etc. etc.

BinFrog

Arctangent wrote:

as far as i'm concerned that's not saying much.

Must not be much of a fan of music I suppose.

You don't have to be a fan to understand how important to rock they are.

FinsburyParkCarrots

gabers wrote:

I agree with the first part of your statement. However, I'd say the Clash had a bigger musical impact than the Sex Pistols. The Sex Pistols kicked the door to punk and the Clash made it so very important. We can always go down the slippery slope of "if there were no Sex Pistols there would be no Clash". You could say Elvis would have never been the King if it wouldn't have been for old R&B. Old R&B derived from jazz, etc. etc.

The Clash were hugely influential not just because of their punk ethos but their political gravitas, I'll grant you, but no one band managed so superbly to shock conservative pundits and commentators in the UK as well as the Pistols, for a few months in 1976-77.

Imagine the impact of this, back in the seventies, in the dark monochrome days before Al Gore invented the Internet, Tony Blair invented spin and Big Brother contestants had their own agents :

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/58/Filthand_fury.jpg

Plus, I prefer the Pistols anyway. The Clash were preaching to the converted, a bit. The Sex Pistols were more interested in puking over your grandmother.

Hitch-Hiker

Shame the Pistols didn't have any talent.

DriftingByTheStorm

Sawyer wrote:

...nope, the most overhyped band ever.....if Kurt did not become headless, they would never get the glory they do.

I wonder if people who write things like this were even old enough to walk or speak when Kurt died.

:(

DriftingByTheStorm

macgyver06 wrote:

what about lasting quality...can you still listen to nirvana and like it alot??

ive never gotteen tired of PJ...

but when heart shaped box comes on...ehhh
come as you are....ehhhh
SLTS - ehhh
polly--still ehhhh

i can tolerate it...but ya... ehhh

That's great logic.

So pearl jam must REALLY suck because everytime i hear:

Black
Alive
Once
Evenflow
Jeremy
Daughter
Elderly Woman
RVM
Go
Animal

etc etc etc etc

i go "ACK! !! !"

Because we all know Nirvana was SO MUCH MORE COMMERCIAL than PJ

Pfffttt.

And i can listen to all of In Utero (maybe spare Heart shapped) and the backhalf of Incesticides or Bleach anyday and get a kick out of it.

THank you very much.

dirtyT

Sawyer wrote:

...nope, the most overhyped band ever.....if Kurt did not become headless, they would never get the glory they do.

i agree with you. Had he not died, they'd broken up or faded away.

Having said that, Nirvana was very important to "our world". No dening the fact that Smells Like Teen Spirit opened up the world of Grunge. Sure, there were other bands out, but before that song, people were still sing Poison, and Winger. Now, I am not a huge Nirvana fan. In fact, my buddy and I always argue over the better album, NEVERMIND or VS. He thinks Nevermind because of my comments above. IMO, Vs is by far a superior album, that's besides the point.

I don't necesarrily think Nirvana is the most important band sincethe Beatles, but Smells Like Teen Spirit had an impact on music that was huge.

rival9500

Cheguevara6 wrote:

frankly I think all the Nirvana and Kurt hatred on the board is anger that Pearl Jam and Eddie werent and arent revered and hailed as much as Nirvana and Kurt were.

As I said, Pearl Jam is important, a hugely important band. That goes without saying. But come on people, lets not kid ourselves. The effect Nirvana and Kurt had on everything was pretty amazing.

Take it from eddie himself, "I dont think anyone of us, would be here if it wasnt for Kurt Cobain".

Pearl Jam should be praised by critics and fans in the future, but I think Nirvana should be classified as ushering in the rock revolution of the early 90's.

And sure Eddie was called a spokesman of a generation too, there is no question Ten, Vs and Vitalogy had a major impact in the 90's.

yeah i agree Nirvana was a milestone in music. One of the all time greatest bands ever and I have all of their albums. I do admit that they were my least favorite of the Seattle bands. I do disagree that Kurt gets nominated in best guitarist lists (i know they are stupid lists). But you see him ranked in the top five. McCready is so far down on the list if at all. But Kurt gets praise for playing 3 power chords the majority of the time. As far as the second most important band since the Beatles, I have to disagree.

dirtyT

like i said, you can't take away what the did for music, still, imo, they are an average band, and as someone else said, probably the worst band from seattle from the early 90's.

DriftingByTheStorm

rival9500 wrote:

But Kurt gets praise for playing 3 power chords the majority of the time.

This is an oversimplification. PEARL JAM plays powerchords most of the time.
It's fucking rock and roll.

Kurt did a lot more than just power chords. He did more with distortion and sonic noise BY HIMSELF then All THREE guitarists for Pearl Jam have EVER managed to muster up ...

Also, Kurt WROTE those songs ... McCready has a LONG LONG way to go to get any where near the singular talent level that kurt had.

Historicaly i am not a defender of nirvana, but in recent years the backlash has gotten ridiculous.

You people make me sad.

Kurt was a top level talent ... one of the greats ... and you guys piss on him for getting credit, and being over hyped ... dear lord. come off it.

FinsburyParkCarrots

Hitch-Hiker wrote:

Shame the Pistols didn't have any talent.

Sid Vicious was talentless, but that didn't stop him being important. Emerson Lake and Palmer have "talent", but they weren't important in popular cultural terms. Yngwie Malmsteen has "talent", but if he and his cock shaped scalloped fretboard had never happened, the course of popular culture wouldn't have been altered one iota. Musical talent has nothing to do with importance.

And come to think of it, Steve Jones laid down some monster low note riffs even Jimmy Page would be proud of. They might not take a robot with eighty four nanospeed digits to play them, but they've got lots of balls, and you don't forget 'em.

dirtyT

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

This is an oversimplification. PEARL JAM plays powerchords most of the time.
It's fucking rock and roll.

Kurt did a lot more than just power chords. He did more with distortion and sonic noise BY HIMSELF then All THREE guitarists for Pearl Jam have EVER managed to muster up ...

Also, Kurt WROTE those songs ... McCready has a LONG LONG way to go to get any where near the singular talent level that kurt had.

Historicaly i am not a defender of nirvana, but in recent years the backlash has gotten ridiculous.

You people make me sad.

Kurt was a top level talent ... one of the greats ... and you guys piss on him for getting credit, and being over hyped ... dear lord. come off it.

trying to compare Kurt's guitar talent to Mike's? Funny stuff!!

darthvedder88

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Also, Kurt WROTE those songs ... McCready has a LONG LONG way to go to get any where near the singular talent level that kurt had.

That's the most rediculous thing anyone's ever said in comparing Nirvana to Pearl Jam in a long time...dude, look at some of the songs McCready has written or helped write: Faithful, Given to Fly, Tremor Christ, Light Years, Inside Job, Marker in the Sand...McCready has all kinds of musical talent!! Kurt was really good with melody, but that was about the only real thing he had...