Is Nirvana the most important band since the Beatles

BinFrog

fada wrote:

Alot of artist are hailed more in death than in their living lifetime. Elvis and Nirvana are such examples.

I don't think that it was Nirvana alone that powered the grunge movement. Pearl Jam were equally as big and alot of the fella's older than me in my youth( I was too young to get into pearl jam at the time) all had the bands long hair and shirt look.

I don't think Elivs is a good example. He was an absolute icon in his lifetime.

DriftingByTheStorm

BinFrog wrote:

I don't think Elivs is a good example. He was an absolute icon in his lifetime.

so were nirvana & kurt.
that's what pisses me off about these arguments.
they all neglect the fact that nirvana were absolutely huge and representative of a fucking generation DURING their short career ... Nirvana worship was not born of Kurt's death ... maybe it sealed the deal but they were already at rock god status ...

you don't have a whole industry sucking at your ass-hole ... writing countless bullshit article after bullshit article, devoting ENTIRE zines to your photos and pointless quotes ... jesus people ... it WAS a cultural phenomenon ...

i think most of these stupid arguments stem from the mouths of fucking ignorant kids who weren't even cognizant of their own thoughts during KCs life time ... for them to talk about the relative or perceived importance of a band that met it's demise before their mental arrival is just crap ...

and if you were old enough to appreciate it and somehow didn't ... then i just shake my head.

:( :( :(

i don't know why i feel forced into these debates, but it's like no one will pony up to defend the fuckers anymore. nirvana were and remain important to what rock n roll has shaped in to ... the poppy sound of distorted guitars was never a mainstream item before their arrival ... and it is THE PARADIGM which most all current rock is based on.

sweet lord.
figure it out.
do the math.

Matty Boy

It's funny how so may on here have bought into the Nirvana hype. How about naming me all these great bands that Nirvana inspired. If Nirvana had never existed Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, RHCP, NIN, STP, AIC, Oasis, Smashing Pumpkins, and all the other big bands from the early 90's would have still broken through and become famous. The only thing Nirvana really did that was culturally relevant was usher in an era of flannel crap. The way I see it those of us who were in Junior High School at the time got cheated because the girls dressed grungy instead of slutty like today.

The second most influential band of all time has to be Black Sabbath.

musicismylife78

yeah its so stupid the antinirvana and antikurt backlash on this board. Its so stupid.

And I stand by my assertion most of the haters on this board are pissed off that Kurt and nirvana are and always will be remembered and basically sainted and worshipped,

while Pearl jam although they deserve every bit of praise that nirvana and kurt get,

lets face it y'all

when its all said and done, and the books are written, and its 2030, Nirvana and Kurt will be considered legends, while unfortunatly eddie and pearl jam wont get the praise they deserve'

and some people are bitter and pissed off about that.

Which is so stupid. Its not kurts fault he is praised like he is, and its not eddie's fault that he isnt praised like that.

This is so second grade!

My band is better than your band! No mine is! No mine!

The point of the thread-to discuss Petty's argument that Nirvana were the most important band since the beatles.

Obviously on this board, no such argument can hold water.

Its like suggesting you dislike a pearl jam song. You are a nonfan and arent a true fan.

Strangest Tribe

Kurt didn't want to be praised. Kurt didn't want the fame. Kurt didn't want to be considered a genius.

Kurt was an artist and an inspiration to many...and he didn't like it.

However many will make the argument that he was the greatest ever and that Nirvana is as relevent as the Beatles.

If it has to be argued, then it could be so.
Let the idiots argue while I continue to enjoy the small amount of material Nirvana produced.

I love the music then and now,
every fuckin song

Who cares what I think?

edit: I like Dave Grohl but..............where's the feeling?

Tangerine

dunkman wrote:

EDIT: just read what Hitch-Hiker said and Led Zeppelin springs to mind.

Led zep have had a more musical, social, cultural impact than Nirvana... Led Zep influenced so much and so many that Nirvana never will.. Nirvana werent diverse enough and they left very little in terms of musical legacy for bands to be inspired by.

WOW...I can't believe it took 3 pages! Zeppelin was FAR more influential than Nirvana.

Thanks dunkman ; )

gossardstradlin

This is my experience and two cents for what its worth. When Nevermind came out I was senior in high school. I loved music and listened to Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan, Pink Floyd, was starting to get into the Rolling Stones, Grateful Dead, etc.. I also enjoyed in my high school years the metal scene. Anything from glam (which was pop mainstream, Poison, Ratt, Motley Crue) to Metallica, Guns N Roses, etc..

Nirvana came along and to me was the truest music I had heard in a long time. Catchy riffs, rocking songs and Kurts desparate, shrieking, wailing voice. The hardness of it mixed in with the catchiness, popiness of the songs made it to me something special. Plus I think most of it was just heavy with dark overtones and they looked like us. No glam, no makeup just straight up rock n roll. I read so many people dissing Nirvana because they weren't talented. To me though they led the revolution from glam back to music that meant something.

Maybe not as important as the Beatles but fucking A very important to me, my life, and many of my friends lives.

momofglynn

I think they were the to the 90's generation. I love them. I love Pearl Jam more. But What Nirvana did was amazing and I thank them for opening the doors.

gossardstradlin

Cheguevara6 wrote:

when its all said and done, and the books are written, and its 2030, Nirvana and Kurt will be considered legends

Agree and they completely deserve it.

I think its crap to assume they would not be what they are today if Kurt didn't blow his head head off. Nirvana- In Utero debuted at #1, Unplugged was a huge success. Who's to say that they wouldn't be making even more kick ass albulms now? How can you assume that they are overhyped because he blew his head off?

Songburst

Cheguevara6 wrote:

I never said they were the biggest band in the world. In fact I made a point to say that they werent. Read my post before responding. Kinda important if you want to make a point about my post.

Secondly, do you disagree or agree with my assertion that this Nirvana and Kurt bashing is a sort of whining and longing and anger that Ed and Pearl Jam arent held in the same reguard.

Who on this board would say Pearl Jam are the most overhyped band ever? Who on this board would say Pearl Jam's songs are okay, but most are "meh"?
Who on this board would say they would be upset if when the history books were written, that pearl Jam was called the "most important band in the grunge scene".

Its kinda funny actually.

Because I cant think of a single person on this board who would be upset with Pearl Jam being called the most important band in the grunge scene, and getting the hype and praise that Nirvana gets

Its a double standard.

Nirvana swayed popular music away from big cock rock and started a short period of time where decent music was popular. To think that any of Nirvana's music touches anything done by Pearl Jam is laughable. Nirvana were undoubtedly more influential in turning the tide of popularity from a certain genre to another, but they are nowhere near as influential as far as creating music. Pearl Jam will be remembered for having a great catalog of music. Nirvana will be remembered for igniting a shift in popular music.

pjoasisrule

Matty Boy wrote:

It's funny how so may on here have bought into the Nirvana hype. How about naming me all these great bands that Nirvana inspired. If Nirvana had never existed Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, RHCP, NIN, STP, AIC, Oasis, Smashing Pumpkins, and all the other big bands from the early 90's would have still broken through and become famous. The only thing Nirvana really did that was culturally relevant was usher in an era of flannel crap. The way I see it those of us who were in Junior High School at the time got cheated because the girls dressed grungy instead of slutty like today.

The second most influential band of all time has to be Black Sabbath.

I dont think that is true at all, take a look at how successful those bands were before Nirvana were around. Nirvana got people interested in that style of rock music........if it wasnt for them, there is a very good chance that many of those would not have had the success that they did.

And for the second part, the question was of importance......not influence. I dont think Black Sabbath was the second most influential band either.

yosi1

Cheguevara6 wrote:

name another band that changed the cultural landscape and really ushered in a new era during the last 15 years? Name another band that really kickstarted a movement? Name another band who has had a lead singer with the exception of Ed, who has had as much charisma, and charm and a way of describing the pain of his generation?

Nirvana were and still are big. If they werent extremely important what the hell were they?

Its funny, on the Nevermind thread people acted like that was one of the more important records to come out of the last 15 years. Yet, when we start suggesting that the band itself, and Kurt had a major impact, no, they are overhyped.

I didn't read this whole thread, cause its pretty fucking big, I'm going to respond to this post.

To say that Nirvana is the most important band since the Beatles in my opinion is ludicrous. The Beatles ended 40 years ago (almost), Nirvana first got big 16 years ago. Can one really make the argument that no bands changed the musical landscape, or affected music in a big way in those 26 years before Nirvana? That would be ignoring bands like Led Zeppelin, who in my opinion are the most important band since the Beatles (sure they overlapped, but Led Zeppelin's influence lasted until late into their career). Also, what about band's like Pink Floyd, or the Grateful Dead. Surely their influence on music was at least as great as that of Nirvanas.

I'm not going to say that Nirvana didn't impact the music scene, but I am going to say that history has been VERY kind to Nirvana thus far.

FinsburyParkCarrots

yosi wrote:

The Beatles ended 30 years ago (almost),

John left in September 1969.

Neruda25

I love Nirvana!!!
and didn`t like The Beatles,...bored.

dunkman

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

John left in September 1969.

and to think how much they progressed in such a short time.. in terms of studio output.. 62-69 thats a mere 7 years... or 2 Pearl Jam albums :rolleyes:

be honest here folks... Nirvana are a good band, but their musical output went from punk-rock based music to ehhhh punk-rock based music.. take the Zep for instance... Rock, Blues, Folk, etc... its got the lot and far outweighs anything Nirvana have done

Pearler

The beatles are great. Elvis is greater.

Nirvana just gave a voice to a small legion of angry bums and junkies.

Importance is not one of the adjectives I would use to discribe them.

dunkman

Pearler wrote:

The beatles are great. Elvis is greater.

greater how? Ringo wrote more songs than Elvis.

musicismylife78

length of time has nothing to do with it. So Jimi by your definitions would have made a huge impact because he only released 3 records in his lifetime.

Pearler

dunkman wrote:

greater how? Ringo wrote more songs than Elvis.

He may have but Ringo isnt a songwriters arsehole.

Its not about quantity, but quality.

dunkman

Pearler wrote:

He may have but Ringo isnt a songwriters arsehole.

Its not about quantity, but quality.

ok.. Elvis wrote 2 songs in his life? are those 2 songs better than the Beatles entire back catalogue?

No is the answer