How overrated is Kurt Cobain and Nirvana??

[Alex]

This is the thread i thought I'd debate with Sign Guy because I know he's a big Kurt Cobain and Nirvana fan and I remember him saying Nirvana weren't overrated, however I disagree.

Let me say that I am a big Nirvana fan, I just feel that they get to much love for being a great band when, truth be told they really weren't.

Yes Kurt Cobain was a brilliant lyricist (there's no denying it) and some of Nirvana's most well known songs were fairly simple (Smells Like Teen Spirit etc). But why do they get all this love when other Seattle bands were doing things similar (and in some cases better)

 

[TSG]

This is the thread i thought I'd debate with Sign Guy because I know he's a big Kurt Cobain and Nirvana fan and I remember him saying Nirvana weren't overrated, however I disagree.

Let me say that I am a big Nirvana fan, I just feel that they get to much love for being a great band when, truth be told they really weren't.

Yes Kurt Cobain was a brilliant lyricist (there's no denying it) and some of Nirvana's most well known songs were fairly simple (Smells Like Teen Spirit etc). But why do they get all this love when other Seattle bands were doing things similar (and in some cases better)

Here we go: and let me start out by saying you do bring up an excellent point - Nirvana could be conceived as overrated and I understand why people feel that way. But I personally don't see any logic to the argument they are.

The first argument is that they didn't put out a lot of music before Kurt Cobain died, which is true. They only managed to put three CD's out. But you can say a lot in very little, and I feel that is what Nirvana did with their music. Many say that other Seattle area grunge bands did just the same stuff, but even put out more of it. But I disagree. No grunge band of that era spoke to a generation like Nirvana did. There is no denying their influence on music and that grunge generation, and how much larger it was than any other band such as Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam. They are good, but I enjoy that Nirvana sound much more (I could never really get into Pearl Jam at all) and they speak to me, and their generation as a whole, much more than any other band. You might not have an exact measurement of it, and you would have to be blind not to see it.

On the another hand, lyrics are a big part of the music. If you have a good enough frontman and good enough lyrics, you actual music just has to be good enough to get by, and vice versa. Where as Alice in Chains and other may have slightly deeper sounding and murkier instrumental work, Kurt Cobain was a lyrical genius, which you even admitted yourself, and his lyrics, combined with his emotion while singing, carried that band to the next level. He was an amazing frontman, and crafted lyrics only behind few to me, and his emotion when singing was undeniable, which is really what helped the music speak to their generation, going back to my first point. Nirvana was good instrumental wise, and they had chemistry. They were the first to really innovate the grunge sound on a national level, which gives them the advantage immediately, but when it was combined with Cobain's singing and lyrics, it just took the music as a whole to an entire different level, which was way above any other band at the time. People say that Cobain wasn't a great singer, but he was a good emotional singer, if that makes sense. He conveyed every feeling he had through his music, which also helped take it to another level.

People can argue that Nirvana is overrated, and they possibly are on the amount of reverence that they get. But when compared to the other bands at the same time in the same genre, which is the most realistic and fair way to look at, their music as a whole was on a higher level, and they spoke to their generation as a whole, which is something the other bands never accomplished, at least not on Nirvana's level. That is why you cannot look at the other bands of the same genre and even time and say that Nirvana is overrated. There are more arguments to this, but I'll leave it there for now.

 

[Uncle Phatso]

Because in my eyes they were at the top of the grunge scene. They may not of been the best "grunge" band, but they got the most exposure from that music boom in the 90's. The band is just a band, but Kurt gets so much attention because of his lyrics. They were good, but people wanted to see what he really could do in the future. I believe it's just a case of they were huge, and then after Kurts suicide they fell hard.

If their next say two albums would have flopped they could have fallen back on Smells like teen spirt for money. But really Kurt killing himself put his name into the spotlight for future generations. He would have been known for his music, but now it's like 50/50. He's known by alot of people just because of that. Not just for his music.

 

[Sinister Shadows]

the first thing that pops in my mind when i hear either Cobain or Nirvana, is instantly overrated. maybe it's because i'm not a huge fan of grunge... well 90's music at all save a band here and there. but he just get's on my nerves yelling into the microphone. He's as understandable when he was singing as is a band such as cradle of filth today.

Thinking through the hand full of songs they have that i know of right off, i can't say that i like anything that Nirvana ever produced to be honest. so yeah... i'm gonna say they are overrated... but it might be because i'd rather headbutt a brick wall instead of listen to them...

 

[Uncle Phatso]

the first thing that pops in my mind when i hear either Cobain or Nirvana, is instantly overrated. maybe it's because i'm not a huge fan of grunge... well 90's music at all save a band here and there. but he just get's on my nerves yelling into the microphone. He's as understandable when he was singing as is a band such as cradle of filth today.

Hey everyone! Look blind hate!!! If you had actually gave them another chance you would know that Dani Filth has made steps forward to drop that "understandable babble" label. Thats a fact, and I fucking hate Cradle of Filth. You hare saying they are overrated because you don't like the band. I personaly won't even lisiten to Nirvana. But you can't deny that they were a large part of the grunge movement. They were put forward as the poster child for mainstreem grunge. But like any other movement in music. That dosen't make them bad. That's a great thing for a band to get their music out, becuase like every other thing. It's a job

Thinking through the hand full of songs they have that i know of right off, i can't say that i like anything that Nirvana ever produced to be honest. so yeah... i'm gonna say they are overrated... but it might be because i'd rather headbutt a brick wall instead of listen to them...

Why post about this? You say they are overrated because you don't like them? What the hell man, no band should be ever labeled overrated for somthing as simple as that. You just don't like them, is that so hard to say?

 

[LigerBomb]

First off let us all get a refresher as to what the word 'overrated' means:
to rate or appraise too highly.
So just because one may not like something doesn't mean that it then becomes "overrated".

Anyway, and just as an example, almost 20 years ago the band released an album that skyrocketed to the top of the charts—usurping the reigning King of Pop in the process—and practically changed the entire course of popular music and western culture seemingly overnight and forever.

Not only did they kill the momentum of so-called "hair-metal" and early 90's dance pop (think Ace of Bass) but they, along with their Grunge contemporaries, also provoked reactionary music styles—it's said that the Britpop bands of the 90s were, at least in part, an attempt to counteract the pollutants of US grunge/alternative music that had been washing up on UK shores—that have had massive and prolific success in their own right.

Nirvana has sold millions of records (about 30 million worldwide for just the album Nevermind alone), has been noted as influential by countless musicians both major and minor and has had some of their works entered into the (US) National Recording Registry by the Library of Congress. For these reasons alone I have to believe Nirvana is rated quite accurately.

And by the by, the whole concept of being "overrated" is fucking stupid. If you don't like them and/or prefer other bands then in fact that doesn't make Nirvana overrated, that makes your preferred favorite a bit underrated as per your individual opinion. On the other hand—and collectively I might add—both critics and fellow musicians have praised Nirvana's work and noted their influence and the public has voiced their opinion via the sales of tens of millions of albums thus rating and ranking the act among the upper echelons in the entire history of recorded music. How then can a band be overrated when in almost every conceivable way, be it commercially, critically, or artistically, they aren't rated or appraised too highly (again, the very definition of the word 'overrated')?

 

[Alex]

The first argument is that they didn't put out a lot of music before Kurt Cobain died, which is true. They only managed to put three CD's out. But you can say a lot in very little, and I feel that is what Nirvana did with their music.

I'll argue that they only really released one album that 'spoke to a generation'
in Nevermind.

Bleach was a good punk album but never really got that much recognition (and arguably still doesn't)

Nevermind yes catapaulted the band to stardom knocking Michael Jackson off No. 1 and had possibly the anthem of the 90s (Smells Like Teen Spirit) and had some really good songs (Come As You Are, In Bloom, Polly etc)

In Utero can be said is the best album in the sense that they had better lyrics and was stripped down musically which helped, but it can be argued it was riding the wave of Nevermind moreso than anything.

Many say that other Seattle area grunge bands did just the same stuff, but even put out more of it. But I disagree. No grunge band of that era spoke to a generation like Nirvana did. There is no denying their influence on music and that grunge generation, and how much larger it was than any other band such as Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam. They are good, but I enjoy that Nirvana sound much more (I could never really get into Pearl Jam at all) and they speak to me, and their generation as a whole, much more than any other band. You might not have an exact measurement of it, and you would have to be blind not to see it.

That's personal preference to be honest (you did say you couldn't get into Pearl Jam)

On the another hand, lyrics are a big part of the music.

True

If you have a good enough frontman and good enough lyrics, you actual music just has to be good enough to get by, and vice versa. Where as Alice in Chains and other may have slightly deeper sounding and murkier instrumental work, Kurt Cobain was a lyrical genius, which you even admitted yourself, and his lyrics, combined with his emotion while singing, carried that band to the next level.

Yes he was a lyrical genius. But so were Layne Staley and Jerry Cantrell (Alice In Chains) Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam) and Chris Cornell (Soundgarden)

He was an amazing frontman, and crafted lyrics only behind few to me, and his emotion when singing was undeniable, which is really what helped the music speak to their generation,

His singing wasn't great in all honesty, his best performance was the Unplugged session in my opinion. And he wasn't that great of a frontman (but to be fair none of the grunge singers were that good)

Yes he conveyed emotion very well and I guess his style of singing helped that, but again the singers I've already mentioned could convey emotion just as well with an arguably better singing voice.

going back to my first point. Nirvana was good instrumental wise, and they had chemistry. They were the first to really innovate the grunge sound on a national level,

Yes and No. Soundgarden had been releasing recordings before Nirvana as well as Mudhoney (who were actually being touted as the big thing out of Seattle) and Alice In Chains' debut Facelift was the first grunge album to go platinum in the USA before Nevermind had been released.

After Nevermind there was lots of interest in the grunge bands, so people were checking the other ones out, so in a way they made some people check out the grunge bands that they probably wouldn't have.

which gives them the advantage immediately, but when it was combined with Cobain's singing and lyrics, it just took the music as a whole to an entire different level, which was way above any other band at the time. People say that Cobain wasn't a great singer, but he was a good emotional singer, if that makes sense. He conveyed every feeling he had through his music, which also helped take it to another level.

Again Layne Staley, Jerry Cantrell, Chris Cornell and Eddie Vedder all did it just as well but with better singing voices.

People can argue that Nirvana is overrated, and they possibly are on the amount of reverence that they get.

So in a roundabout way you're saying they are overrated a bit???

But when compared to the other bands at the same time in the same genre, which is the most realistic and fair way to look at, their music as a whole was on a higher level, and they spoke to their generation as a whole, which is something the other bands never accomplished, at least not on Nirvana's level. That is why you cannot look at the other bands of the same genre and even time and say that Nirvana is overrated. There are more arguments to this, but I'll leave it there for now.

I'll argue that it was really luck moreso than anything that gave Nirvana the edge over their contemporaries. Nirvana and Mudhoney were both on Sub Pop and Mudhoney were more popular, if Mudhoney was the one that Geffen had signed we might be having a thread wondering if Mark Arm and Mudhoney are overrated.

 

[Alex]

First off let us all get a refresher as to what the word 'overrated' means:
to rate or appraise too highly.
So just because one may not like something doesn't mean that it then becomes "overrated".)

I like Nirvana, I just want to know why they have seem to be put on a pedestal with no-one questioning it

Anyway, and just as an example, almost 20 years ago the band released an album that skyrocketed to the top of the charts—usurping the reigning King of Pop in the process—and practically changed the entire course of popular music and western culture seemingly overnight and forever."

What was to stop the other grunge bands from doing it though?? Facelift by Alice In Chains was released a year before Nevermind, Ten by Pearl Jam was released before Nevermind (yes it ended up selling more eventually, but what was to stop it initially doing what Nirvana did??) what was to stop Badmotorfinger by Soundgarden, released about two weeks after Nevermind doing what they did???

Not only did they kill the momentum of so-called "hair-metal" and early 90's dance pop (think Ace of Bass) but they, along with their Grunge contemporaries, also provoked reactionary music styles—it's said that the Britpop bands of the 90s were, at least in part, an attempt to counteract the pollutants of US grunge/alternative music that had been washing up on UK shores—that have had massive and prolific success in their own right.

Hair metal was dying out anyway really (the majority of late 80s hair metal bands weren't that good) Yes Grunge may heave helped Britpop come about, but Britpop had been brewing for a while anyway, when bands like The Stone Roses had released their debut.

Nirvana has sold millions of records (about 30 million worldwide for just the album Nevermind alone), has been noted as influential by countless musicians both major and minor and has had some of their works entered into the (US) National Recording Registry by the Library of Congress. For these reasons alone I have to believe Nirvana is rated quite accurately

I'm not saying their bad, I just want to know why??

And by the by, the whole concept of being "overrated" is fucking stupid. If you don't like them and/or prefer other bands then in fact that doesn't make Nirvana overrated, that makes your preferred favorite a bit underrated as per your individual opinion

I'll agree with this, but I'll ask if my prefered band gets criticism (for whatever reason) why should a band like Nirvana be exempt from criticism??

On the other hand—and collectively I might add—both critics and fellow musicians have praised Nirvana's work and noted their influence and the public has voiced their opinion via the sales of tens of millions of albums thus rating and ranking the act among the upper echelons in the entire history of recorded music. How then can a band be overrated when in almost every conceivable way, be it commercially, critically, or artistically, they aren't rated or appraised too highly (again, the very definition of the word 'overrated')?

Yes but none of these people seem to have any criticism for Nirvana. Maybe I'm just strange but I prefer to read about something's criticism's rather than praises (if the criticism fails to derail my interest I feel it must be worth checking out) and in that sense I feel Nirvana seem to be overrated a bit because they seem to have so little criticism.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Interesting discussion. I'm a big Nirvana fan as well as an Alice In Chains fan, and I think the difference between them is that Nirvana had a more mainstream sound than AIC, although they can both be labelled grunge.

AIC had/have a much heavier sound and some fantastic lyrics, but I'd estimate 80-90% of their songs can be seen to centre around drugs/death/bad relationships which restricted their exposure to the masses. Kurt could write some good songs, but while not on a par with Cantrell/Staley, they had more widespread appeal and were open to more interpretation which again endeared them to more people and got them more airplay on the radio.

This is also another reason why Nirvana were the face of the grunge movement, despite being more punk-poppy than others such as Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. The exposure Nirvana got probably led to more people discovering the 'Seattle Sound', but were definitely not responsible for all the attention those other bands got.

So no I wouldn't say they are over-rated at all, they have just endured over a long time which is a good thing and while they can be identified and linked with a certain period of time in the history of music, they are not limited to JUST that time as they are still a popular band today. There was a question in another thread asking if The Beatles were over-rated, and the guy who asked the question got a fair kicking because of it.

If a band are still listened to and discussed by a lot of people decades after they were around, that means they have a popular and enduring style that goes beyond only the generation that grew up with them. So if people continue to listen to them, I think that means they are highly rated rather than over rated.

 

[Davi323]

Nirvana gets placed on the pedastal because are afraid to rip into a dead guy. If Cobain hadn't killed himself, Nirvana would have faded into obscurity just like all the other 90s bands that are irrelevant now. They had one really good album, the lead singer kills himself, and suddenly he is the best front man ever, and Nirvana was the voice of an entire generation? Bullshit. As a society, we place far too much reverance on dead celebrities, almost deifying them.

Kurt Cobain was no hero. He was a fucking piece of shit coward who decided that his own personal problems were more important than his family. His selfish actions robbed a wife of a husband, and a daughter of her father. What kind of a real man decides that killing himself is a better choice than staying alive to see his daughter graduate high school, get married, maybe make him a grandpa, and all that? Fuck that, and fuck you, Kurt Cobain. Piece of shit. How much pain and mental damage did you cause your own wife and daughter because you too cowardly to go on living?

I will take Dave Grohl's Foo Fighters over Cobain's Nirvana any day of the week. At least the drummer didn't fucking kill himself.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Nirvana gets placed on the pedastal because are afraid to rip into a dead guy. If Cobain hadn't killed himself, Nirvana would have faded into obscurity just like all the other 90s bands that are irrelevant now. They had one really good album, the lead singer kills himself, and suddenly he is the best front man ever, and Nirvana was the voice of an entire generation? Bullshit. As a society, we place far too much reverance on dead celebrities, almost deifying them.

Kurt Cobain was no hero. He was a fucking piece of shit coward who decided that his own personal problems were more important than his family. His selfish actions robbed a wife of a husband, and a daughter of her father. What kind of a real man decides that killing himself is a better choice than staying alive to see his daughter graduate high school, get married, maybe make him a grandpa, and all that? Fuck that, and fuck you, Kurt Cobain. Piece of shit. How much pain and mental damage did you cause your own wife and daughter because you too cowardly to go on living?

I will take Dave Grohl's Foo Fighters over Cobain's Nirvana any day of the week. At least the drummer didn't fucking kill himself.

To be fair, I believe people were labeling him as the voice of his generation whilst he was alive as he embodied the frustrations of the 'Generation X'.

Onto his death. Now, there could be a whole other thread dedicated whether or not it was murder or suicide (I'm in the suicide camp on that one though because the murder plot involving Love seems a bit mad) but there was a lot of suicide in his family, and there was talk of a 'suicidal gene'. Let's not forget how much heroin the guy was using not only at the time of his death, but throughout most of his career with Nirvana. He attended rehab clinics several times and never stayed longer than a week if I recall correctly. That is the nature of the beast with addiction, logic and 'what is right' get completely muddled in the mind and so the user is no longer thinking and functioning normally. The amounts of heroin he had taken, even if he had quit, would probably still be affecting him to this day and he may even have died naturally by this time.

A lot of speculation surrounding the suicide that led people to think it could have been murder were the amounts of heroin found in his bloodstream, and a lot of the time the argument of 'No normal person could have fired the gun with that level of heroin' doesn't really apply, as he had been taking dangerously high quantities for quite some time beforehand and thus built up more of an immunity. Yet at the same time, here was a guy who bought Volvos because they were deemed the safest family cars when Frances was born. The guy was contradictory in many aspects like that, again I point to the nature of addiction confusing the users mind.

Maybe it was selfish to leave his daughter and wife behind, but from things I've read I think it more likely that he wouldn't have wanted his daughter growing up seeing him as a junkie or a shambling wreck. It was the easy way out sure, but it seemed like he was past the point of no return by then anyway.

 

[itssoeasy123]

Are Nirvana overrated? In my opinion, yes.

It's not becuase I'm not a big fan of them or teen angst "I hate my life" music in general. It's just I feel as though Nirvana is remember for Kurt Cobain's death more then the music, and it's happen's to alot of dead artist. Some are put into higher regard's becuase they were already great artist's, some are just put into high regard's beucase of their death. This past year Michael Jacksaon passed away, after so VH1 made a list of "Top 100 Artist of All Time." VHI made a list a few year's ago, and MJ was put in the top 20, but the most recent list they put him #2, behind The Beatles.

It's seem's after Cobain's death Nirvana are highly praised by being the "voice of a generation," when there were a other grunge bands, and other frontman who IMO were better signer's than Cobain. I think if Cobain never commited suicide, Nirvana probably would've faded into obscurity like the other early 90's grunge bands did. Nirvana were really no different than the other grunge band's other than the fact that their lead singer commited suicide and all the sudden their "the voice of a generation." Nirvana weren't the first band to make grunge music, to have the grunge look, or release a grunge album.

 

[Hardcore Heathen]

I dont think they are. I think its safe to say that if Kurt Cobain Stayed Alive he would have Tarnished his Career. And Because They stopped (be it on Purpose or not) he sort of Died on a High note. Look at Pearl Jam, they are an Example of Not Quitting while your Ahead. What are they doing now? No really what are they doing? He also Affected Peoples lives for Years to Come. The Song Resolve by the Foo Fighters aludes to Cobain. His name helps also as its easy to Remember. And the Fact he Died like a "Rock Star"

 

[TSG]

I'll argue that they only really released one album that 'spoke to a generation'
in Nevermind.

Bleach was a good punk album but never really got that much recognition (and arguably still doesn't)

Nevermind yes catapaulted the band to stardom knocking Michael Jackson off No. 1 and had possibly the anthem of the 90s (Smells Like Teen Spirit) and had some really good songs (Come As You Are, In Bloom, Polly etc)

In Utero can be said is the best album in the sense that they had better lyrics and was stripped down musically which helped, but it can be argued it was riding the wave of Nevermind moreso than anything.

Yeah, but those albums were full of good music, all three of them. Nirvana had quality music up until the point they had disbanded. This isn't your run-of-the-mill local band who plays suck-ish covers of Guns N' Roses songs. We're talking about Nirvana, a band who put out quality music. Nirvana put out more quality music than any other grunge band, which is a hard fact to argue. That makes them better already, so the debate should technically end there. If you're the best in genre at what you do, it's kind of hard to overrate them. You can't really put them any higher.

Yes he was a lyrical genius. But so were Layne Staley and Jerry Cantrell (Alice In Chains) Eddie Vedder (Pearl Jam) and Chris Cornell (Soundgarden)

This could be argued as well, but you can ask any kid that grew up as a part of Generation X, in the early and mid 90's, or even college kids that grew up after that, or people like me that were too young to experience the music as it happened. If you ask them about Nirvana, they will more than likely tell you that their lyrics had a huge influence upon them, much more than any other band. Kurt Cobain was the voice of a generation with his lyrics, and you cannot honestly dispute that. All you can say is that Mudhoney, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, and Pearl Jam did the same. But they really didn't. They had close to the same lifespan (well, some of them) and they made the same kind of music, but Nirvana had them beat as the band that spoke to people. The influence they had is undeniable and indisputable, and it may be the single biggest influence a band had on someone since The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Doors, Elvis and Led Zeppelin were around in the 60's and 70's. That alone puts them on the pedestal they are on, it puts them on that higher plateau. They made the same music as those other bands at the same time, but they did it better and spoke to more people on a wider level. Being overrated is praising someone or something more than it deserves, and with a band that had more influence than anyone since Elvis and Lennon, and made music that was widely celebrated before the singer died (which is why they are generally considered overrated, much like The Doors with Morrison) cannot be overrated.

His singing wasn't great in all honesty, his best performance was the Unplugged session in my opinion. And he wasn't that great of a frontman (but to be fair none of the grunge singers were that good)

Yes he conveyed emotion very well and I guess his style of singing helped that, but again the singers I've already mentioned could convey emotion just as well with an arguably better singing voice.

You can try and say this, but Cobain's range of emotion is untouched on songs such as "Rape Me" and "You Know You're Right" and with music that touched an entire generation like Nirvana did it is pretty hard to say that other singers conveyed the same amount of emotion.

Yes and No. Soundgarden had been releasing recordings before Nirvana as well as Mudhoney (who were actually being touted as the big thing out of Seattle) and Alice In Chains' debut Facelift was the first grunge album to go platinum in the USA before Nevermind had been released.

After Nevermind there was lots of interest in the grunge bands, so people were checking the other ones out, so in a way they made some people check out the grunge bands that they probably wouldn't have.

Before Nirvana went national, no one gave a second thought to the Seattle noise. Before Kurt Cobain and Nirvana rose out of Aberdeen, the only thing that ever came from anywhere near Seattle that anybody cared about Heroin. Then with Nevermind, people cared. And not only did they care, they were influenced. The music spoke to them. Sure, they checked out and even enjoyed other grunge, but if it had spoke to them the way Nirvana did then we would be having this discussion about Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, or Mudhoney right now.

So in a roundabout way you're saying they are overrated a bit???

I'm saying that I can see where the argument would come from, yes, but the argument is mute in the end.

I'll argue that it was really luck moreso than anything that gave Nirvana the edge over their contemporaries. Nirvana and Mudhoney were both on Sub Pop and Mudhoney were more popular, if Mudhoney was the one that Geffen had signed we might be having a thread wondering if Mark Arm and Mudhoney are overrated.

Don't you think there was a reason why Nirvana was more popular though? And don't use that bull about Cobain being dead, because both bands had all members alive and making music at this point.

To be quite frank, with as much heat as Nirvana gets whenever I bring them up I would venture to say that they are underrated, because due to all the heat Cobain gets for becoming famous because he shot himself, people don't give Nirvana the props they deserve for the major influence on the music industry, the way they spoke to a generation, and the quality music they put out. Some people might not like it, unlike you and I, it might not be their style, but it is still quality music in any case.

Hell, if I were to venture to say any grunge band is overrated, it would be Pearl Jam. Mudhoney, Soundgarden, and other smaller grunge bands are never really recognized, there is always a big three discussed: Pearl Jam, Nirvana, and Alice in Chains. AIC is just a few steps below Nirvana, and always put out quality music and had a good-sized influenced themselves. Nowhere near Nirvana, but it is there. Pearl Jam didn't have the influence either had, their music really wasn't that great, and they are overall a much weaker band than the others. We should be having this discussion about Pearl Jam more so than any other grunge band. But that is a different story for a different day, and not the point here.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

Yeah, but those albums were full of good music, all three of them. Nirvana had quality music up until the point they had disbanded. This isn't your run-of-the-mill local band who plays suck-ish covers of Guns N' Roses songs. We're talking about Nirvana, a band who put out quality music. Nirvana put out more quality music than any other grunge band, which is a hard fact to argue. That makes them better already, so the debate should technically end there. If you're the best in genre at what you do, it's kind of hard to overrate them. You can't really put them any higher.

Personally I don't think they put out more good music than the other grunge bands. Soundgarden, Alice In Chains and Pearl Jam all released their own "Classic" grunge album with "Superunknown", "Ten" and "Dirt" and I think their second tier albums "BadMotorFinger/Loud Love" (Soundgarden), "Facelift/Jar Of Flies" (Alice) and "Vs." (Pearl Jam) are better than both "Bleach" and "In Utero". But there will never be a definitive answer to that debate, it is just purely personal taste and I respect your views Sign Guy. To me, Nirvana did one classic album, and 2 pretty average ones.

This could be argued as well, but you can ask any kid that grew up as a part of Generation X, in the early and mid 90's, or even college kids that grew up after that, or people like me that were too young to experience the music as it happened. If you ask them about Nirvana, they will more than likely tell you that their lyrics had a huge influence upon them, much more than any other band. Kurt Cobain was the voice of a generation with his lyrics, and you cannot honestly dispute that. All you can say is that Mudhoney, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, and Pearl Jam did the same. But they really didn't. They had close to the same lifespan (well, some of them) and they made the same kind of music, but Nirvana had them beat as the band that spoke to people. The influence they had is undeniable and indisputable, and it may be the single biggest influence a band had on someone since The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Doors, Elvis and Led Zeppelin were around in the 60's and 70's. That alone puts them on the pedestal they are on, it puts them on that higher plateau. They made the same music as those other bands at the same time, but they did it better and spoke to more people on a wider level. Being overrated is praising someone or something more than it deserves, and with a band that had more influence than anyone since Elvis and Lennon, and made music that was widely celebrated before the singer died (which is why they are generally considered overrated, much like The Doors with Morrison) cannot be overrated.

I certainly agree that Kurt Cobain could be classed as one of the voices of his generation, with kids hanging on to his every word, analysing every one of his lyrics and feeling the pain he was feeling and relating to him through the struggles of their own lives. I think this is why he should be remembered, rather than as a band who but out alot of quality material, because they didn't really. They made one phenomenal album, but it was what they meant to people that makes them very important in musical history.

His singing wasn't great in all honesty, his best performance was the Unplugged session in my opinion. And he wasn't that great of a frontman (but to be fair none of the grunge singers were that good)

Kurt had a perfectly fine voice for the genre of music he played. His vocals on the Unplugged session are great, and on "Nevermind" I love the way he sings. On some of their other material I find he screams too much, which I am not a fan of. I think he was best when singing tracks like"Lithium", "In Bloom" and "Come As You Are".

He never had the incredible vocal range of Chris Cornell, the more tuneful style of Eddie Vedder but I would class him in the similar bracket as Layne Staley- not traditionally "good" singers, but excellent in the genre and style that they were in, and could put alot of emotion, meaning and convey their feelings through their singing.

You can try and say this, but Cobain's range of emotion is untouched on songs such as "Rape Me" and "You Know You're Right" and with music that touched an entire generation like Nirvana did it is pretty hard to say that other singers conveyed the same amount of emotion. [/YOUTUBE]

As I just mentioned, I think Layne Staley did- just listen to "Nutshell" or "Rain When I Die", but the other leading grunge singers of the time (Cornell/Vedder) couldn't do it as well as Kurt. Eddie was better than Chris, but I find the emotion in Alice In Chains and Nirvana greater than Pearl Jam.

I agree with "You Know You're Right"- that is Kurt's inner pain coming out, its an incredibly powerful song.

To be quite frank, with as much heat as Nirvana gets whenever I bring them up I would venture to say that they are underrated, because due to all the heat Cobain gets for becoming famous because he shot himself, people don't give Nirvana the props they deserve for the major influence on the music industry, the way they spoke to a generation, and the quality music they put out. Some people might not like it, unlike you and I, it might not be their style, but it is still quality music in any case.

I don't see why Nirvana get any heat really. It is impossible to ignore their influence on popular music, they basically kickstarted a move away from the hair bands of the 80s and brought a whole new genre to the forefront of public knowledge. They knocked Jacko off the number 1 spot, produced one of the greatest and biggest-selling albums of all time, and their singer was the voice of a generation.

Nirvana's influence cannot be overrated, Their impact cannot be talked down. They are an extremely important band when it comes to their effect on music. However, I do believe that the quality of alot of their recorded material is overrated, especially "Bleach". It really isnt that strong of an album ,and the rise in quality from their first release to "Nevermind" is massive. They really peaked with that album, it is full of classic tracks all the way through. "In Utero" was a return to their more stripped down, raw style and in my opinion it doesnt come close to "Nevermind" in quality. Alice In Chains, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam, and even Stone Temple Pliots have released alot more quality material than Nirvana.

Nirvana released one wonderful album with a smattering of good songs on Bleach, In Utero, and a great live album. That is all

However, the impact and quality of those great songs can never be ignored. They are magnificent pieces of music. There arent many, but the good Nirvana songs are VERY good indeed.

 

[Calderownz]

Everything is overrated, especially by those that rate it highly in the first place. However, as someone from Washington State, I can tell you that in some cases, the love does go a it overboard.

There are three reasons, in my opinion, why this takes place. (The three d's)

1. He's dead. I know, it shouldn't matter. But, it does. People look at it and see that he was done before he should have been and people think that should hold some weight. In reality, he might have been done. Maybe that's all he had to offer. Maybe. Either way, it's all speculation. So, in truth, we have to go with what we have as evidence, the music. And, in my opinion, while there were some good/great songs, it's just not the best thing since sliced bread. Some people disagree and they tend to go overboard with it in my opinion.

2. He was different. WHen he came out, he was such a switch from what was normally on the radio and on MTV, that he was great simply for standing out. Fans that hated what was out there prior to his arrival felt saved by him. Loyal fans don't forget someone giving them that feeling.

3. Destructive. Fans love an artist that is struggling and in a bad way. In Last Words, the rapper Tech N9ne uses lines that perfectly embody this...

"I'm normal, I've never admired fame//
I'm just famous cause I'm a fuck up and ya'll desire pain."

Fans love a guy that is worse off than they are. It makes them feel as though things will be alright for me if this guys hanging in there.

Now, I'm not saying that Kurt wasn't talented or he and Nirvana shouldn't have been successful. But, the three D's give people in music credit OUTSIDE of the actual music.

Death.
Difference.
Destruction.

Same thing goes for a guy like Tupac. I love Tupac. But, is he really the best rapper ever? No. Lyrically, he's not even in the discussion, if you're being honest. As a song writer, he's up there with anyone. As a lyricist? As a rapper? Not top 10. But, he had a lot of the same things that Kurt Cobain had.

Therefore, both get credit for something OUTSIDE of the music. They get overrated. Doesn't mean in ANY WAY that they are untalented or not deserving of success, of course.

 

[Cracka Jack]

Are Nirvana overrated? Yeah, a little. And this isn't coming from someone who hates their music, or is even a mild fan of theirs; Nirvana was the soundtrack to my childhood. They are still, to this day, my second-favorite band ever (behind the Beatles). I can honestly say that I've only heard about three or four songs by them that I didn't like (and that includes digging through B-sides), and they were still okay. I've always idolized these men, and Kurt Cobain may be the reason I even play guitar. Everything, from his mannerisms to his playing style, I had tried to emulate (before realizing I should play in my own style). They are practically gods to me, and to an entire generation, but I do feel a bit much credit may be given to them. Of course, the reason is obvious: Kurt's suicide. If he hadn't killed himself, they probably would've eventually imploded as a unit, and their legacy would have been shattered. Hell, they may even have put out some shit albums before then, though I doubt it (note: I love both Bleach and In Utero). It's been mentioned before, but this weird habit of our society to unconditionally love and idolize dead celebrities is a problem, and this is just one example. In short, I love these guys, and always will, but their impact and greatness might be a little overstated.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

It's interesting how people are speculating that any future albums Nirvana would have released would have been of a lesser quality, when there is a consensus from some fans that Kurt was ready to actually quit music around the time of his suicide. I think that influenced the murder theory with Courtney Love to some degree too. Anything about what Nirvana might have done if Kurt hadn't died is all speculation though.

A thought about the voice of a generation thing. Even if Kurt had lived and Nirvana had released more albums that weren't as good as Nevermind and In Utero, I still believe he would have been labelled the voice of his generation. Not only was he referred to that while he was alive and subsequently it seemed to cause him discomfort at having such a label, but Bob Dylan was given that label early on in his career too because he embodied the sentiments of a lot of people, same thing goes for Kurt.

 

[LigerBomb]

I like Nirvana, I just want to know why they have seem to be put on a pedestal with no-one questioning it

You (and others like you) have questioned it all the time. That in and of itself invalidates your query. Beyond that, historically speaking, Nirvana's merit was questioned before, during and after their rise to fame. In fact, and as your doing right now, they continue to be questioned long after their implosion. Some people just don't "get it" and that's a person's right, to have an opinion. But that in no way lays the foundation for the act to be labeled as overrated.

What was to stop the other grunge bands from doing it though?? Facelift by Alice In Chains was released a year before Nevermind, Ten by Pearl Jam was released before Nevermind (yes it ended up selling more eventually, but what was to stop it initially doing what Nirvana did??) what was to stop Badmotorfinger by Soundgarden, released about two weeks after Nevermind doing what they did???

You've answered you own question. What stopped other acts/albums? Reality. If other acts could have been what Nirvana/Nevermind were, simply put, they would have been. But that didn't happen. You mention albums released before Nevermind that didn't do it and you mention albums released afterwards which failed (relatively speaking) just the same. Nirvana was that proverbial "lightning in a bottle". Again, you can disagree but history remains history.

Hair metal was dying out anyway really (the majority of late 80s hair metal bands weren't that good) Yes Grunge may heave helped Britpop come about, but Britpop had been brewing for a while anyway, when bands like The Stone Roses had released their debut.

Once more your playing at speculation and possibility. The facts remain the facts. Looking at a timeline, music was going in one direction pre-Nirvana and moved in a completely different direction afterwards their success. You can guess and pretend it theoretically could have be similar had they not existed but that's just rhetorical theory. BTW, The Stone Roses is a horrible example as they were a) not truly Britpop b) a relatively small act 'til about 1990 c) did fuck all 'til their 1994 follow up which as I mention was very reactionary towards the American Grunge/Alternative boom that took place in between the Rose's two albums. Second Coming was basically capitulation set to music.

I'm not saying their bad, I just want to know why??

If you don't "get it/them" I can't hope to tell you why. You either like something or you don't. That said, not liking something that the majority of other people do does not, in fact, make it overrated. As per the definition: (to rate or appraise too highly) you certainly aren't rating them too highly, and people who like them aren't rating them too highly as they are legitimately rating the band to how highly they enjoy them. Hence, the only interpretation that even resembles the definition of 'overrated' is that YOU feel OTHERS are rating Nirvana too highly. That's just differing of opinion based on different tastes. (And yes, I know you "like" Nirvana, but not in the faultless way you claim others do, so, rather than specify I just simplified it by say you didn't "like them". Good? Good.)

The only way I could overrate them was if I secretly believed they were a 'B-' band at best yet proclaimed them to be an 'A'. But since I actually believe they were an 'A' band they're rated accurately. Feel free to disagree, but that's still not being 'overrated'.
Therefore the only way you can really make your "overrated" case is to claim that everyone, from fellow artists, music critics, and the global buying public, were all in on a big lie and pushed an otherwise mediocre band to the forefront despite glaringly superior offerings from other acts all culminating in one big cover-up (the purpose of which I couldn't even begin to guess at). Good luck proving that in any realistic way.

I'll agree with this, but I'll ask if my prefered band gets criticism (for whatever reason) why should a band like Nirvana be exempt from criticism??

They're not exempt. The majority simply like what they hear and therefore have less fault(s) to find. The minority will continue to disagree, think everyone else is "nuts" for thinking Nirvana's work so exceptional and will therefore continue to label them overrated. And to that I quote Pitchfork Media's critique of Nirvana's Nevermind (which they named sixth best of the decade) "anyone who hates this record today is just trying to be cool, and needs to be trying harder."

Yes but none of these people seem to have any criticism for Nirvana. Maybe I'm just strange but I prefer to read about something's criticism's rather than praises (if the criticism fails to derail my interest I feel it must be worth checking out) and in that sense I feel Nirvana seem to be overrated a bit because they seem to have so little criticism.

Professional music CRITICS—i.e. people who make a living giving CRITICISM of works—and journalists have already spoken; the public, with their investment and purchasing power, has already spoken; and finally, Nirvana's artistic forebearers, contemporaries, descendants and rivals have had their say as well. Generally speaking, and to put it bluntly, they all kinda liked it/them. That you don't agree is a moot point.

If you felt like the others you'd not question the praise, conversely if they all backed-up an act you found to be practically without fault, again, you'd be on board. What it comes down to is you looking for your opinions to be shared and justified. In this instance they are not. It is what it is, but what it isn't is a case of something being overrated.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Nirvana are not overrated whatsoever. Cobain's death did not put them on a pedestal. They were already a huge success. Nevermind changed the face of rock music forever. Then the followed it up with In Utero, which was also great. Nirvana get all of the hype and attention because they had such good talent and released amazing songs. Sure other Seattle bands were around for the grunge movement, but Nirvana were superior to them and the others pale in comparison.

 

[poppycock]

Nirvana/Kurt Cobain overrated? I don't think this even deserves a serious response because it's so ridiculous but I will respond anyway. First of all when you say overrated what exactly do you mean? You mean they get too much praise right? Well... lets start with Kurt... If you are into making music (as in writing songs) you will see straight away something that Kurt had that put him miles above other "big" bands around at that time, bands who I still love by the way.. Mudhoney, TAD, Alice In Chains, Babes in Toyland, L7 blah blah.. Kurt had an outstanding ability to write melody. He could be loud, raw, unhinged, dirty and "grungy" just like all the other bands around but he also had a fantastic Beatles inspired gift at writing simple catchy melodies that were so much better than anybody elses at the time (not saying that those bands could not write good melodies also) but Kurt's were a cut above. He also knew when enough was enough both on the guitar and with song writing..simple but effective. A lot of bands over complicate things and it takes an excellent song write to know when to stop..which Kurt was.

As a guitar player he was underatted if anything not overrated. A lot of people think that he could barely play his instrument (which is not always a bad thing.. Ramones, The Shaggs, Joy Division) but Kurt could play in a style like no other..ok he was not Hendrix (thank fuck for that seeing as I can only stand Hendrix as far as that sort of playing goes and maybe J Mascis, everybody else goes off on one and it sounds awful and pretentious). He played to his ability an in my opinion he almost dumbed down his playing at times to suit the music he wanted to make..I have seen live footage of Kurt going off on one adding weird solos that are not on the original songs and showing he could play guitar really fucking well if he wanted to. He was making dirty punk rock inspired noise with simple catchy melodies, he did not need to show off how well he could play on record as that would have taken the point of the songs away.

As far as vocals go he had one of the best ranges I have ever heard..he could sing beautifully or scream like he was eating barbed wire and still do it with tune,feeling and emotion. Not just scream for the sake of it like most bands do nowdays.

Anyway to say he was overatted is the most stupid thing I have ever heard and when people say that it is obvious they are just saying for the sake of it..if you were into music and writing and all that then despite you liking Kurt/Nirvana or not you would still appriciate how good he was at what he did. Nirvana did change the face of music for a short while and there was a reason for that..because they were that good. I still mostly listen to bands from around that time and the music I make is inspired by those bands and the bands before them.. Nirvana, Mudhoney, Jesus Lizard, Big Black, God Bullie etc.. and Nirvana will always be my favourite band for many reasons..one being they are the reason I play music today and picked up a guitar in the first place.

 

[Alex]

Nirvana/Kurt Cobain overrated? I don't think this even deserves a serious response because it's so ridiculous but I will respond anyway.

Ok

First of all when you say overrated what exactly do you mean? You mean they get too much praise right? Well... lets start with Kurt... If you are into making music (as in writing songs) you will see straight away something that Kurt had that put him miles above other "big" bands around at that time, bands who I still love by the way.. Mudhoney, TAD, Alice In Chains, Babes in Toyland, L7 blah blah.. Kurt had an outstanding ability to write melody. He could be loud, raw, unhinged, dirty and "grungy" just like all the other bands around but he also had a fantastic Beatles inspired gift at writing simple catchy melodies that were so much better than anybody elses at the time.

What, simple catchy melodies like Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, Mudhoney etc

(not saying that those bands could not write good melodies also) but Kurt's were a cut above. He also knew when enough was enough both on the guitar and with song writing..simple but effective. A lot of bands over complicate things and it takes an excellent song write to know when to stop..which Kurt was.

Again, the other Seattle bands were doing exactly what your saying Kurt Cobain was doing

As a guitar player he was underatted if anything not overrated.

Underrated how???

A lot of people think that he could barely play his instrument (which is not always a bad thing.. Ramones, The Shaggs, Joy Division) but Kurt could play in a style like no other..ok he was not Hendrix (thank fuck for that seeing as I can only stand Hendrix as far as that sort of playing goes and maybe J Mascis, everybody else goes off on one and it sounds awful and pretentious).

I'm not saying playing the guitar to a simple standard is bad, its just some people make it seem his guitar playing was exceptional when it was average at best.

He played to his ability an in my opinion he almost dumbed down his playing at times to suit the music he wanted to make..I have seen live footage of Kurt going off on one adding weird solos that are not on the original songs and showing he could play guitar really fucking well if he wanted to. He was making dirty punk rock inspired noise with simple catchy melodies, he did not need to show off how well he could play on record as that would have taken the point of the songs away.

Dumbed down his playing??? That is what he knew and he made it work, to quote you 'He played to his ability' which was simple and effective, but not exceptional. His wierd solos were basically him fucking around which just about anyone can do.

As far as vocals go he had one of the best ranges I have ever heard..he could sing beautifully or scream like he was eating barbed wire and still do it with tune,feeling and emotion. Not just scream for the sake of it like most bands do nowdays.

Again Layne Staley, Eddie Vedder and Chris Cornell did the same thing but with better singing voices.

Anyway to say he was overatted is the most stupid thing I have ever heard and when people say that it is obvious they are just saying for the sake of it..if you were into music and writing and all that then despite you liking Kurt/Nirvana or not you would still appriciate how good he was at what he did. Nirvana did change the face of music for a short while and there was a reason for that..because they were that good. I still mostly listen to bands from around that time and the music I make is inspired by those bands and the bands before them.. Nirvana, Mudhoney, Jesus Lizard, Big Black, God Bullie etc.. and Nirvana will always be my favourite band for many reasons..one being they are the reason I play music today and picked up a guitar in the first place.

Yes Nirvana changed the face of music, but I want to know why them and not say Soundgarden or Mudhoney. Yes they had good songs but so did the other Seattle bands and (in my opinion) the other bands were better musically.

 

[poppycock]

I don't know anybody who would rate his guitar playing as exceptional and if they do then they don't know much about playing guitar as I am sure Kurt himself would not have ever claimed to be a guitar master. He did have a very unique style of playing though and that in my opinion is far more important than being "exceptional".. infact I fucking hate anybody who is technically gifted on guitar and plays boring note perfect painting by numbers wankery with long drawn out and out of context solos..just to show they can. Sloppy, raw, chunky and not alltogether perfect is way more up my street aslong as it has feeling and doesn't sound generic. The reason Nirvana stood out above all the rest and became the "sound of a generation" and the band that changed everything and the reason Soundgarden, Mudhoney, Stone Temple Pilots etc never is because you are wrong and they were not writing songs as good as Nirvana (well as far as getting noticed in the mainstream go anyway) plus Dave hit harder than anybody else from that scene. I fucking love Mudhoney with all my heart..I see them anytime they come over to England..I have met Mark, they are fucking amazing but they generally write really good dirty garage rock songs which whilst is cool as fuck and I am glad they do..it was never going to change the face of music. Alice In Chains were pretty cool and wrote good songs but it was too dark to change the face of popular music in my opinion. I can't stand Pearl Jam or Soundgarden.. Black Hole Sun is the only Soundgarden song I like at that was a hit. Vedder has a generic rock gravely voice in my opinion and is nowhere near as good as Kurts but that is all opinion. Kurts tone, range, melody and emotion put him way ahead of anybody else as far as vocals go and with Dave backing him up on drums and Krist keeping a steady bassline, Nirvana were ahead of the pack. No other band wrote anything near as good as Smells Like Teen Spirit as far as a song that would get you noticed by the population..it is not my favourite Nirvana song but you can't deny that seeing as what happend after it was released is fact...it changed everything.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

Yes Nirvana changed the face of music, but I want to know why them and not say Soundgarden or Mudhoney. Yes they had good songs but so did the other Seattle bands and (in my opinion) the other bands were better musically.

I said this earlier in the thread but it's worth repeating. Nirvana, although classified as Grunge, thought more of themselves as a punk-pop band while the other bands you have mentioned were all a lot heavier. Punk-pop is easier to accept from the mainstream quite simply, and Nirvana were the meat in the punk-pop/grunge sandwich.

Not knowing much about the other bands, I can only comment on Alice in Chains as a comparison. When you regard a lot of the lyrics of Nirvana, they are quite ambiguous with Smells Like Teen Spirit being the prime example, the chorus is essentially just random words that rhyme which are screamed out over the roaring guitar and banging drums. It's like a release of frustration in a handful of words with no substantial meaning.

Contrast that with the majority of AIC songs concerning death/drugs/breakups and Nirvana's lyrics are always going to be more accessible, not necessarily better (as Cantrell was/is a fantastic writer), than the songs of AIC.

Nirvana did do their fair share of dark songs too, no doubt, but it just seems Nirvana were more accessible due to their slightly different musical style.

 

[Alex]

I said this earlier in the thread but it's worth repeating. Nirvana, although classified as Grunge, thought more of themselves as a punk-pop band while the other bands you have mentioned were all a lot heavier. Punk-pop is easier to accept from the mainstream quite simply, and Nirvana were the meat in the punk-pop/grunge sandwich.

Not knowing much about the other bands, I can only comment on Alice in Chains as a comparison. When you regard a lot of the lyrics of Nirvana, they are quite ambiguous with Smells Like Teen Spirit being the prime example, the chorus is essentially just random words that rhyme which are screamed out over the roaring guitar and banging drums. It's like a release of frustration in a handful of words with no substantial meaning.

Contrast that with the majority of AIC songs concerning death/drugs/breakups and Nirvana's lyrics are always going to be more accessible, not necessarily better (as Cantrell was/is a fantastic writer), than the songs of AIC.

Nirvana did do their fair share of dark songs too, no doubt, but it just seems Nirvana were more accessible due to their slightly different musical style.

I guess I forgot to think of the majority as well. But yeah now that you say it, most Nirvana lyrics were kind of ambigious, obviously Kurt Cobain wrote them for one reason or another, but they can be interpreted in other ways whereas Alice In Chains' (as well as the other bands) lyrics weren't so much. And I guess the music was more accessable because of the slightly more Pop orientated sound.