You're right. Anyone who experienced an event, movement, or period of time first-hand can't possibly be a dullard who's less-informed on the matter than someone his junior who's extremely well-read and insightful. That's just crazy.
Nirvana reunites with Paul McCartney in Kurt's role
- Thread starter Slash-LN
- Start date
Nate DaMac
Fuck erbody but me
I was in Kindergarten when Cobain died. I knew who he was.
ÐаÑбоÑа
doesn't know REAL wrestling...
That Cobain shot himself means nothing to my enjoyment of his music. Neither does John Lennon being dead mean I like the Beatles more.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
I agree entirely. Of course it's pretty sad that when I say the same thing about a man who actually MURDERED someone else I am looked at with disdain, but whatever.
Really? there were about 8 stations on basic cable that had it. WE, AMC, etc. Hell, it was online streaming too.
I bet ION is getting a shit-ton of shit for cutting it short, too.
And to throw my 2 cents in here:
The Beatles were a much bigger act then Nirvana. They were 2 totally different groups doing different genres at different times, and to compare the 2 is kind of like comparing apples and oranges.
Jumping back on-topic, here's the video of the actual song the thread is based on:
[YOUTUBE]s1svF1Yyhnc[/YOUTUBE]
Honestly, it doesn't sound like Nirvana or The Beatles. Kinda like when other Supergroups get together they don't sound like one group or another, they make their own sound.
Isn't that just a wild notion?
The whole "I lived through it" argument doesn't make you any more fit to speak on the matter than someone who experienced it later on in their life.
ÐаÑбоÑа
doesn't know REAL wrestling...
"Living through it" is just as liable to skew someone's appraisal of something as looking back.
So if someone around 60 was apart of the board and they said something about The Beatles or Sex Pistols that you didn't agree with, it means they're automatically right because they lived through those eras?
What awful logic, and it takes credibility from what you were both saying by stooping to this level out of frustration to counter opinions instead simply sticking with your original points, which were fair and intelligent.
justinsayne
Cody Rhodes is an excellant
The grunge movement was a period of time, you couldn't experience the movement later on in fucking time, unless your pals with Doc Brown & he loaned you the fucking Delorean. You could experience the music sure, but it's not the same as experience as it was coming out.
Oh, come on... that's a bit of an extreme, black and white example, isn't it? It also depends on what the topic is.
That's just like when someone looks at a review from Wrestlemania III back in 1987 and say that the event sucked on paper. So, since I witnessed it live, I say they're wrong and they call me insane and say that I don't know what I'm talking about. Um, DUH... I definitely know what I'm talking about because I was around when it happened. My point of view is obviously going to be more accurate.
This couldn't be a more inaccurate statement.
Just because I didn't have to stand in line to buy the tape or CD, or hear the music on the radio, or whatever doesn't mean I can't be more well-informed on the matter than someone 10 to 20 years my elder. And, yes, I'll never be able to say I was in the middle of the grunge movement, but if I've read up on the subject and so on, why can't I comment on it and disagree with your opinion? Why are you immediately more of an authority on the matter? My grandmother lived through the grunge movement too, but I'm damn well more informed on it than she is.
Using your age isn't really the best argument you could have come up with, Justin.
And Vince McMahon was at the right place at the right time, does it make the empire and legacy he built any less brilliant?
We can play the "What if?" games all day, but the fact is Nirvana is the band who made that impact and changed the industry forever. Were they lucky? Yeah, of course. Everybody who is successful in life gets a little luck somewhere along the way. It's about capitalizing on those opportunities that measure your talent or work ethic, and Nirvana did just that. It COULD HAVE been another band who got their hit on the radio first, but it wasn't. It was Nirvana, and it changed the landscape of not just rock and roll, but music all together.
We can play the "What if?" games all day, but the fact is Nirvana is the band who made that impact and changed the industry forever. Were they lucky? Yeah, of course. Everybody who is successful in life gets a little luck somewhere along the way. It's about capitalizing on those opportunities that measure your talent or work ethic, and Nirvana did just that. It COULD HAVE been another band who got their hit on the radio first, but it wasn't. It was Nirvana, and it changed the landscape of not just rock and roll, but music all together.
It could be. Living through something doesn't make you a fucking authority on it. Don't act as if it does.
If someone actually watched Wrestlemania 3 and didn't pick up on the electricity that was running through that building and just how much the fans that were there in attendance were enjoying the show, then they're a moron. A person can sit there and say that Wrestlemania 3 doesn't hold up to the stuff they're used to, and that's fine. However, no one can deny watching that footage and seeing the numbers just what a big deal that show was unless they're a complete moron.
Just as no one can watch a Nirvana concert or look at the numbers of record sells, live attendances, etc. and not realize the impact they had on music and on the people who were fans of them at the time. But for some reason, because they still manage to find new fans to this day, they're somehow overrated and those people who end up liking Nirvana are sheep who don't know anything about music. I just don't get it.
Dowdsy McDowds
Sally was here
I didn't read ahead to see if anyone else commented on this, but I think the reason that Nirvana were the more popular band out of all the groups from Seattle/Grunge movement was because Nirvana considered themselves to be in the pop-punk genre rather than in a hard rock genre. Nevermind is their least "grungey" studio album but was also their biggest, so I think something can be taken from that.
As for the whole poetry thing, not all of their songs or maybe even half of them could fall under that bracket, but certain songs like About A Girl, Something in the Way and Heart-Shaped Box definitely have their moments.
justinsayne
Cody Rhodes is an excellant
I could read up on the civil rights movement, but to say because I read up on it means I know exactly what it was like to live through it is just plain false, it'll shed some light on it, & give you an idea but it's not the same as if you had actually lived through it, it's an entirely different experience.
I never said you couldn't, but when someone comes in with first hand knowledge of that period of time, & actual experiences from it, to suggest they don't know what they're talking about or that they're wrong is just kinda asinine
because first hand knowledge & actual experience > book that has been edited to sell more copies:shug:
Good for you
Not using my age so much as using the fact that I experienced the grunge movement first hand.
I won't disagree with you that first hand experience is different. For example, I saw Stockton and Malone play together lots of times, but never quite when they were at their best -- all I remember from that time is what I've gone back and re-watched, read, etc. My dad, on the other hand, went to the games, watched 'em on TV, so he remembers it differently than I do. Still, he and I can sit down and talk about the old Jazz teams for hours -- because even though I didn't live through it, I'm well-read enough to know what I'm talking about. That's really my whole argument here, Justin.
Not really, especially if the person refuting the claim isn't just blindly going into it.
Then find objective sources that don't slant in one direction, don't read books only written to sell copies.
I wish it were that easy. But multiple posters (I won't name any names) have taken on this ignorant point of view. Just like you said, they don't understand the electricity and how it was all about being "in the moment." Looking back on it all, you really can't establish the same point of view or emotional standpoint because you weren't actually there.
I never called fans of Nirvana sheep. Now you're just putting words in my mouth. But when I give my personal opinion on a band and people who were 3 years old at the time of their insurgence sit in their chairs and tell me that my opinions are "wrong", I call bullshit. They can read all of the articles they want and watch all the YouTube videos they can find but they'll never truly know where I'm coming from.
Not an authority. But a person with a more accurate point of view.
Hell, I read about the Civil War when I was in grammar school. But will I know more than a soldier who fought in the war? Highly doubtful.
Considering that the Civil War has been tirelessly studied and examined since its resolution, a modern student of the Civil War definitely knows more about the war than a soldier fighting in it. Maybe they don't know as much about it as, say, Abraham Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, or General Lee, but I'd say someone that has studied the Civil War is more well informed about the war than 99.9% of the people that lived through it.
The same can be said for almost anything, especially since the invention of the internet and file sharing where people can get access to firsthand accounts with the greatest of ease.
So this ridiculous, "You don't know as much as I do because I was there and you were not," bologna that some of the older members of the forum try to pull is just that, ridiculous.
ÐаÑбоÑа
doesn't know REAL wrestling...
Actually, yes, you will.
The soldier will know what it was like for him, his regiment and the theatre of war he took part in and be blind to other points of view.
You will or at least can have a far more well rounded knowledge of the situations involved in the Civil War.
Eye-witnesses can be the least useful sources.
I'm sure though there are of plenty people who were also around back then who vehemently disagree with your stance and would battle it out with you here if they were reading what you're saying, but of course there aren't any here that we know of to do that. But if they were here, how would you address them? This is why stooping to that level and using your seniority as knowing things others younger possibly couldn't grasp simply just doesn't work in a discussion about music or much of anything else.
Danger Burger
Thread Killer
Living through Nirvana doesnt make your opinion any more significant. Its still simply an opinion. Anyone can gain an equal one from listening to the albums.
The grunge movement cant be experienced again, but is irrelevant to whether the music was good or not. Its still opinion. The arguement was never about that until you guys dragged it there.
The effect of Nirvana on the music industry, and the fact that it was them who broke into mainstream and not another band, is heavily documented. It doesnt come down to whether you were there when Nirvana broke through or not. They did. They inspired others. They oened the doors for many other bands. Their quality may be overrated, again that comes down to opinion. Their effect is based on solid provable information, sales analysis and the popularity of similar bands afterwards as compared to before.
Opinions arent open to be wrong or right. D-man, nobody said your opinion was wrong. You tossed out your opinion as fact, thats the only thing people challenged you on.
The grunge movement cant be experienced again, but is irrelevant to whether the music was good or not. Its still opinion. The arguement was never about that until you guys dragged it there.
The effect of Nirvana on the music industry, and the fact that it was them who broke into mainstream and not another band, is heavily documented. It doesnt come down to whether you were there when Nirvana broke through or not. They did. They inspired others. They oened the doors for many other bands. Their quality may be overrated, again that comes down to opinion. Their effect is based on solid provable information, sales analysis and the popularity of similar bands afterwards as compared to before.
Opinions arent open to be wrong or right. D-man, nobody said your opinion was wrong. You tossed out your opinion as fact, thats the only thing people challenged you on.
ÐаÑбоÑа
doesn't know REAL wrestling...
Don't let Sly hear you say that.
Contrary to a widely held belief, opinions can indeed be wrong.
Natural Selection
InfoWarrior
Yeah most heroin overdoses are. Do you know how they figured out he was dead?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layne_Staley#Death
Clearly he didn't just sit in a room for days or weeks on end just shooting drugs, nope he was way better then Kurt. Bullshit, they were very much the same from their music to their lifestyles.