What's so great about Nirvana?

[Steamboat Ricky]

Every time they come on the radio...I change the station. I think I thought they were pretty ground breaking back in the day, but honestly, I just don't find their music to be that enjoyable. I much prefer Pearl Jam and other grungy bands.

I guess they revolutionized music or something back in 94...but honestly...what's so awesome about Nirvana?

 

[hyperion]

i honestly could not agree with you more. it's not like they're a bad group or anything per-se...its just...people throw them on a pedestal as one of the greatest bands of all time. It was 4 chord grunge rock that was being out-sold 4-1 by Pearl Jam at the time.

like you said, there was much better out there at the time and to this day i will cringe when i hear them on the radio (usually 10-20x a day)

 

[Hacksaw Highway]

I can't say honestly. Nirvana is one of my top 3 bands easily, but the reason is hard to explain. There's sort of an intangible to their music, it just sounds right. obain I think was a decent singer, not great but not bad, however he was a simply phenominal song writer. The songs he wrote just resonated with people. It really is tough for me to explain, you just have to feel it.

 

[X]

Sorry you guys don't dig Nirvana, it's just a matter of personal taste really. But the twisted genius of Cobain cannot be understated; the songs he wrote and the lyrics he wrote are among the best in rock and roll history, and revolutionized music foever in the 90s. They weren't just a grunge band either; a song like "About a Girl" is as beautiful and melodic as anything The Beatles did.

I simply laugh when people say Pearl Jam is better. I love Pearl Jam too, love them. But they were never on the level of Nirvana. If Nirvana were the Beatles, Pearl Jam would be the Rolling Stones. Amazing, but still simply not as good. Pearl Jam produced alot of shit during the late 90s, whereas literally every recording Nirvana made in my eyes is great.

Any specific reason why you don't like Nirvana or think they're overrated Ricky?

 

[Dexter]

I think maybe Nirvana is something of a "you had to be there" thing. Nirvana is a good band, but a lot of what makes them great is context, and that's hard to grasp if you weren't around for it.

I'm 31 and even I was a little on the young side when Nirvana came around, but the music scene in general was pretty dismal at that point. Most of what you had was hair metal... and don't get me wrong, I dig one or two hair metal bands but there were 9787234 rip offs flooding the scene and it just sucked.

Then suddenly, along comes this song on MTV and it's like absolutely nothing you've seen before. Of course if you were familiar with the Seattle scene, or even familiar with the punk movement in general you'd recognize it, but the vast majority of us were completely caught off guard.

The success of Nevermind opened the flood gates for a lot of other very talented bands to get some mainstream success. For example, without Nirvana, you'd probably never have heard of Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, etc. Of course, that also meant the formation of a billion talentless copycats flooding the market, but that's to be expected with any successful trend.

Basically, what I'm saying is that to really understand why Nirvana is important, you have to understand how they changed the world, and it's hard to do that if you didn't experience it first hand.

 

[hyperion]

I do think that the death of Kurt Cobain had something to do with their overall longevity of success from a nostalgia standpoint. His tragic passing helped create nirvana's legend. and it helped that everything they did up until that point was critically acclaimed..who knows what kind of music would be made by them and how it would have been perceived if he were still around.

Chuck Klosterman wrote a great chapter on Nirvana in his book, "Killing yourself to live: 85% of a true story" that basically encompasses what im trying to say.

however nirvana did bring us dave grohl, which is awesome in its own right.

 

[Slyfox696]

the songs he wrote and the lyrics he wrote are among the best in rock and roll history,

Really? Are you really saying this? Here's the lyrics from three of the songs on their Greatest Hits album:

Load up on guns and
Bring your friends
It's fun to lose
And to pretend
She's over bored
And self assured
Oh no, I know
A dirty word

hello, how low? (x bunch of times)

With the lights out it's less dangerous
Here we are now
Entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now
Entertain us
A mulatto
An albino
A mosquito
My Libido
Yeah

I'm worse at what I do best
And for this gift I feel blessed
Our little group has always been
And always will until the end

hello, how low? (x bunch of times)

With the lights out it's less dangerous
Here we are now
Entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now
Entertain us
A mulatto
An albino
A mosquito
My Libido
Yeah

And I forget
Just why I taste
Oh yeah, I guess it makes me smile
I found it hard
It was hard to find
Oh well, whatever, nevermind

hello, how low? (x bunch of times)

With the lights out it's less dangerous
Here we are now
Entertain us
I feel stupid and contagious
Here we are now
Entertain us
A mulatto
An albino
A mosquito
My Libido
Yeah, a denial
A denial
A denial...

Come, as you are. As you were.
As I want you to be. As a friend.
As a friend. As an old enemy. Take your time.
Hurry up. The choice is yours. Don't be late.
Take a rest. As a friend. As a old memory, memory, memory, memory.

Come. Dowsed in mud. Soaked in bleach.
As I want you to be. As a trend. As a friend.
As an old memory, memory, memory, memory.

And I swear that I don't have a gun.
No I don't have a gun. No I don't have a gun.

Memory, memory, memory, memory (don't have a gun).

And I swear that I don't have a gun.
No I don't have a gun. No I don't have a gun.
No I don't have a gun. No I don't have a gun. Memory, memory...

Sell the kids for food. Weather changes moods.
Spring is here again. Reproductive glands.

(Chorus) He's the one who likes all the pretty songs.
And he likes to sing along. And he likes to shoot his gun.
But he knows not what it mean. Knows not what it mean. And I say yeah. (x2)

We can have some more. Nature is a ****e.
Bruises on the fruit. Tender age in bloom.

(Chorus) (x2)

What are so great about those lyrics? They're not deep, and they're written like a 1st grader would write them. If the genius behind Cobain's lyrics is that he can tap into the mind of a 1st grader, well, then I guess I'll just have to leave it at that.

I've never understood the argument of Cobain's great lyrics. I'm not a big Nirvana fan, so I'm sure there are some obscure songs that don't get worn out on the radio that are "great" and all, but the majority of the songs I hear are piss bucket.

And as for the assertion that Nirvana was better in Pearl Jam...in what world? Musically Pearl Jam blows Nirvana away, and if what hyperion said is true, financially they blew Nirvana away. I've never understood the appeal of Nirvana.


As for why they are so popular. I tend to subscribe to the theory of Cobain dying giving them legendary status.

 

[Goo Punch]

There's a few reasons why Nirvana is considered to be the greatest Grunge band. #1 because they catered to the MTV crowd more than any other band. Pearl Jam, who is far superior, has never been into making music videos and druing the 90's only actually made one (not counting live ones). Nirvana is also credited with creating the Grunge "look", but that says nothing about them musically. The #2 reason (and main one) is that Cobain died. If Eddie Vedder died, Pearl Jam would be "THE" Grunge band. If Layne Staley died in 1994 instead of 2002, it would be AIC. Nirvana may be the most overrated band in the history of music. I love Grunge, it's one of my favorite genres and I will never understand the appeal of Nirvana. Pearl Jam, AIC, Soundgarden...all better bands. Even fringe bands like Collective Soul, Stone Temple Pilots, and Bush are better. Finally, the last reason is that Nirvana never made a non-Grunge album, whereas most of the others have. Pearl Jam really only made 2 Grunge albums (Ten and Vs.) and then changed their sound to more Alt.Rock-ish. Same with bands like STP and Collective Soul. And Soundgarden and AIC were always looked at as being the more Metal-esque bands from the scene.

 

[X]

Really? Are you really saying this? Here's the lyrics from three of the songs on their Greatest Hits album:

What are so great about those lyrics? They're not deep, and they're written like a 1st grader would write them. If the genius behind Cobain's lyrics is that he can tap into the mind of a 1st grader, well, then I guess I'll just have to leave it at that.

The fact that you take them on face value alone and consider them to be "not deep" tells me all I need to know about your opinion on this matter. Clearly you know very little about Cobain, or his writing style for that matter. You also clearly know nothing about punk rock, and I wouldn't have expected you to.

I'm sure to an everyday person someone like Picasso's work probably looked like something a first grader would make as well Sly.

I've never understood the argument of Cobain's great lyrics. I'm not a big Nirvana fan, so I'm sure there are some obscure songs that don't get worn out on the radio that are "great" and all, but the majority of the songs I hear are piss bucket.

That's nice if you feel that way, but the majority of human beings with ears disagree with you. I'm sure there are people who hate Bob Dylan, hate the Beatles, hate Elvis, hate Michael Jackson. Doesn't change the fact that they rank among the greatest artists in music history for a damn good reason.

And as for the assertion that Nirvana was better in Pearl Jam...in what world? Musically Pearl Jam blows Nirvana away, and if what hyperion said is true, financially they blew Nirvana away. I've never understood the appeal of Nirvana.

A) Pearl Jam blows Nirvana away musically? If you say so Slyfox, I'd say that's a big fat load of bullshit though. Pearl Jam, while a great band, were a by-the-numbers alternative rock band that sounded like 900,000 other bands and weren't very creative in the slightest bit. Whereas if you listen to something like Nirvana's In Utero album, and absolutely nothing before or since sounds like it. Nirvana were far more innovative, far more creative, and the songwriting of Cobain puts Vedder and the rest of Pearl Jam to absolute fucking shame in my opinion. Pearl Jam couldn't write a song as beautiful as About a Girl or as cathartic as Aneurysm in their wildest dreams. If you disagree, that's fine Sly, but that's simply your opinion, just as this is mine.

B) Sales records? Yes, because sales clearly is an indicator of quality. That would explain why Transformers 2 was one of the highest grossing films of the year and why The Jonas Brothers are selling out stadiums. Obviously sales must indicate quality! Duh! No. Anyone who brings sales figures into a discussion about ART is a fucking moron.

As for why they are so popular. I tend to subscribe to the theory of Cobain dying giving them legendary status.

Right, by that same logic we can just say that Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison only have their legendary status because they died young as well, right? Nevermind the high quality of music they put out, the millions of fans, the way Cobain absolutely revolutionized modern rock and is still being ripped off on the radio to this day, no, it was his death that made him a legend, right? Nevermind that he's been the biggest influence on American rock music for the last 15 years, right? Please. Cobain was already a genius long before his death.

Please. If you don't like Nirvana, fine, that's nice. That's your opinion, and this is mine. I respect yours, I'd expect the same in return. I understand why people love Pearl Jam, if you can't understand why people love Nirvana, than you clearly aren't trying very hard to understand and are instead looking for reasons to hate them.

 

[Slyfox696]

The fact that you take them on face value alone and consider them to be "not deep" tells me all I need to know about your opinion on this matter. Clearly you know very little about Cobain, or his writing style for that matter. You also clearly know nothing about punk rock, and I wouldn't have expected you to.

I'm sure to an everyday person someone like Picasso's work probably looked like something a first grader would make as well Sly.

And yet, I can't help but notice that amongst all your bullshit here, you still didn't answer my question.

"What are so great about those lyrics? "

Now, surely this is just a mistake, but I'm still waiting.

That's nice if you feel that way, but the majority of human beings with ears disagree with you.

Of course they do. Which is why this thread was made. C'mon Xfear, pay attention. The question is WHY those people disagree, especially when their music is so terrible. But, to borrow an argument you are going to use a little later in your post...

The majority of human beings with ears think Nickelback is a great band. So, according to you, Nickelback is now a great band?

A) Pearl Jam blows Nirvana away musically?

Easily.

If you say so Slyfox, I'd say that's a big fat load of bullshit though.

Of course you would, you're blindsided by the wonderful lyrics of Kurt Cobain. Nevermind the fact you can't actually explain what's so wonderful about them, but they're great all the same.

Pearl Jam, while a great band, were a by-the-numbers alternative rock band that sounded like 900,000 other bands and weren't very creative in the slightest bit.

Meh...not really.

The more accurate statement would be that 900,000 other bands sounded like them. Which is a testimony more to the greatness of Pearl Jam, than it is a knock against them.

If you disagree, that's fine Sly, but that's simply your opinion, just as this is mine.

Really, xfear, really? You're going with the "my opinion and your opinion" argument? I suppose that means you know you're supporting a losing cause on this one.

B) Sales records? Yes, because sales clearly is an indicator of quality. That would explain why Transformers 2 was one of the highest grossing films of the year and why The Jonas Brothers are selling out stadiums. Obviously sales must indicate quality! Duh! No. Anyone who brings sales figures into a discussion about ART is a fucking moron.

We're actually discussing why Nirvana is popular today. One theory is that Nirvana is popular because Cobain killed himself. To support that theory, the popularity of the two bands is completely relevant, and if what the one guy said was correct, Pearl Jam was the more popular band, which gives credence to the argument that Cobain's death, much like Owen Hart's in wrestling, gave an imaginary boost of "greatness" to Nirvana's music.

You're slipping xfear. You're not even processing the entire argument here, and are going one track mind, focusing only upon the greatness of Cobain's shitty lyrics. Catch up and join the rest of us.

Right, by that same logic we can just say that Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison only have their legendary status because they died young as well, right?

Couldn't tell you, don't know enough about them to speak one way or another.

But, it's the same logic we always apply to Owen Hart. He was a medicore wrestler until he died....upon the moment of his death, he became a Hall of Fame wrestler. Don't pretend it doesn't happen, when we both know it does.

Hell, look no further than Michael Jackson. This time last year, the man was a joke, a has-been, a child molesting washed out freak who dangles his own child over a balcony. Right now he's being revered as arguably the greatest entertainer ever. Aside from dying, what did Michael do in the last year to change his image?

Don't dismiss the argument that death popularizes entertainers, because we both know it rings absolutely true.

if you can't understand why people love Nirvana, than you clearly aren't trying very hard to understand and are instead looking for reasons to hate them.

No, I actually have a very well thought out reason that people like Nirvana. It's the same reason people love Nickelback and American Idol. It's the "cool" thing to do.

Like you said though, that doesn't mean it's good. I find it particularly humorous that you actually contradict your own post within your own post.

 

[Kcorthe]

Nirvana is my favorite band and being so, I have had to answer questions like this many a time.

What makes Nirvana so great to me, personally, is its simple yet powerful formula of music. Kurt Cobain was never known to play "SUPER AMAZING" guitar solos during thir songs or anything like that, but the fact is that he simply did not need to. Much of Nirvana's guitar was very easy to play from what I understand (I do not play the guitar but its what I've been able to figure out), but that just makes it all the more cool in my opinion: Kurt's simple guitar playing, along with his not-great-only-good voice, and his creativity was enough to make Nirvana one of the greatest and most important bands in the history of music. Kurt Cobain believed in a very simple and stripped-down form of music, that used emotion and power more so than showy and complicated guitar riffs. It wasn't all about the super elaborate guitar solo that hardly anyone in the world could play....it was about the emotion, the power, the style. My favorite Nirvana song is "Come As You Are," mainly because it has such a great molody and a catchy beat that is almost impossible not to sing along. Nirvana had a lot of beautiful, even maybe peaceful songs like that, such as "About A Girl," which XFear mentioned earlier. Also their entire "Unplugged" album was absolute fucking genius, especially (to me) "Where Did You Sleep Last Night."

Another personal thing of mine that I love about Nirvana is Kurt Cobain's voice. I can recognize and achknowledge that Kurt Cobain was no Freddie Mercury or whatever. What I love about his voice is that it has some sort of addicting quality to it. Also, he has a different voice for many songs. And the most important aspect...the emotion. Listen to a song like "You KNow You're Right," or "Where Did You Sleep Last Night," and you can just feel Kurt's pain when he sings or when he screams or when he yells. To me, personally, I have never felt that way so strongly about another volcalist.

Now, onto the record sales, which someone above stated. They said that Pearl Jam has outsold Nirvana, and while that may be true lets consider some facts:
1. Pearl Jam has sold an estimated 60 million worldwide, compared to Nirvana's 50 million. Not that big of a difference.
2. Nirvana's lifespan was from 1987-1994, with Nirvana only being known for three of those years (91-94), while Pearl Jam was almost instantly well-known thanks to the grudge movement which was thanks, yes, to Nirvana. Pearl Jam has also been an active band for almost 20 years now.
3. Nirvana has a total of eight albums and one box set, with only three of those albums being studio albums and one of those three studio albums was released prior to Nirvana's fame (Bleach). Whereas Pearl Jam has a total of 16 albums, 8 of which are studio albums. So, in the 20 years since Nirvana released their first album (18 years since Pearl Jam released their first album), Pearl Jam's 16 albums have barely been able to outsell Nirvana's 8 albums (9 when including the box set). This is ALSO considering that Nirvana has been a dead band for 15 years now, while Pearl Jam has considered to play that entire time.
- So if all of that, to you, is Pearl Jam having more success and selling more than Nirvana and all of that, than alright. Whatever.

To me, Nirvana is a band that some people just don't understand. And that's fine. And people are entitled to their opinions. I am just trying to explain what makes ME like Nirvana. Its their originality, their style, their simple yet powerful music, and Kurt Cobain's creativity. Nirvana paved the way for all other grunge bands, including Pearl Jam. Nirvana was a groundbreaking band that did more for music than maybe some people care to realize. If you don't like them, than I'm sorry and I feel you are missing out. But for those of us who DO like them, we all understand and we all know why. There is only one Nirvana.

 

[X]

And yet, I can't help but notice that amongst all your bullshit here, you still didn't answer my question.

"What are so great about those lyrics? "

Now, surely this is just a mistake, but I'm still waiting.

What do you mean what's so great about them? THEY'RE POETRY. You really want me to sit here and explain to you what makes great poetry? Cobain's lyrics are in the same vein as someone like Kerouac or Ginsberg's work, it has the same stream-of-consciousness style but Cobain incorporated heavy doses of dark subject matter to reflect the personal depression he struggled with. Cobain was the first person in rock history to really speak to the disenfranchised and unhappy young people in America on a massive scale, much in the same way punk rock had done on a smaller scale.

Of course they do. Which is why this thread was made. C'mon Xfear, pay attention. The question is WHY those people disagree, especially when their music is so terrible. But, to borrow an argument you are going to use a little later in your post...

The majority of human beings with ears think Nickelback is a great band. So, according to you, Nickelback is now a great band?

Did I say that Nirvana was great because of their popularity? I'll give you time to double-check my post...right, back now? I didn't say that, now did I? I wasn't the one bringing up record sales as a reason for what makes a band great, did I?

You should probably stick to what I've actually said instead of trying to use my words against me in a poor attack.

Of course you would, you're blindsided by the wonderful lyrics of Kurt Cobain. Nevermind the fact you can't actually explain what's so wonderful about them, but they're great all the same.

I didn't realize this thread had an essay length requirement for me to adhere to. I've just provided a brief explanation on the lyrics issue at the beginning of this post though if that will satisfy you.

Meh...not really.

Yes, really. Pearl Jam took the exact same style of music that was played with Gossard and Ament played with Mother Love Bone and Temple of the Dog, and beat it to death. They produced the same album for nearly a decade, it wasn't until the early to mid 2000's they finally realized "Hey, maybe we should try evolving as a band!" and their work in this decade has been far improved from the material they were releasing 10 years ago because of this.

Really, xfear, really? You're going with the "my opinion and your opinion" argument? I suppose that means you know you're supporting a losing cause on this one.

I wasn't aware that art was something that could definitively be proven as something either good or bad. Do you realize how ridiculous of a statement that is? Do you understand art AT ALL? No art can be proven correct or incorrect definitively Sly, this isn't a debate about math or ratings or drawing power. It's art.

We're actually discussing why Nirvana is popular today.

Really? Because I've just re-read Ricky's original post, and he says absolutely nothing about why Nirvana are popular today. He says that he personally doesn't enjoy them, and would like to know why we think they are a great band. He says nothing about popularity, not one single thing. He asked a question, and I answered it.

One theory is that Nirvana is popular because Cobain killed himself. To support that theory, the popularity of the two bands is completely relevant, and if what the one guy said was correct, Pearl Jam was the more popular band, which gives credence to the argument that Cobain's death, much like Owen Hart's in wrestling, gave an imaginary boost of "greatness" to Nirvana's music.

I won't disagree with you that Nirvana has become MORE popular because of Cobain's death, but to say that's the sole reason why he is popular, as you appear to be claiming, is an absolutely laughable notion. You grew up in the 90s as well didn't you Sly? Do you not remember just how popular Nirvana were? How often their videos were played? You're kidding yourself if you think that we can compare Cobain to Owen Hart. Owen Hart was never a popular wrestler before his death. Cobain was most certainly a MASSIVELY popular artist before his death. Are you really going to argue that point here? Really?

You're slipping xfear. You're not even processing the entire argument here, and are going one track mind, focusing only upon the greatness of Cobain's shitty lyrics. Catch up and join the rest of us.

Really? Re-read the first post Sly. Ricky want's to know why WE think Nirvana is a great band and if we can explain it to him. I gave a brief outline for why I believed Nirvana is such a great band.

Couldn't tell you, don't know enough about them to speak one way or another.

And stop right there. Anyone who doesn't know enough about Morrison or Hendrix to speak about them clearly isn't exactly a music aficionado. Which is why everyone should take your post with a huge grain of salt. I imagine your familiarity with the genre of punk rock is somewhere around that of a 3rd grader's, and this is why I'm not taking your opinion on Nirvana seriously in the slightest bit.

But, it's the same logic we always apply to Owen Hart. He was a medicore wrestler until he died....upon the moment of his death, he became a Hall of Fame wrestler. Don't pretend it doesn't happen, when we both know it does.

...Really? So you're going to say that Nirvana were a mediocre band before Cobain's death? You're going to actually make that statement publicly and expect to be taken serious in this discussion? Nirvana were the most popular band on the planet for awhile there Sly. Anyone with a basic familiarity with pop culture should know this.

Hell, look no further than Michael Jackson. This time last year, the man was a joke, a has-been, a child molesting washed out freak who dangles his own child over a balcony. Right now he's being revered as arguably the greatest entertainer ever. Aside from dying, what did Michael do in the last year to change his image?

What an even worse analogy for you to use! Now you're going to claim that Michael Jackson's death is a major reason why he's an acclaimed artist? That's right Sly, Thriller barely sold a hundred copies after all, right? Yeah, nobody cared about Michael Jackson before his death, you're right, it's not like he already had sold-out dates booked all over the globe before his death or anything like that.

What a terrible analogy.

Don't dismiss the argument that death popularizes entertainers, because we both know it rings absolutely true.

I never denied it didn't. But you seem to think it's the main reason why Nirvana and Cobain are remembered so fondly. Which is an absolutely laughable notion to have, and anyone who takes 10 seconds to Google Nirvana's popularity or go to their Wikipedia page will know that.

Like you said though, that doesn't mean it's good. I find it particularly humorous that you actually contradict your own post within your own post.

Except I didn't, at all. You misinterpreted something I said, and tried to use that to attack me. Nevermind that your post doesn't contain even one word about what makes Nirvana a bad band, no, just attack my words instead, that's the best way to prove your point, right?

I just find it hilarious that you want me to explain what makes art good. Proving you quite clearly shouldn't be discussing art in the first place.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

Sorry you guys don't dig Nirvana, it's just a matter of personal taste really. But the twisted genius of Cobain cannot be understated; the songs he wrote and the lyrics he wrote are among the best in rock and roll history, and revolutionized music foever in the 90s. They weren't just a grunge band either; a song like "About a Girl" is as beautiful and melodic as anything The Beatles did.

I simply laugh when people say Pearl Jam is better. I love Pearl Jam too, love them. But they were never on the level of Nirvana. If Nirvana were the Beatles, Pearl Jam would be the Rolling Stones. Amazing, but still simply not as good. Pearl Jam produced alot of shit during the late 90s, whereas literally every recording Nirvana made in my eyes is great.

Any specific reason why you don't like Nirvana or think they're overrated Ricky?

Not really, actually. With the exception of "All Apologies," I just really don't enjoy their tunes of late. I used to think they were epic, but for some reason, I'm just very bored of them. I can't listen to any of their songs and think to myself "MAN, I'm really pumped that this song is on right now." It's an unsolved mystery.

Edit: xfear...you really hit it on the head with your last post. I don't really like Nirvana at the moment, and I honestly am not knowing what the appeal is to listening to their music. I much prefer Pearl Jam, their unofficial grunge rival back in the day. Why? I'm not sure. Musical preference is something that is a difficult thing to figure out.

I DO, however, recognize that they are one of the most influential rock bands of all-time and that MANY people around the world love their music. So, instead of creating a thread entitled, "Nirvana sucks and if you don't like it you can giiiiiittttt out," I simply posed my question. What's so great about them? I find Dave Grohl to be phenomenal...so I guess that is one aspect of why they COULD be great.

 

[Slyfox696]

What do you mean what's so great about them? THEY'RE POETRY. You really want me to sit here and explain to you what makes great poetry? Cobain's lyrics are in the same vein as someone like Kerouac or Ginsberg's work, it has the same stream-of-consciousness style but Cobain incorporated heavy doses of dark subject matter to reflect the personal depression he struggled with. Cobain was the first person in rock history to really speak to the disenfranchised and unhappy young people in America on a massive scale, much in the same way punk rock had done on a smaller scale.

LOL, poetry?

I get it, so the following is poetic:

Rape me
Rape me, my friend
Rape me
Rape me again

am i the only one .IIIII [3x]
am i the Only one...

Hate me
Do it and do it again
Waste me
Rape me, my friend

am i the only one .IIIII [3x]
am ithe Only one...


My favorite inside source
I'll kiss your open sores
I appreciate your concern
You're gonna stink and burn

Rape me
Rape me, my friend
Rape me
Rape me, again

am i the only one ?, IIIII [3x]
am i the Only one?...

Rape me! (Rape me!)[8x]
Rape me!

True poetry there. Hell, it doesn't even rhyme! At least I might give the poetry argument a passing glance if it rhymed, but it doesn't even do that.

Please explain this great poet that is Kurt Cobain.

Did I say that Nirvana was great because of their popularity?

No, it was just the point of the thread.

I'll give you time to double-check my post...right, back now?

As I will you to check the opening thread. Thanks.

I didn't realize this thread had an essay length requirement for me to adhere to. I've just provided a brief explanation on the lyrics issue at the beginning of this post though if that will satisfy you.

So, Cobain's lyrics are great because of...a bunch of unhappy people? Makes sense....

Yes, really. Pearl Jam took the exact same style of music that was played with Gossard and Ament played with Mother Love Bone and Temple of the Dog, and beat it to death. They produced the same album for nearly a decade, it wasn't until the early to mid 2000's they finally realized "Hey, maybe we should try evolving as a band!" and their work in this decade has been far improved from the material they were releasing 10 years ago because of this.

LOL, oh you sly dog xfear.

I love how you completely chopped off what my "meh, not really" comment was addressing, and completely and intentionally misinterpreted it. Oh, and just out of curiousity, if Gossard and Ament brought their music from Mother Love Bone to Pearl Jam...then how could Pearl Jam sound like themselves and be considered a bad thing? I don't even understand your point here. Your point is that Pearl Jam sounded like themselves, and that was bad?

I wasn't aware that art was something that could definitively be proven as something either good or bad. Do you realize how ridiculous of a statement that is? Do you understand art AT ALL? No art can be proven correct or incorrect definitively Sly, this isn't a debate about math or ratings or drawing power. It's art.

Sure it can. This theory that everything is subjective is just a load of nonsense people with inferior opinions propagate in order to make themselves feel good. While I'm not saying you don't know what you are talking about, the theory that nothing can be proven good or bad is shit.

If I go and write a 30 second tune, using the same three chords over and over again, and then claim it to be better than the work of Mozart, then I would be completely wrong. There is most definitely a good and bad.

Really? Because I've just re-read Ricky's original post, and he says absolutely nothing about why Nirvana are popular today. He says that he personally doesn't enjoy them, and would like to know why we think they are a great band. He says nothing about popularity, not one single thing. He asked a question, and I answered it.

If popularity didn't play a factor, then this thread would just have likely to have been about Mozart, or Stravinsky, or some random underground band that plays in his city. But, the likelyhood of a thread like this being made about those, and things of similar nature, are extremely low, because the popularity of them today is not high.

Trying to insist that popularity has nothing to do with the question of greatness is foolhardy. As is trying to say that the people who listen to Nirvana and claim it to be great isn't a popular mindset.

I won't disagree with you that Nirvana has become MORE popular because of Cobain's death, but to say that's the sole reason why he is popular, as you appear to be claiming, is an absolutely laughable notion.

I'm saying it's why they are as popular as they are today. I'm not discrediting the popularity they enjoyed in the 90s, although I still say the music wasn't that good, just like you can't deny the popularity of Nickelback today, a band we both would say is not very good.

Really? Re-read the first post Sly. Ricky want's to know why WE think Nirvana is a great band and if we can explain it to him. I gave a brief outline for why I believed Nirvana is such a great band.

And I thought your justification was absurd, with regards to the lyrics being so great.

And stop right there. Anyone who doesn't know enough about Morrison or Hendrix to speak about them clearly isn't exactly a music aficionado.

You're right. Because if we don't all like the music of Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison enough to actually care about them, we just don't have any right to speak. Good theory xfear. What's next, are you going to tell me anyone that can't give the career stat line of Stan Musial doesn't deserve to express their opinion on baseball?

Which is why everyone should take your post with a huge grain of salt.

Yes, because I don't listen to the music of, nor care about the lives of, two musicians, clearly I have no right to speak with any kind of validity on the subject.

...Really? So you're going to say that Nirvana were a mediocre band before Cobain's death?

I'm claiming they were always a mediocre band who found commercial success. And your theory they were great because of poetic lyrics that appeal to unhappy people just doesn't cut it for me.

Nirvana were the most popular band on the planet for awhile there Sly. Anyone with a basic familiarity with pop culture should know this.

As is Nickelback and Miley Cyrus now. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for quality, now is it?

What an even worse analogy for you to use! Now you're going to claim that Michael Jackson's death is a major reason why he's an acclaimed artist? That's right Sly, Thriller barely sold a hundred copies after all, right? Yeah, nobody cared about Michael Jackson before his death, you're right, it's not like he already had sold-out dates booked all over the globe before his death or anything like that.

What a terrible analogy.

You only think it's terrible because you failed to comprehend the message.

No one is saying that Michael Jackson wasn't great. Why I was saying is that the perception of Michael Jackson changed from one of an evil pedophile to musical genius over the course of one night. Why? Because he died. This debate would go so much more smoothly if you'd at least TRY to understand what I'm saying.

I never denied it didn't. But you seem to think it's the main reason why Nirvana and Cobain are remembered so fondly.

It is, to the widespread extent that it is.

Which is an absolutely laughable notion to have, and anyone who takes 10 seconds to Google Nirvana's popularity or go to their Wikipedia page will know that.

Good point. Use two creations today that were invented years after Cobain's death to prove that his death isn't a major source of his popularity today.

You really thought that one out, didn't you?

Except I didn't, at all. You misinterpreted something I said, and tried to use that to attack me.

Oh really? Did you not say?...

That's nice if you feel that way, but the majority of human beings with ears disagree with you.

B) Sales records? Yes, because sales clearly is an indicator of quality. That would explain why Transformers 2 was one of the highest grossing films of the year and why The Jonas Brothers are selling out stadiums. Obviously sales must indicate quality! Duh! No. Anyone who brings sales figures into a discussion about ART is a fucking moron.

Nirvana were the most popular band on the planet for awhile there Sly. Anyone with a basic familiarity with pop culture should know this.

You tried to express that popularity expressed in sales has no place in determining quality of art...before and after using the popularity of Nirvana to strengthen your claim of their greatness. How did I misrepresent what you said, when it's written very clearly what you said?

Nevermind that your post doesn't contain even one word about what makes Nirvana a bad band, no, just attack my words instead, that's the best way to prove your point, right?

I know when arguments get drawn out like this, obvious points can tend to get lost, so I'll regurgitate myself here:

What are so great about those lyrics? They're not deep, and they're written like a 1st grader would write them. If the genius behind Cobain's lyrics is that he can tap into the mind of a 1st grader, well, then I guess I'll just have to leave it at that.

I've never understood the argument of Cobain's great lyrics. I'm not a big Nirvana fan, so I'm sure there are some obscure songs that don't get worn out on the radio that are "great" and all, but the majority of the songs I hear are piss bucket.

The question is WHY those people disagree, especially when their music is so terrible.

And, just for clarification (in all seriousness), when I say "music" in the above sentence, I literally mean the music, minus the vocals. Of course, I find the lyrics to be terrible to, so it really can count for the whole shebang.

I just find it hilarious that you want me to explain what makes art good. Proving you quite clearly shouldn't be discussing art in the first place.

Because I can't give you Stan Musial's career statistics, right?

 

[X]

LOL, poetry?

I get it, so the following is poetic:

True poetry there. Hell, it doesn't even rhyme! At least I might give the poetry argument a passing glance if it rhymed, but it doesn't even do that.

Please explain this great poet that is Kurt Cobain.

You seem to think that rhyming is the sign of quality poetry. That's so misinformed it actually has me laughing.

Are you familiar at all with the beatnik poetry movement? Stream of consciousness writing? Aesthetics? Any of these things? Compare the writing of Cobain to someone like Ginsberg or someone like William S. Burroughs and you'll understand the type of poetry that Cobain utilized. The lyrics from the song Rape Me you just showed in particular could be taken directly out of Burrough's Naked Lunch.

If you don't like it...oh well. Sorry you don't have an appreciation for this particular art form.

No, it was just the point of the thread.

Every time they come on the radio...I change the station. I think I thought they were pretty ground breaking back in the day, but honestly, I just don't find their music to be that enjoyable. I much prefer Pearl Jam and other grungy bands.

I guess they revolutionized music or something back in 94...but honestly...what's so awesome about Nirvana?

Nope, don't see anything in there about why Nirvana is popular. No, he says he doesn't enjoy Nirvana, and would like to know why other people do. Nothing to do with their legacy, nothing to do with their record sales, just simply asking why WE think Nirvana is a great band. I answered that question, if that wasn't up to your standards, oh well, I don't really give a shit if you approve of my posts or not.

As I will you to check the opening thread. Thanks.

Oh I did. I just quoted it for you so maybe you'll actually read it this time.

So, Cobain's lyrics are great because of...a bunch of unhappy people? Makes sense....

Again, sorry if your knowledge of poetry is rudimentary at best. Not my fault.

I love how you completely chopped off what my "meh, not really" comment was addressing, and completely and intentionally misinterpreted it. Oh, and just out of curiousity, if Gossard and Ament brought their music from Mother Love Bone to Pearl Jam...then how could Pearl Jam sound like themselves and be considered a bad thing? I don't even understand your point here. Your point is that Pearl Jam sounded like themselves, and that was bad?

Good lord Sly, this is simply not one of your better debates. Did I say that Pearl Jam were a bad band? No, in fact, I said the exact opposite and that Pearl Jam were in fact a very, very good band. Simply not as good as Nirvana. The point I was making was that they simply weren't as creative as Nirvana were.

Sure it can. This theory that everything is subjective is just a load of nonsense people with inferior opinions propagate in order to make themselves feel good. While I'm not saying you don't know what you are talking about, the theory that nothing can be proven good or bad is shit.

Key word here being definitively. You cannot prove that any art is simply good or bad like you could punch in a mathematical equation.

If I go and write a 30 second tune, using the same three chords over and over again, and then claim it to be better than the work of Mozart, then I would be completely wrong. There is most definitely a good and bad.

That analogy might make sense if Nirvana produced 30 second songs with no melody or craft behind them, but that simply isn't the truth. Further more, again, it IS subjective. I'll take a 30 second song from Minor Threat over Mozart any day of the week.

If popularity didn't play a factor, then this thread would just have likely to have been about Mozart, or Stravinsky, or some random underground band that plays in his city. But, the likelyhood of a thread like this being made about those, and things of similar nature, are extremely low, because the popularity of them today is not high.

The original post asked us why WE think Nirvana is great. I answered that question Sly. I really don't understand what more you want from me here; I've provided just as much of an explanation for why Nirvana is a great band as you have against that idea.

You're right. Because if we don't all like the music of Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison enough to actually care about them, we just don't have any right to speak. Good theory xfear. What's next, are you going to tell me anyone that can't give the career stat line of Stan Musial doesn't deserve to express their opinion on baseball?

Not to sound elitist (well, actually, yes, I am higher up in rep so obviously that means I'm much more intelligent and elite than you poor peon Slyfox ) but yes. I had this same argument with Will the other day. Someone who doesn't know much about two of the biggest rock stars in the history of music simply isn't as knowledgeable on the subject of rock and roll as someone who does, like me. It doesn't mean you aren't allowed to judge Nirvana, it simply means that you aren't as knowledgeable about music as I am, and that you aren't as open to different styles of music as I am. I'm sure if I played you a song by a great Anarcho-punk band you'd probably think it was fucking awful, wouldn't make it true.

I'm claiming they were always a mediocre band who found commercial success. And your theory they were great because of poetic lyrics that appeal to unhappy people just doesn't cut it for me.

Look at the music itself. You're really going to sit here and tell me that a song like About a Girl is mediocre? If so, sorry, but I can't really take your opinion seriously on this topic any longer. I'll have to look at you in the same way I do the people who think the Beatles suck.

Good point. Use two creations today that were invented years after Cobain's death to prove that his death isn't a major source of his popularity today.

You really thought that one out, didn't you?

You just absolutely LOVE to misinterpret my words don't ya Sly? I said that anyone who types Nirvana into Google or looks them up on Wikipedia will realize they were popular IN THE 90'S. That's the ONLY thing I said on that matter. But yes, twist my words around so you can try and mount a piss-bucket argument (stole your word again ).

Oh really? Did you not say?...

You tried to express that popularity expressed in sales has no place in determining quality of art...before and after using the popularity of Nirvana to strengthen your claim of their greatness. How did I misrepresent what you said, when it's written very clearly what you said?

I expect much more than this from you Sly. Read those quotes of mine again, including the context in which they were used. Not once do I use popularity as a REASON why Nirvana are a good band, not once. I was responding to your claim that Nirvana weren't a popular band in the 90s.

Seriously man...why do you just love to twist my words around to try and say things that I simply am not saying? Please stop trying to shove words in my mouth.

And, just for clarification (in all seriousness), when I say "music" in the above sentence, I literally mean the music, minus the vocals. Of course, I find the lyrics to be terrible to, so it really can count for the whole shebang.

Explain to me how About a Girl, or Smells Like Teen Spirit, or In Bloom, or All Apologies, or really any number of Nirvana songs are musically bad. Go on, explain away oh Beacon of All-Knowing omnipotence.

 

[Slyfox696]

You seem to think that rhyming is the sign of quality poetry. That's so misinformed it actually has me laughing.

Are you familiar at all with the beatnik poetry movement? Stream of consciousness writing? Aesthetics? Any of these things? Compare the writing of Cobain to someone like Ginsberg or someone like William S. Burroughs and you'll understand the type of poetry that Cobain utilized. The lyrics from the song Rape Me you just showed in particular could be taken directly out of Burrough's Naked Lunch.

If you don't like it...oh well. Sorry you don't have an appreciation for this particular art form.

I've already responded to this in the Board Room, but I guess you just didn't read it, so I'll re-post it here.

LOL, first of all, if I HAD said that poetry had to rhyme, I would certainly hope that you would know I was joking.

But, I never said that poetry had to rhyme. What I said was that not only were Cobain's lyrics not poetry, they didn't rhyme either. In short, what I was doing was belittling your argument of poetry, even down to the very most basic definition of poetry. I hope you understand that before you respond to it in the thread.

Nope, don't see anything in there about why Nirvana is popular. No, he says he doesn't enjoy Nirvana, and would like to know why other people do. Nothing to do with their legacy, nothing to do with their record sales, just simply asking why WE think Nirvana is a great band. I answered that question, if that wasn't up to your standards, oh well, I don't really give a shit if you approve of my posts or not.

Oh I did. I just quoted it for you so maybe you'll actually read it this time.

Again, sorry if your knowledge of poetry is rudimentary at best. Not my fault.

Already addressed all of these, so you should already know why they make no sense.

Good lord Sly, this is simply not one of your better debates.

If you truly feel that way, then you certainly shouldn't admit it, considering how I'm kicking your ass up and down this thread.

Did I say that Pearl Jam were a bad band? No, in fact, I said the exact opposite and that Pearl Jam were in fact a very, very good band. Simply not as good as Nirvana. The point I was making was that they simply weren't as creative as Nirvana were.

What you said is that they sounded just like 900,000 other bands, and to support that statement, you used Mother Love Bone, a band that two members of Pearl Jam were in before the lead singer died. You said Pearl Jam were like 900,000 other bands in order to show why you think Nirvana is better. My point was that if a band sounds like themselves, then how is that a bad thing, which can be used to put one band over another?

For fuck's sake, xfearbefore, if you're not going to bother to understand MY arguments, at least do us both a favor and remember yours.

Key word here being definitively. You cannot prove that any art is simply good or bad like you could punch in a mathematical equation.

Sure I can. If I take a yellow crayon and scribble a couple lines on a paper, I can definitively say it's bad art. Trying to say that I can't do that is silly.

That analogy might make sense if Nirvana produced 30 second songs with no melody or craft behind them, but that simply isn't the truth. Further more, again, it IS subjective. I'll take a 30 second song from Minor Threat over Mozart any day of the week.

Nirvana has nothing to do with this particular example. My point is that opinions on art CAN be right and wrong, with regard to good and bad. My three chord 30 second melody isn't going to compare to Beethoven's 5th Symphony, and anyone who tries to say so is going to be wrong.

Not to sound elitist (well, actually, yes, I am higher up in rep so obviously that means I'm much more intelligent and elite than you poor peon Slyfox ) but yes. I had this same argument with Will the other day. Someone who doesn't know much about two of the biggest rock stars in the history of music simply isn't as knowledgeable on the subject of rock and roll as someone who does, like me. It doesn't mean you aren't allowed to judge Nirvana, it simply means that you aren't as knowledgeable about music as I am, and that you aren't as open to different styles of music as I am. I'm sure if I played you a song by a great Anarcho-punk band you'd probably think it was fucking awful, wouldn't make it true.

Incredibly stupid and asinine assertion xfearbefore. I don't learn about Hendrix and Morrison, not because I can't, but because I don't want to, because it doesn't interest me. Saying that I don't know anything about rock music because their music doesn't interest me is not only foolish, but incredibly arrogant as well.

I know an autistic who can recite every President, in order, from the time they took office to the time they left office...in your opinion, does that make him more qualified to discuss the quality of George W. Bush's presidency than me? Because that's basically what you're saying. Or, if you know all about the life of Fran Tarkenton, you have more of a right to discuss the impact and importance of scrambling quarterbacks in the NFL than I do?

It's an absurd notion xfear, that you are more qualified to discuss music because you know two musical artists. My girlfriend is a music minor and first chair in the university orchestra, her dad teaches orchestra and made his living for years playing gigs. He graduated with music degree(s). I bet you neither of them could give a history lesson on Morrison or Hendrix, but you're telling me you're more qualified than them to discuss music quality, simply because you can?

Look at the music itself. You're really going to sit here and tell me that a song like About a Girl is mediocre? If so, sorry, but I can't really take your opinion seriously on this topic any longer.

Yeah, sure I can. Just like I can tell you that the majority of the Nirvana music sucks. But, watch this.

Are you really going to sit here and tell me that a song like About a Girl is good? If so, sorry, but I can't really take your opinion seriously on this topic any longer.


See how it works both ways? Empty statements like this are a waste of my time.

You just absolutely LOVE to misinterpret my words don't ya Sly? I said that anyone who types Nirvana into Google or looks them up on Wikipedia will realize they were popular IN THE 90'S. That's the ONLY thing I said on that matter. But yes, twist my words around so you can try and mount a piss-bucket argument (stole your word again ).

No, you didn't. Here is what you ACTUALLY said:

But you seem to think it's the main reason why Nirvana and Cobain are remembered so fondly. Which is an absolutely laughable notion to have, and anyone who takes 10 seconds to Google Nirvana's popularity or go to their Wikipedia page will know that.

So, let me see if I have this right...we're talking about how Nirvana/Cobain are remembered, and you tell me to look up Google and Wikipedia...

Like I said, good point. Use two creations today that were invented years after Cobain's death to prove that his death isn't a major source of his popularity today.

You want me to use creations from years after his death, to show why he is remembered fondly. That's asinine. The only REAL way to do what you want me to is to present a work of non-fiction from BEFORE he was dead to prove your point. Looking up Google and Wikipedia, which will show sites written after his death, will NOT satisfy what you are wanting to show me.

I expect much more than this from you Sly. Read those quotes of mine again, including the context in which they were used. Not once do I use popularity as a REASON why Nirvana are a good band, not once. I was responding to your claim that Nirvana weren't a popular band in the 90s.

Seriously man...why do you just love to twist my words around to try and say things that I simply am not saying? Please stop trying to shove words in my mouth.

I'm not twisting anything, I'm just exposing your words for how silly they are. You, VERY clearly, dismiss popularity for quality...and then show that Nirvana must be good people many people like them. There's no twisting of words, it's just taking your words exactly as you said them.

And, talk about twisting words, I never once said that Nirvana wasn't a popular band in the 90s, I said they weren't a good band. And I said the reason they are popular TODAY is because of his death.

Explain to me how About a Girl, or Smells Like Teen Spirit, or In Bloom, or All Apologies, or really any number of Nirvana songs are musically bad. Go on, explain away oh Beacon of All-Knowing omnipotence.

Because the poet's lyrics don't rhyme.

 

[Goo Punch]

They produced the same album for nearly a decade

Are we talking about the same Pearl Jam? Pearl Jam changed their sound almost album to album. Does the Tom Waits-esque accordion piece "Bugs", off Vitalogy, sound like any of the anthems off Ten to you? Does the funky "Rats", off Vs., sound like the subtle ballads of No Code? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm really curious 'cause I really don't see how you could compare any 90's Pearl Jam album to another. Maybe the radio-friendly songs sound similar but that can be said for most bands. But the other tracks on the albums are a lot more experimental than most Grunge bands got, especially Nirvana.

"W.M.A." off Vs.
[youtube]1Z3t32wlItI[/youtube]

''Aye Davanita'' off Vitalogy
[youtube]nPR2WXG7_MM[/youtube]

"Do the Evolution" off Yield
[youtube]3C9CH3q9PLI[/youtube]

 

[hArdyPUNKmArk]

Ok, Sly & X. You guys are going around in circles. I'm with X in the following point Sly. I actually laughed at your posts claiming that art can be judged as right or wrong and your posts are generally great and I get a lot out of them, not this time.

Art can't be judged as right or wrong. If your 30 second 3 chord melody makes someone happy or smile or appears good in their eyes then it is good. Art is something that can be anything and as long as someone likes it then it is good to someone. It doesn't have to fit a criterea of musical ability and songwriting to be seen as wrong or right. It's either good to listen to or it's not and that is not a judgement of right or wrong, it is a personal preferance of wether it is good or bad to you.

Go and watch Kurt Cobain: About a Son and you will see how truly insightful Cobain was when working with Nirvana. He was much more intelligent and knowledgable than you know. He was definatley an artist with many more ideas that he couldn't try because he couldnt afford to. There were a lot more endevours Cobain wanted to try but couldn't because if he lost money he wouldn't be able to support his wife and daughter if it didn't work out. Kurt Cobain (dead or alive) is one of the most influential people for guys who grew up in the 90's. To say otherwise is rediculous.

Ricky, I love Nirvana because I simply love listening to it. Music and/or art simply comes down to wether or not as an individual you like or dislike what you see/hear. No wether it's right or wrong.