Music Banter Hall Of Fame: Nominations Thread

crash_override · 07-13-2009, 04:55 PM

Definately yes, wouldn't be who I am today without them. Truly a great band, as overrated as they may be. 100% HOF worthy.

anticipation · 07-13-2009, 05:07 PM

I'm going to have to be the first person to vote no? Whatever, I don't mind. I'm not usually the type to elaborate on my non-sensical opinions, but on this rare occasion I shall divulge.

The reason I voted no was not just because every teenager that I know who believes themself to be "alternative" or even slightly "eclectic" believes that Kurt Cobain is to my generation what Elvis was to the 50s, not just because I want to go against the grain, and not just because I think that Nirvana is one of the most overrated bands to have ever recorded two slightly decent albums. I voted no because Nirvana was not the first of their kind, and arguably not the best either. It's obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in musical history that their ever-expanding fanbase, and the majority of their contemporary postive reviews, is the misconception that Cobain's death is some sort of martyrdom for the alternative rock scene. In actuality, Nirvana was a typical band in Seattle's burdgeoning underground rock scene. Their music can be described as lo-fi proto-rock, whether purposeful or not, coupled with Cobain's desperate attempts at poetic lyrics. They're boring now, and despite their vast legions of adoring fans who claim that they "revolutionized" the 1990s with their brand of angsty grassroots rock, they were boring for their time too.

There are hundreds of bands who deserve more recognition than them.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 07-13-2009, 05:43 PM

So basically you are saying their success is a lie?

I don't think anyone here will say Nirvana "revolutionized" anything, but they were damn good at what they did.

Contempt for people who worship Kurt Cobain and ass-lick the music to death isn't a reasonable arguement, if you find the music boring, that is a reasonable arguement. We're not talking about the fans of these artists, we are talking about the music they make.

Alfred · 07-13-2009, 05:46 PM

I'm going to vote yes because I'm expecting a huge amount of grunge-hating Englanders to come in and vote no without a second thought.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-13-2009, 05:51 PM

I'm going for no too simply because I never really listened to them much.

They had an impact i'll give them that but it nothing substantial became of it. I don't see them spawning many great bands. Their legacy was basically giving major label contracts to a bunch of past it 80s indie bands and hundreds of no mark 90s bands and little else.

They changed the face of popular mainsteam music but then so did Motley Crue in 1982, doesn't mean it was for the better though.

right-track · 07-13-2009, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alfred

I'm going to vote yes because I'm expecting a huge amount of grunge-hating Englanders to come in and vote no without a second thought.

...is exactly what I just did. Without even reading the others posts. Including yours.

Why is this do you think?

anticipation · 07-13-2009, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conan

So basically you are saying their success is a lie?

I don't think anyone here will say Nirvana "revolutionized" anything, but they were damn good at what they did.

Contempt for people who worship Kurt Cobain and ass-lick the music to death isn't a reasonable arguement, if you find the music boring, that is a reasonable arguement. We're not talking about the fans of these artists, we are talking about the music they make.

Not really, I just think that they're mainstream success isn't based on their music. There's a ton of music I don't like that I still respect and understand the popularity of, but Nirvana does not fall into that category.

Alfred · 07-13-2009, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by right-track

...is exactly what I just did. Without even reading the others posts. Including yours.

Why is this do you think?

Grunge tends to be looked down upon on this forum... especially by you UK folk. I'm not saying there's a problem with that, I'm just giving Nirvana some support because I have the feeling that they're doomed.

Comus · 07-13-2009, 06:50 PM

A massive yes from me.

PinkCigarette · 07-13-2009, 06:57 PM

Yes, easily, though I don't get hard nipples over them like a lot of people do.

View Poll Results: Does John Peel deserve to make the Hall of Fame?
Yes	11	91.67%
No	1	8.33%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

07-13-2009, 05:46 PM	#1624 (permalink)
Alfred one big soul Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 5,096	I'm going to vote yes because I'm expecting a huge amount of grunge-hating Englanders to come in and vote no without a second thought. __________________ LAST.FM / VINYL COLLECTION / RYM

07-13-2009, 05:51 PM	#1625 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I'm going for no too simply because I never really listened to them much. They had an impact i'll give them that but it nothing substantial became of it. I don't see them spawning many great bands. Their legacy was basically giving major label contracts to a bunch of past it 80s indie bands and hundreds of no mark 90s bands and little else. They changed the face of popular mainsteam music but then so did Motley Crue in 1982, doesn't mean it was for the better though. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

07-13-2009, 06:57 PM	#1630 (permalink)
PinkCigarette Chase for 28 Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 349	Yes, easily, though I don't get hard nipples over them like a lot of people do. __________________

07-13-2009, 05:07 PM	#1622 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,565	I'm going to have to be the first person to vote no? Whatever, I don't mind. I'm not usually the type to elaborate on my non-sensical opinions, but on this rare occasion I shall divulge. The reason I voted no was not just because every teenager that I know who believes themself to be "alternative" or even slightly "eclectic" believes that Kurt Cobain is to my generation what Elvis was to the 50s, not just because I want to go against the grain, and not just because I think that Nirvana is one of the most overrated bands to have ever recorded two slightly decent albums. I voted no because Nirvana was not the first of their kind, and arguably not the best either. It's obvious to anyone with even a passing interest in musical history that their ever-expanding fanbase, and the majority of their contemporary postive reviews, is the misconception that Cobain's death is some sort of martyrdom for the alternative rock scene. In actuality, Nirvana was a typical band in Seattle's burdgeoning underground rock scene. Their music can be described as lo-fi proto-rock, whether purposeful or not, coupled with Cobain's desperate attempts at poetic lyrics. They're boring now, and despite their vast legions of adoring fans who claim that they "revolutionized" the 1990s with their brand of angsty grassroots rock, they were boring for their time too. There are hundreds of bands who deserve more recognition than them.

07-13-2009, 05:43 PM	#1623 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	So basically you are saying their success is a lie? I don't think anyone here will say Nirvana "revolutionized" anything, but they were damn good at what they did. Contempt for people who worship Kurt Cobain and ass-lick the music to death isn't a reasonable arguement, if you find the music boring, that is a reasonable arguement. We're not talking about the fans of these artists, we are talking about the music they make.