Music Banter Hall Of Fame: Nominations Thread

anticipation · 07-13-2009, 04:07 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.

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, 04:07 PM	#11 (permalink)
anticipation Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 3,561	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.