Unknown Soldier

Poseur.

__________________
Metal Wars

Power Metal

Pounding Decibels- A Hard and Heavy History

joy_circumcision

Okay?

Radioactive

I don't think they hold the place of ''legendary" but I do enjoy them from time to time. I can't say they are my favorite but I can't say they are my least liked ether

Pursuingchange

Ghost jam, look, just cool it ok!? No, I'm not stupid for thinking there were hair bands better than Nirvana. I guess its just my taste. I like positive, more energtiec music more than music that is overly-personal and depressing, which is one reason I can't stomach most of Nirvana's stuff. They may have been "relevent" at the time, but the way I look at it is this:

It's probably true that one would have had to be around at that time to know what Nirvana was about and to truly grasp and understand their impact. I GET THAT! I wasn't there to witness it. And for the people who were present at that time who have a special place in their hearts for Nirvana, I totally get that too!

What I get tired of is people acting like Nirvana's message and impact should mean so damn much to me and that everyone should hold their impact so sacred when the whole tenant of their impact and message means nothing in my life at all. I wasn't around when all that was going on, so why do people think I should consider them to be such a hallmark of my life? People always look at me like I need to be locked up when I say I don't like them.

The only thing I can do is view them from hind-sight. And from hind-sight, there are many other bands whose impact I can see and feel way more vividly and passionately than Nirvana's. Bands such as The Beatles, Queen, and Zeppelin come to mind. This tells me that the impacts these bands made must have had way more of an enduring meaning and importance to them. I feel like these bands were actually talented and there were more things about them to admire. I don't see this with Nirvana. All I see with them is a lot of talk and hype about them being so great, and nothing much to show for it. That's why I feel that Nirvana's impact was very bound to its time and place.

So basically, when I look back upon the history of music, I can only see the small tidbits that these bands/artists left behind. Today, I still feel the impact of Queen and Zeppelin and even to this day their music seems so relevant and important to me. Nirvana, however, has never made a lasting impression on me, and I don't see their impact as very enduring, and I didn't live during the time of Queen or The Beatles any more than I did during Nirvana's time. So this tells me that Nirvana's impact just wasn't as intrepid and lasting as the greats I mentioned. This is why I don't boast them to the status everyone else does.

I believe that for any one band to be regarded so highly with such "legendary" status as Nirvana is, there needs to be a little something more to them besides just an angsty persona and a message of indifference. The music needs to be truly great. And if the traits I just mentioned are the grounds of Nirvana's fame, then they should have just started a counter-cultural movement and left music alone because it has nothing to do with making quality music.

Again, this is just my opinion. I'm just one of those who dare to say that they don't like Nirvana. I made this thread for other people who dislike Nirvana to come on here and talk about it. I'm not trying to change other people's opinions.

Neapolitan

lmao Grunge is from Seatles. King Snake Roost is from Adelaide, Australia and Babes in Toyland - Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Well you should ask if it's Nirvana first or second album before you jump to conclusions.

__________________

joy_circumcision

It's like I've actually encountered someone without cognitive abilities! What, is it impossible to have Techno music from outside of Detroit? What about House music outside Chicago? Is that OK? It's not like Grunge is a relation of some kind of (sub-)urban ennui specifically linked to Seattle (which is how you spell it, by the way) and Seattle alone the way that Chanson is, say, linked to French culture specifically by the language or Cajun by the specific combination of cultural artifacts (last I checked, distorted guitars were not a quintessentially Seattle thing that had no roots or influence elsewhere). But this kind of behavior should be expected from rock music genre snobs - the same types who can't make heads or tails of the differences between Romantic and Baroque compositions but believe that every five years a new form of rock music is born where there was none before.

Janszoon

I'm guessing he and Unknown Soldier are just joking about how so many people made a big deal about Stone Temple Pilots being included in the "90s Seattle-Era Band" thread.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

Neapolitan

Grunge only appeared after the fact for many of those bands that got caught up in the Industry's epithet for that music. No one was waiting around for Nirvana, the flagship of Grunge to appear, before they could make "Grunge" music. And it isn't a term many of those bands identify with or embraced. As with other genres, e.g. The Beatles - British Invasion, or Rites of Spring - Emo, or Ramones - Punk.

You got me. I'm going to cry Uncle on this one because I can't tell the difference Scarlatti from Schubert. But that is a huge assumption that others can not. But why is knowledge of Art music a prerequisite for Rock?
And yes, why not have a new form of Rock music every five or so years, how long did Grunge last before they were asking is Grunge dead?

__________________

joy_circumcision

Disregarding your accusation that those bands are somehow industry assembly line productions, how does that make them not Grunge? Grunge has a specific sound (I could pull up any of myriad definitions that all say it essentially is just emotive vocalizations and distorted guitars with a specific emphasis on a synthesis of sorts of prevailing alternative rock forms of various kinds and heavy metal) that wasn't unique to Seattle. Ergo, regardless of your personal opinion of their quality (something I won't argue one way or another because why?) Babes and King are both Grunge bands (this also being substantiated by the democratic genre voting process on Rate Your Music, which lists both as possessing that as their primary genre descriptor). Also, the rock music establishment's (and its artistic critics') consistent evasion of classification has nothing to do with the predominant fact that all of those labels do indeed apply to those bands. Though I would make a point of distinction that British Invasion is a complete media hype label that really doesn't define a particular sound, while Emo and Punk do indeed apply to (increasingly broad) specific styles that can be defined.

Well, the answer is that it doesn't - it was a good old fashioned ad hominem that really had nothing to do with the prevailing argument that you've now talked me into having, but it was essentially me letting off steam about the fact that mainly rock listeners are very into making label after label after label and then 1. not sticking to them the second someone in a different geographic area does the same thing and must then be given a new one 2. uses them mainly for hype instead of proper categorization 3. has silly petty arguments over them because they've refused forever to come to a consensus; meanwhile, jazz and "classical" are reduced to maybe five or so forms a generation and somehow can work without a hitch because people are less interested in compulsive labeling and media hyping (at least in that specific way) and more interested in tracking larger movements and stylistic syntheses, etc.

Neapolitan

That is pretty close to an Aunt Sally, because I didn't make such an accusation. What I said didn't mean they were " industry assembly line productions." I said '...got caught up in the Industry's epithet for that music.' Bands that were around the early 90s got labeled as Grunge, I know some bands did not identifies themselves with Grunge. Honestly I don't know how what those bands considered themselves as. I only know those two bands were making music before the term "Grunge" appeared. I doubt half way through their career they had an epiphany and said to each other "Hey, we're Grunge band!"

Media hype? Let's start with the fact that "British Invasion" is not a media myth, bands actually did come over to America from the UK during the 60s. I didn't say The Beatles had a British Invasion "sound." In fact I don't know too many people that use the term as a sound, as much as a label for the phenomenon that during a particular time in history were many bands from the UK that became popular in America. The particular sounds of bands that were part of the British Invasion would be "Tottenham Sound" or the "Mersey Beat." The reason I brought up British Invasion not because that the label was genre or sound, but was to show how a band does not particularly agree with labels, like The Beatles dismissing being a part of the British Invasion.

It is called "Art music." I only accept the term "classical" from those "who can't make heads or tails of the differences between Romantic and Baroque compositions." But in a nice and unsderstanding way.

I think you are not being forthright about Jazz and Art music. I am pretty sure Jazz has more than five subdivisions, not to mention all the different types of Jazz fusions. And Art music has a long history so I'm almost certain also has many different style of music. Even a single peice of muisc can be composed of different movements e.g. Gavotte, Bourree, Minuet, each with it own particular sound. So there are no dearth of labels in Jazz or Art music as you propose there is.

__________________