I like Nirvana, but saying that they were the greatest band ever sure would have been an exaggeration. They were a good band, but I think the greatest band ever would have been a band that had a large influence on later bands, or had a unique style that distinguished them from others.

i liked nirvana when i was 14. now, they just remind me of when i was 14. i don't hate them, but i don't really like them all that much. dave grohl really wasn't that good of a drummer. not really any interesting instrumentation at all really. cobain was a good lyricist though. real good. even reading his words now leaves me pretty impressed. but when it comes on the radio, i love technology, because i can skip songs on the radio.

And now for my next trick I'm going to make the OP look like 10 years ago :yikes:

I find it hilarious that the only thing that had to change in the rant is the band name.

Like Ghost Jam said, one of the major elements about Nirvana (same as the Beatles) was being there. You do not (and cannot) truly grasp how relevant the band was if you weren't there to experience it. It's not to say they were the only group, or the best group, but they were the one at the top of the pile. Somehow for whatever reason they found a way to resonate with the rest of us.

You (or anyone) don't need to get it, or like it, but it's foolish to act that simply because you don't that the rest of us who did are misguided.

The other major factor with Nirvana is dependent on personal attitudes towards music. Do you simply measure the value based on the sounds that emanate from the album or do you consider the wider social and cultural impact and influence? Subjective positivity or negativity is ultimately irrelevant when measuring the amount of influence - and whether you like it or not, Nirvana was hugely influential both directly and indirectly on both individual musicians, bands, listeners and the industry.

:laughing: Good call.

As I always said, Nirvana is just like most Rock bands of any type. they are good but not great. That is why there is so many rock bands, because very few really stand out. The only reason Nirvana is popular has something to do with the poetic but annoying voice of Kurt Cobian. Nirvana is not better than Alice in Chains although they are both very average. The problem with Rock Music is that it tends to be somewhat predictable which is often either a really good singer/weird or a average singer/Annoying (like Cobain).

Overall, Nirvana is ok but like most Rock bands, it is nothing special. Even U2 is better than this band,.

But your perspective on music IS misguided. I wouldn't say it if I didn't mean it.

Dude you're missing something, as is anyone else hating on Nirvana.

They WERE among the greatest bands of all time, there is no question of that.

It's fine if you don't like it, but that has nothing to do with Nirvana's place in the scheme of it all.

You're right, they weren't the most musically "talented" of any bunch. No one is now or has ever claimed that, least of all the band themselves...and "talent" is by far the most expendable attribute to anything having to do with rock n' roll. If you don't know that then you have some growing up to do.

After 20+ years of music historians, rock critics and legions of fans that continue to sprout up with their OWN teenage angst and middle finger to the world around them regarding this band, I'm sorry guy, but you're really NOT the one who has suddenly unveiled the "folly" of Nirvana and has just now revealed to the world that they weren't really that cool.

They were (and are) that cool. You just have a crappy taste in music and think that hair bands were better.

"Ain't lookin' for NUUUTHIN'...BUT A GOOOD TIME! How CAN I...blah blah"

Seriously man you think that horse**** was better?

Whatever.

-Ghost Jam

In a way they did some of what you said. They were influential to bands that came after them, maybe not as a direct influence for their contemperaries. I guess for their critics they don't have the sound that most people think a trail blazer band should have, but they were one of first bands to mark the shift in music styles from late 80s synthy and over-processed music to 90's Alt-Rock. The shift was more in the music industry there's always been an underground music scene. Some of the underground sub-genres ran their course or developed. Out of those different sub-genres bands they either broke up, changed their style; a few moved into the mainstream. When Nirvana arrived, they were kind of unique, they were kind of Punkish but somewhat different from Punk because they were also influence by different bands in Rock as well, even by The Beatles.

Nirvana were at the right place at the right time for that for that generation. Maybe they're not for everyone. I'm not for writing them off as the worst band nor am I for fawning all over them as the greatest band of all time to me they are another puzzle peice in understanding Alt-Rock that I like.

This place is full of people's opinions being cleverly made to look like fact.

(I guess I shouldn't expect any less)

I look at nirvana as a sort of punk-teen thing. Smells like teen spirit is just such a high school anthem for me. I still like them overall though, even if I do tend to look down upon their biggest fans.

You need to cool your jets man. Nobody's music taste is superior to anybody else's here and you're not the exception. Someone says they don't like your favourite band? Get over it and stop throwing a hissy fit.

What on Earth are you talking about? Of course there is a question of whether or not a band is one of "the greatest bands of all time". Any band can be the best or the worst depending on subjective musical tastes. If you think that there is some objective taste in music that is superior to all others, then you need to "grow up".

Not unless you're King Crimson, or someone who likes King Crimson or Genesis or whoever. I'm not the biggest prog fan by any means, but that doesn't mean that my subjective opinion of not particularly caring about a band's musical abilities should have any bearing on anyone else's opinion.

Sure they were influential, but what does that have to do with whether or not I should like them? If they don't appeal to me, then they don't appeal to me. It is what it is. It doesn't invalidate my own opinion any more than if I did like them. And I do like Nirvana BTW.

Come on. You just told someone else to grow up, so how can you justify this childish statement? I'm not someone who is opposed to having a heated debate with someone over music, but your arrogant attitude is ridiculous.