Am I the only one who doesn't like Nirvana...

Ghost Jam · 01-09-2013, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bucsko91daniel

Nirvana was never my favorite band, but they did have great songs. Your strong opinions may stem from the fact that their music's become too mainstream to the point of being annoyingly ubiquitous.

Excessive mainstream exposure notwithstanding, I think they're a good band.

I mean that's clearly the thing, man. Hate for the sake of hate. It makes some people feel good to simply have a buncha hate for things that everyone else likes, because it makes them feel unique and different.

That works sometimes.

In the case of Nirvana, it's just stupid. It's like that other poster pointed out with the Beatles. You can simply switch the band names out and have the exact same threads of retarded hate.

On the subjective level, many of the posters in this thread are 100% correct. Nirvana isn't everyone's thing. I totally get that. There's nothing wrong with that.

But when you take YOUR subjectivity and attempt to apply it to something that has 20+ years of educated consensus of favor and use that subjectivity to try and tear it down, well...you're every bit the idiot you think you're exposing EVERYONE ELSE to be.

So that's that.

LIKE IT OR NOT, Nirvana WAS IN FACT one of the greatest bands of all time.

I'd put them in the top 5. Easy.

Eat it, Nirvana haters. Just ****ing EAT IT.

lol

-Teenaged Angst has Paid Off Well, but Now I'm Bored and Ghost Jam

Vertigo · 01-09-2013, 02:29 AM

This may be, no is a rather shallow viewpoint but there is only one aspect of a band or artiste that is ultimately (to me) the most important;

Do I enjoy their music?

Maybe it's a combination of my age increasing and my patience decreasing that I find myself caring more and more about this and less and less of what are, maybe, the more important aspects like how they helped music evolve or the bands they influenced.

For now, I'll take the songs. Just the songs.

Nirvana were....ok, not great, just ok. I much preferred Nevermind To In Utero and I still consider Come As You Are to be their finest moment. And the unplugged gig that they did for MTV was class.

Just my two penneth.

Ghost Jam · 01-09-2013, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vertigo

This may be, no is a rather shallow viewpoint but there is only one aspect of a band or artiste that is ultimately (to me) the most important;

Do I enjoy their music?

Maybe it's a combination of my age increasing and my patience decreasing that I find myself caring more and more about this and less and less of what are, maybe, the more important aspects like how they helped music evolve or the bands they influenced.

For now, I'll take the songs. Just the songs.

Nirvana were....ok, not great, just ok. I much preferred Nevermind To In Utero and I still consider Come As You Are to be their finest moment. And the unplugged gig that they did for MTV was class.

Just my two penneth.

...and man, I have NO quarrel with that. None whatsoever.

There's a big difference between what we absorb and appreciate subjectively as opposed to an objective point of view regarding, well, just about anything.

Some people just don't get Picasso.

It's fine that they don't. And far be it from me to disparage that subjective outlook on the man's art.

But to try and roll along and say, "it's just hype, Picasso actually sucked, he wasn't **** compared to what my niece paints in kindergarten" is just revealing your lack of knowledge regarding art, it peeps you for being a novice and likely someone very young that hasn't spent any time understanding the kinds of things that make art great.

So it is with those that try and write off Nirvana. These are individuals that have more of an interest in desperately trying to be "different" than they have in trying to understand just why 2+ decades of universal acclaim falls upon this band.

It's childish and sophomoric.

If you don't like the sound, that's fine. But don't disrespect something that was significant and was significant for MANY reasons just because you're lazy, trying to be "cool", and don't want to take the time to learn what it really was about the whole thing that made it the way it is.

-Ghost Jam

Ghost Jam · 01-09-2013, 02:55 AM

Teenage angst has paid off well
Now I'm bored and old
Self-appointed judges judge
More than they have sold

-If She Floats then She is Not a Ghost Jam

The Batlord · 01-09-2013, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Jam

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".

In that particular context, I'm not talking about subjective musical tastes. I'm talking about a general consensus regarding the impact, success, influence, popularity, etc.

In that regard there just is no argument. Nirvana was one of the greatest bands of all time.

There are plenty of artists that I don't particularly like very much, but I don't make attempts to strip them of what they deserve just because of that.

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.

I never said talent wasn't important, or even necessary to a lot of bands. I hold a lot of respect for technical talent. I just said that talent is the most expendable attribute to rock music, which it is. Especially in contrast with classical or jazz music, which I adore.

I love King Crimson.

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.

The OP wasn't merely addressing his opinion. He was attempting to discredit Nirvana for everything that they were. That has nothing to do with an opinion.

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.

I get that all the time.

-Arrogant Ghost Jam

That's cool, and I don't wanna seem like I'm coming down on you for being passionate. I love passion for music. I myself have gone on several fanboy rants about Manowar and Hammerfall in recent memory on this site. But I don't truck with this hair band hate.

They may be ****ty bands and their lyrics may be dumb, but many of them are more fun than shooting a barrel full of monkeys. And I will go to the mat any day of the week over Motley Crue's first two albums.

Franco Pepe Kalle · 01-09-2013, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghost Jam

Tupac, Michael Jackson and Bob Marley are all awesome. I'd come to any of their defenses just as I have Nirvana.

If you're someone that wants to take a weird **** on any of those artists,as the OP of this thread has, then yeah, I'm gonna come to their defense.

What are you talking about?

-Ghost Jam

Dude you know what I am talking about. You keep saying that Nirvana is the top 5 rock bands. That is your opinion not fact. Not everyone is going to agree with that statement. You are too busy being an ******* instead of seeing that you are stating YOUR OPINION. That is fine but not everyone agrees with your view.

- Franco Pepe Kalle

**Janszoon** · 01-09-2013, 11:49 AM

There are some bands that become legendary simply by being in the right place at the right time. Nirvana is one of them. They were a good band but they have also become incredibly overrated over the years. Groups that preceded them, like Pixies or Husker Du or The Melvins, are easily their equals, if not their superiors, but Nirvana makes the "best of" lists largely by virtue of releasing the right album at the perfect moment when everything aligned for their music to click with massive numbers of people. It could just have easily been some other band in their place.

Euronomus · 01-09-2013, 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

There are some bands that become legendary simply by being in the right place at the right time. Nirvana is one of them.

Exactly, if Nevermind had been released 5 years earlier or 7-10 years later no one would have given a ****.

sidewinder · 01-09-2013, 02:23 PM

Nirvana was important to my generation, having graduated high school in 94. I enjoyed their music then and still enjoy it now.

I never worshiped them or Kurt Cobain.

I don't care who likes them or who doesn't.

They're just a milestone in the history of music like many other bands.

Of course you're not the only one not to like Nirvana.

Bloozcrooz · 01-09-2013, 04:31 PM

Timing has to do with a lot of bands or artists mystique and fame. Some just get lucky in that aspect of it. I like some of Nirvana's music but I'm not a die hard fan boy or anything of it. I do think they deserve credit for introducing to a lot of people a different sound and style. Its easy in hindsight to say anybody could have done it and been just as good, and maybe thats true. Fact is it was Nirvana that did it first with any success on the mainstream market and shed light to so many that something new was taking place in the music world.

01-09-2013, 02:55 AM	#54 (permalink)
Ghost Jam Music Addict Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 107	Teenage angst has paid off well Now I'm bored and old Self-appointed judges judge More than they have sold -If She Floats then She is Not a Ghost Jam Last edited by Ghost Jam; 01-09-2013 at 03:14 AM.

01-09-2013, 11:49 AM	#57 (permalink)
Janszoon Mate, Spawn & Die Join Date: May 2007 Location: The Rapping Community Posts: 24,593	There are some bands that become legendary simply by being in the right place at the right time. Nirvana is one of them. They were a good band but they have also become incredibly overrated over the years. Groups that preceded them, like Pixies or Husker Du or The Melvins, are easily their equals, if not their superiors, but Nirvana makes the "best of" lists largely by virtue of releasing the right album at the perfect moment when everything aligned for their music to click with massive numbers of people. It could just have easily been some other band in their place. __________________ 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

01-09-2013, 02:23 PM	#59 (permalink)
sidewinder Engorged Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 5,536	Nirvana was important to my generation, having graduated high school in 94. I enjoyed their music then and still enjoy it now. I never worshiped them or Kurt Cobain. I don't care who likes them or who doesn't. They're just a milestone in the history of music like many other bands. Of course you're not the only one not to like Nirvana. __________________ last.fm \| my collection on RYM \| vinyl instagram @allthatyouseeandhear I'd love to see your signature/links too, but the huge and obnoxious ones have caused me to block all signatures.

01-09-2013, 02:29 AM	#52 (permalink)
Vertigo Music Addict Join Date: May 2012 Location: North West England Posts: 167	This may be, no is a rather shallow viewpoint but there is only one aspect of a band or artiste that is ultimately (to me) the most important; Do I enjoy their music? Maybe it's a combination of my age increasing and my patience decreasing that I find myself caring more and more about this and less and less of what are, maybe, the more important aspects like how they helped music evolve or the bands they influenced. For now, I'll take the songs. Just the songs. Nirvana were....ok, not great, just ok. I much preferred Nevermind To In Utero and I still consider Come As You Are to be their finest moment. And the unplugged gig that they did for MTV was class. Just my two penneth.