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

...or grunge in general? I don't intend to sit here and dog Nirvana, I don't think they were a terrible band. At least I could sit through one of their songs. I just wanted to ask if there was anyone else out there who feels the same way I do about Nirvana's status as a "legendary" rock band. I just don't see it that way. I think they were ok, but it just kills me how people think they are the greatest thing to ever happen to music. And what's worse is that it seems like one is not allowed to dislike Nirvana. People always look at me like a deer in headlights, puzzled as can be when I tell them I don't like Nirvana. I don't get it. Sure, they were a good band, but why do they have to be everyone's favorite? I have some very strong opinions abouts this whole issue, but I will wait and get other people's opinions before I go into detail about them.

They are not my favourite either. I do like their hits but I can't listen to a whole album.

Nirvana is a huge phenomenon among teens today for some reason, with so many high school students saying they're the best band, etc. It was like that 9 years ago when I started high school and I don't think it's changed.

Grunge was an abomination of tedious bands of which Nirvana were about the only one that had any life in them.

Wow I don't think I've ever heard anyone say anything bad about Nirvana in my entire life.

I would have said, "yes, you are the only person in the world that doesn't like Nirvana..." but for the responses.

I view Cobain as perhaps the best lyricist since Dylan and the one band you can ALWAYS site as playing music from the bottom of their testicles.

I tend to make various "music landmarks" in my head when thinking about the real game changers, and for years now the "Big Four" have been Beatles ->VU -> Joy Division -> Nirvana...

Of course there are an array of other landmarks and significant points on the map, but to me those are the biggest.

-Even in His Ghost Jam

Just so you know, it was like that 20 years ago when I started high school, as well.

I believe that says something, no?

:D

-I Hate Myself and I Want to Ghost Jam

It is not exactly about being good per se for a band to become legendary. It is about floating up in right time with right message, right image and right attitude. And yeah, I dislike Nirvana too. I've never been much into grunge anyway. I liked some songs of The Melvins but I gave them up quickly, just got bored. I see some potential in checking more of Pearl Jam. I also never really paid attention to Alice in Chains but most of stuff that I know from them is very good, so maybe here is my treasure. Anyway, they are sometimes referred to as 'a fake grunge' band with a crush on heavy metal.

EDIT: BTW. Shooting yourself in the head can also help in becoming a legend.

Nirvana being legendary has little to do with gunshot wounds to the head.

I never think of Nirvana as "grunge"...and I don't think I ever did. I was 15 when Nevermind was released, and the most I remember about "grunge" was that it was the word our parents and Letterman were using to try and understand the music we were listening to.

*shrug*

AiC made a very good record called Dirt. I would check it out. Most of their other music is pretty much junk...save both Sap and Jar of Flies...two very good EP's by the band.

-Black Sheep got blackmailed again, forgot to put on the Ghost Jam

I do sort of believe dying young, and under the circumstances that Cobain did would aid in your status as a "troubled genius" or "legend". So I kind of agree with that. Although, I DO hate to spit on the graves of people. He's not here to defend himself. But I think it might have boosted his popularity.

Well, yeah they were popular then so it would have been more relevant. They're still popular I guess but I don't get the appeal. Nirvana is overrated.

All right, persuingchange...I'll give this my best shot...

*clearing throat*

What makes Nirvana so special...and so good...is a combination of emotionally riveting and rather simple compositions with a songwriter's extraordinary ability to put a fine point on it, so to speak.

Nirvana was a band that stood in front of the commercial wasteland of the 1980's and stared down the abyss of a consumerist, plastic and artless future, and shoved us all into it waving both middle fingers all the way down.

Cobain's impeccable familiarity with fellow angsters of rock's past was put to its finest use, in that he was somehow able to take big heaping scoops of Black Francis' snarl, Ian Curtis' heartache, Greg Sage's shrugging shoulders and John Cale's nihilism, stir them all onto a plate set for disaffected youth, and angrily hurl the whole mess directly into the face of the world.

IT's no accident that teenagers 10 and 20 years later are still cutting their teeth on Nirvana's music. It is timeless cast away poetry, something those of us that have been through it know really does mean something to them. And the only thing more eerie than knowing that is knowing what Nirvana's music will end up meaning to many of them when they are older. The music grows up with you.

From those razor-sharp injections from Nevermind such as "got so high, scratched till I bled", "give an inch, take a smile" and "I'm so happy cuz today I shaved my head" to hopeless heart-sighing from In Utero like "look on the bright side is suicide/ lost eyesight I'm on your side/ angel left wing, right wing, broken wing/ lack of iron and or sleeping..." I'm hard pressed to think of another lyricist who so succinctly placed his balls on his sleeve.

And yes, there was the suicide. But I don't think that's what those of us that love Nirvana remember about them. I was devastated when I heard about it...but not because I felt sad for Kurt Cobain, so to speak...I was genuinely sorrowful that the music had that final, unmoving punctuation on it. There would be no more Nirvana records. We were left forever with three propers and whatever bone marrow of b-sides, outtakes and live cuts we could suck out of Nirvana's body of art.

But with or without the suicide, that music stands on its own, and would have regardless what Cobain ever had decided to do with himself, at least I think so.

So, that's my opinion. I am sure I could elaborate further, but I think you get the idea.

-She Eyes Me like a Pisces when I am Ghost Jam

Joy Division and Velvet Underground were both artists that never achieved a whole lot of popularity during their own time, but are beyond relevant regardless, and for a number of reasons.

the Beatles and Nirvana are the same way, except they were indeed wildly popular during their time.

The key part of your response is "[t]hey're still popular...". I understand that you don't see the appeal, and that's fine, but that doesn't change what Nirvana was and is, not even a little bit.

-I'm Too Busy Acting Like I'm Not Ghost Jam

I think its people like you that put me off even more about Nirvana. You speak about him as if he was some sort of God that did the ultimate justice in music. Come on. The band even admitted to lacking a lot of musical talent. All that fluffy stuff you told me about "they were real" and "their music spoke to a generation" is just nonsense to me. Say what you want. And your kind of people always speak about the hair bands before them as if its a fact that they were fake and talentless. I think grunge/alternative was a bunch of hype. Sure, it changed music, but in a bad way IMO. It turned rock into a pitty party full of emotional alternative stuff. Not that thats a bad style. But its all people wanted to play after that. Gurnge/alternative brought about a very loser-ish vibe to the music. I could point out at least 10 artists from hair bands who are better lyricists, better musicians, and ultimately deserve loads more credit than the overrated hype that is Nirvana. That's just my opinion. Again, I was just asking if other people don't like them, so don't take my opinion as the word of God.

I loved Nirvana in the 90s. Today, I'm still tired of them.

I dislike Nirvana, so you aren't alone.

Yeah ok.

lol

-Ghost Jam

Alright ****it...I suppose this it's what's so fun about internet forums anyway...

I think its people like you that put me off even more about Nirvana.

That's a rather revealing statement.

So it's what people say about Nirvana that's behind your dislike, not Nirvana themselves?

You speak about him as if he was some sort of God that did the ultimate justice in music.

The word "god" does not appear once in my post. Nor does the word "ultimate".

I pointed out some of things Nirvana had to say when they hit, and its significance to those of us that love the band.

I assumed from your OP that's the information you were looking for, since you actually asked for that exact information.

The band even admitted to lacking a lot of musical talent.

As did I when I mentioned their simple compositions. Not once in my post do I site Nirvana's "musical talent", as you put it, as what was (and remains) so appealing about the band.

All that fluffy stuff you told me about "they were real" and "their music spoke to a generation" is just nonsense to me.

I never once said either of those things. What are you talking about? You're not addressing the points I made and you are misquoting me...apparently in order to fit your square peg hate into my round hole argument.

Say what you want.

Well, thanks!

And your kind of people always speak about the hair bands before them as if its a fact that they were fake and talentless.

I have no idea what on earth you mean by "your kind of people". And hair bands, generally speaking, were fake and talentless. *shrug* I have no idea what that has to do with Nirvana. I made no such comparison at any point in my post.


I think grunge/alternative was a bunch of hype.

Perhaps it was. I have no idea what that has to do with Nirvana and their influence on pop music (and beyond). Please elaborate.

Sure, it changed music, but in a bad way IMO. It turned rock into a pitty party full of emotional alternative stuff. Not that thats a bad style. But its all people wanted to play after that. Gurnge/alternative brought about a very loser-ish vibe to the music.

Well, is it a bad style or isn't it? You're all over the place. I do remember there being a pushback as early as '95-'96 toward bands such as Pearl Jam and Soundgarden...and I think that had to do with their over-saturation of the waves, especially when Temple of the Dog resurged and 'Hunger Strike' got a lot of play...but I still fail to see what any of that has to do with Nirvana's mark on the landscape.

I could point out at least 10 artists from hair bands who are better lyricists, better musicians, and ultimately deserve loads more credit than the overrated hype that is Nirvana.

Which hair bands? Which songs? Which lyrics?

I'd love for you to actually point them out, provide examples, etc.

so don't take my opinion as the word of God.

lol no worries there...

-Ghost Jam

A lot of listeners dislike grunge including Nirvana. There are several here I believe. I've met people who think Kurt Cobain puts them off because they find him too whiney. He isn't a great guitarist either. Grunge can come off as dull and depressing to a lot also, which is another reason people dislike it, and I can understand in a way what they mean. I appreciate Nirvana because they brought a new face to music but they're pretty low on my like list.

Yeah...whoever heard of disaffected, angst ridden themes or depression in rock music???

It's an outrage!

lol

Seriously, so...what do they listen to? The Chipmunks and the Monkees?

To each their own, I guess.

-What Else Could I Ghost Jam

Grunge can be really centred and sweating in it though. I guess they prefer more brightening music compared.

Sorry man, got a little carried away. I didn't mean to come off like that. Sorry.

I think it all depends on the context of what you are looking for in them.

If you're going to go by the 'legend of Nirvana' that's been built up over the past 20 years you're going to go away disappointed because I doubt any band could live up to that expectation.

If however all you're looking to see in them is a just a rock band that had a half decent set of songs and who rocked harder and lived faster than most of the mainstream bands around them in 91/94 then you might just enjoy them.

You see, this is why I hate genre labeling. It pigeon-holes artists into a narrow and rarely accurate compartment of convenience, which lends to inaccurate points of views and misguided nonsense, such as that presented by the OP.

Pearl Jam was as different an animal from Nirvana as they were from Gang of Four. Same with Soundgarden and AiC. The only thing these bands had in common was an era and a region. They each had an entirely different sound, attitude and thematic purpose to what they did, some better than others.

Where Pearl Jam really was musically talented, big arena music, Nirvana was stripped down. The former looked to elaborate monumental rock such as Led Zeppelin for inspiration in their music while the latter looked to bands like the Pixies and the Wipers.

To lump them all together into a label such as "grunge" is simply lazy, narrow minded and smacks of willful ignorance.

-Ghost Jam

While I have no intention of joining in on the finger pointing going on here, I can agree with the deeper sentiment. The "cult of Cobain" has definitely colored the way I view the band. As far as Nirvana's music is concerned it's always been kind of middle of the road and whatever to me, I could listen to it all day, but it's not great art. However having all these people shove them down my throat as some sort legendary band everyone should respect and love really puts me off of them more than the band itself.

So...

Dude brings the entire matter up in the first place, there's a response to that, and it's "shoving it down throats".

haha whatever

:finger:

-Take a Look at What You Ghost Jam

I don't know if you misinterpreted the point of what I said. I didn't say all grunge follows the same cognitive road, but genres will have certain typical characteristics that people make to recognise. Grunge brought depression into attention, which is part of the reason why it emerged. I'm not implying that's a bad thing. It can be quite thoughtful, and a lot of it is pulled off in a metaphoric way.

Look at Alice in Chains, they were heavily dark emotionally. Early Soundgarden were grating, critical and angsty then turned poetic and often somewhat sad. Pearl Jam dug and romanced up tragic situations at first in Alive and Jeremy, which were two of their most successful songs. People can be really impressionable and tred on the surface. Especially influenced by bands that have worldwide success.

Nirvana are just the main example.

I was not referring to anything in this thread with that line,I was referring to the fact that culturally, Nirvana are put up on a pedestal as one of the greatest bands ever, 20 years later and Cobain still ends up on magazine covers. For a band I find to be mediocre it's pretty tiring to have to listen to people act like Cobain was the second coming

Like I said, I found the finger pointing in his post pretty childish, and went out of my way to point that out. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and you're more than welcome to express it, so chill.

Yeahh...just like all those other mediocre bands.

lol

-Ghost Jam

Yeah I'm not following.

Rock n Roll by it's very nature is steeped in loss, angst, rebellion, heartache, and tragedy.

Sure, not all of it reflects those themes, but it's music that emerged directly from 3 centuries of slavesong, manifesting into jazz, blues, ragtime and then eventually Rock n Roll.

SO...does that make Robert Johnson, Billie Holiday, the Rolling Stones, Black Flag and Marvin Gaye all "grunge".

And before you say it was the sound, like I said, each band that people like to wedge into the free-of-thought-box of "grunge" had an entirely different sound from one to the other as well.

I think that the only reason people insist on this "grunge" label is because it's easy to do so...it brings less of a challenge to the average brain to consider the music of the era...but again, the only common thread between them is that they all came from the part of the country. I mean that really is it.

So yeah I'm not really getting it. I love Nirvana, not so much Pearl Jam. The reason is they are completely different bands with totally different sounds, themes and direction, like, on every imaginable level.

Putting them in the same category is just stupid.

-Ghost Jam

First of all I'm not one either for listening to music because of the genre. I'm only trying to explain how I think it works.

I just pointed out one characteristic of the entire genre. It doesn't mean they automatically fit into it. Music will be placed in genres they have the most characteristics with. Genres have comparisons, so yes they can relate to one another.

Both Nirvana and Pearl Jam had grainy, harsh vocals and distorted electric guitars, had hints of the same origins that formed grunge musically, are under alternative rock, apathetic or angsty lyrics, contrasting dynamics, and even common stripped down aesthetics. It doesn't mean they had the same ideas.

Part of the reason grunge became accredited is because of the Seattle emerge, sure. But If Pearl Jam came out as a thrash metal band do you really think people would consider them grunge?

Ghost Jam, look, please don't tell me that my perspective on music is "misguided". I agree that labelling sucks. I hate it. The only reason I really intended make this thread was to see if there were others out there who share my dislike of Nirvana, and to hopefully express my point of view accurately.

From what I can see, it seems that people admire Nirvana more for what they did rather than love their music because they think its the best music out there. And I can totally agree. I just don't think they have enough musical merit to their name to justify being considered amongst the greatest bands of all time. I guess that's just my opinion.

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.