Kids these days (who listen to Nirvana) still listen to the Ramones, the Clash, Black Flag, etc. No suicides in any of those bands. But even so, those kids are (or at least, many of them that I've encountered) are a bunch of morons anyway, and who listens to a band really has nothing to do with the quality level.

Yeah, like you didn't twist my words around with my quote about Pixies and white noise. :rolleyes:

"Forget the quotes, use your ****ing ears, listen to Nirvanas music and then Pixies music, if you think they sound the same, you are deaf."

That was your quote, "if you think they sound the same, you are deaf" sounds a lot like you're saying the bands have nothing in common.

Did you really just compare Nirvana to some of punk music's most innovative bands?

Do you think people would still worship most rock stars if they didnt die young?


What point is there to this question?

Yes. Nirvana was an innovative band. They had their influences, but it's not like the Clash, Black Flag, and the Ramones just came out of nowhere. EVERYONE has influences.

So you're just out of your fucking mind, then?

Those bands actually did something for music, what did Nirvana do?

No, you suggested that Nirvana were a complete ripoff of Pixies, it dosent take a rock scientist to realise that you are wrong....I said they werent THE SAME, not that they didnt have similarities, theres a big difference.

Well other than the whole boosting the popularity of grunge, alternative and indie rock thing and being a huge influence on many indie and britpop bands thing, nothing really. :rolleyes:

:yeah:

I'll concede that they boosted the popularity of Alt and Grunge, but where has Alt gone since? It's just a marketing term to sell Pop/Rock bands to teenagers now, just like it was then.

Nirvana aren't an influence on any Indie Rock bands I listen to, in fact, the only bands they seem to have influenced were crappy "Alternative" bands such as Nickelback, Hoobastank, etc. You're welcome to find an Indie band that cites Nirvana as an influence, though.

As for boosting the popularity of Indie Rock, they didn't really. Major labels have been signing indie bands for years, and Indie Rock has only recently become big, long after Nirvana's demise. And Britpop? You must be joking. Britpop came about at around the same time as Grunge, if not before it.

The Smiths? The Cure? The Jam ?

Nirvana influenced both The White Stripes and Radiohead in some way, since Jack White and Thom Yorke have both named Nirvana a big influence, also QOTSA.

And did you even read my post?...I didnt say Nirvana helped create britpop for ****s sake, i said they influenced several britpop bands from the 90s and 00s, get it right dumbass.

Indie rock got much popular in the 90s because of Nirvana, and indie bands were getting much more airplay on MTV and radio after Nirvana.

Also, alternative rock isnt really whats hip with most kids today, i dont know what you are talking about.

Yeah, because The White Stripes and Radiohead are so Indie. They're probably two of the biggest bands on the planet right now, and they've both been signed to major labels for quite some time now.

You said, and this I quote because I'm looking right at it, "...and being a huge influence on many... britpop bands..." Now it's "they influenced several Britpop bands from the 90s and 00s"? Which Britpop bands did they even influence, exactly?

Indie bands still don't get much play on MTV. Name one indie band in regular rotation on MTV right now. With bands like Modest Mouse and Death Cab it may seem like they are, but those bands are signed to major labels, and have the labels' full support behind them.

Do you even know what you're saying? First they're boosting the popularity of Alternative, which is STILL big with "the kids" these days, now Alternative isn't big at all?

Me thinks you've been hangin out here too long. Here's some math; if NME said it, its wrong.

i have no idea what your talking about

You're a ****ing idiot, White Stripes and Radiohead BEGAN on a indie label, they started out as indie bands and became huge later on.

Point is, alternative rock would not have the same kind of lasting impact throughout the 90s if it were not for Nirvana, alternative rock and indie rock had become less mainstream in the last 2 or so years, because of the growing popularity of punk rock, metal, emo, etc...But without Nirvana alternative rocks popularity would have died out a lot sooner, Nirvana were THE BAND of the 90s, not my opinion, its a fact, theres no getting around it.

The Shins and Arcade Fire had a few videos played on MTV.

Why arn't the Stones on that list, like them or not they were influencial.

You really don't know shit about indie music, do you?

:bowdown:

Great response.

Seriously, you really pwned me there, how could i ever make a comeback afer that witty and brillant remark??

You dont know anything about songwriting, if you consider Cobain a horrible songwriter, that pretty much speaks for itself...You dont have to think of him as a great songwriter but saying he is horrible is flat out ridiclous, your arguement has had zero credibility simply for that reason.

Im not the biggest indie expert, im a prog guy, one thing i know for certain is that you have a horrible ear for music if you dont notice the other bands that have influenced Nirvanas work other than Pixies.

I've said this 3 billion times on this thread (hey look, now I'm being a prankster like Cobain!): KURT COBAIN WROTE BORING, ANGSTY, CLICHE LYRICS FOR "NONCONFORMIST" TEENAGERS.

Jesus fucking Christ. Now you're just being an ass. Where did I say that Pixies were the ONLY band that influenced Nirvana? Nowhere. Now stop putting words in my mouth, because you complained when I supposedly did it to you, and you've already done it to me twice.

In your opinion.



You have done it to me like a dozen times on just the last 3 or 4 pages.

In other news, water is fucking wet. All debate over music is based on opinion.

And you've done it to me, so don't complain about it.

If you're asking someone who was around when Nirvana got big (and I was), about how much bigger they got after his death - then I agree with what I think it is that you're trying to say here… Nirvana's popularity DID explode after Kurt's death. But, really… so what?

All sorts of artists become huge after they die… especially young. Jim Morrison, Otis Redding, Shannon Hoon, Jeff Buckley, Bradley Nowell - These are all talented people who recorded very little music during their lifetimes. But the music they did record was, in my opinion, timeless and important. And - they all became more popular the longer they were dead.

And, just like the above mentioned artists - I don't think that Nirvana's increase in popularity after Kurt's "suicide" diminishes the quality of their music. Kurt may have played a bit sloppy. But as a band, Nirvana made some damn good music with him writing the songs.

Not always, some opinions are just factualy wrong, example.

Sid Vicious has more skill and experience than Geddy Lee.

Yes, but someone could say that the Sex Pistols are better than Rush, and that would be personal preference and thus would be an opinion.

For every Hello, Hello, Hello How Low (there weren't that many anyway) there were more meaningful and better written lyrics. Kurt himself acknowledged his exploitation of writing music for "nonconformist" teenagers. One of the lines from a song of his went "Teenage angst has paid of well, now I'm bored and old...", he was aware of it as anyone and could still craft catchy and interesting pop songs.

but, that would be factually wrong. because i doubt sid vicious could hold a candle to geddy lee. thus that opinion, based on personal preference, is factually wrong.

In musical quality sure (I actualy do like The Pistols more than i do Rush) but in terms of musicianship and talent, its a no brainer.

MB Beatles bias

Yessir.

The fact that he admitted it doesn't change the fact that it was completely uninspired songwriting.

Did you completely miss what I just said? An opinion can't be wrong. I agreed that saying The Sex Pistols were more skillfull than Rush would wrong, but saying you prefer them isn't. "I like the Sex Pistols more than Rush," and "The Sex Pistols are a better band than Rush," are two different things.

^ Wrong.


In my opinion of course. :pimp:

:wave: I'm biased towards the Beatles - count me in.

This whole time we werent talking about preference, you have been bashing Nirvana like its a fact, and thats why you are having a hard time with me.

Oh yeah? Well in my opinion, you're wrong.

Take that.

Well in my opinion you're wrong and he's right. Two to one. :nono:

What are you talking about? Where did I say anything like it was fact?

Well if we're going by majority rule I guess Britney Spears is talented and Emo is whiny pop-punk?

We can either go by elitist drivel, majority rules bolshevism, or the natural down to earth opinion's of the average person. If everyone accepts emo to be pop-punk, and two critics say emo is something else entirely, by so many people having consensus as to what emo is then it would be pop-punk by perception.