The Official Nirvana/Kurt Cobain Thread (lyrics, alternative, punk, rock)

[Raine]

Originally Posted by bungalowbill357

Nirvana..better than the Melvins...? You need to get your head examined.

because it hink nirvana is better than the melvin's.
although i'd think your opinion is biased since you've said many times that you don't like nirvana and are partial to the melvins because they did a cover of a nirvana song

[tdoc210]

Cover's don't mean crap.

[ArtistInTheAmbulance]

i killed music.
not nirvana.
hence how music's corpse is rotting in my basement right now.
titwench.

[Raine]

Originally Posted by Stone Magnet

You're talking about a band you've never even listened to, and on top of that, you're claiming that Nirvana is better than the Melvins because they covered one of Nirvana's songs. If that's your logic, then I guess you would also insist that Limp Bizkit are better than Tool, the Scissor Sisters are better than Pink Floyd, Avril Lavigne is better than Bob Dylan, Britney Spears is better than the Rolling Stones, and Celene Dion is better than AC/DC.

i have listened to the melvin's. i do like the melvin's. i like nirvana more.
and aside from the albums by the melvin's that i do have (but never listen to anymore) i have heard stuff off their other albums.
the fact that the melvin's covered one of nirvana's songs in my mind means that the melvin's were influenced by nirvana. (which is not to say that nirvana was not influenced by the melvins)

[swim]

When someone does a cover it means they like the song. That's all.

[boo boo]

If someone thinks Nirvana are better than The Melvins, thats pretty much their personal opinion, same goes for someone who believes vice versa, but being abrasive about it either way makes that band look bad, it makes people think "are all Melvins fans f*cking assh*les like these guys?", it dosen't help anything, it dosen't prove your point and it just makes you all look like douchebags, not that personal opinions can't be completely biased, and in this case Raine is likely very biased, but it's still her opinion.

[Muzak]

Nirvana just changed the general style of mainstream music back then, not killed it.

[Raine]

Originally Posted by Stone Magnet

Yeah, but "influenced by" doesn't always mean "inferior to".

touche

but in my mind i still interpret it as nirvana being better.

[boo boo]

And for the record, Pink Floyd would never cover The Foo Fighters.

In fact, Pink Floyd rarely do covers at all.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by glazedface

Did Nirvana, with its nonsensical lyrics, and its responsibility for the "good musicianship = unhip" trend, kill music? did their introduction to the idea of depression making good rock kill rock n roll as we once knew it? discuss.

after reading this, my immediate thought was "this is the dumbest question ever." but after putting some thought into it, i think that they may have actually not killed, but definitley fatally wounded the world of rock as it was known at that time. the main rock bands during nirvana's early years were mostly hair and metal bands. so nirvana bursting onto the scene with a new sound, that basically knocked the world of rock and roll on its ass, may have forever changed the direction of the genre.