Nirvana's place in the world of music....

[cdash]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

I'm just wondering what generation specifically did Cobain represent? Generation X? Generation Y? Millenials?

Whatever generation only lasted 5 years. Ziiiiing!

In all seriousness, that is a good question. That generation stuff has never made much sense to me. Where does one end and another begin? There's bound to be some overlap, no?

[Trader Joe]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

I'm just saying the "troubled youth of the era" isn't exactly a generation. Those kids grew up, many of them moved on from Nirvana, and besides that's not really a generation anywya. It's a sector of a part of a generation, which I think would fall into generation X, but I'm not sure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_X

It's generally agreed Generation X is people born in the 70's and early 80's, so in theory Nirvana should be the voice of this generation, is there anyone from that generation who is willing to stand by that?

[RWB]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

As long as you're part of the Pepsi Generation then you're a-okay. Well actually I prefer Diet Coke.

[Since86]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

Whatever generation only lasted 5 years. Ziiiiing!

In all seriousness, that is a good question. That generation stuff has never made much sense to me. Where does one end and another begin? There's bound to be some overlap, no?

Generation X would be the offspring of the Baby Boomers, and should be anywhere from the mid60s to early 80s.

Yes, there is overlap, like myself. I would think that if you documented actual generations, I would fall into Generation X eventhough I was born in 1986. My mom had me when she was 35, but the rest of my siblings were born prior to 1980.

Anything after that would be Generation Y, and then any of our offspring would then be Generation Z, or whatever they're gonna call it.

But yes, with people having kids later in life the lines are definitely getting blurry, IMHO.

[Trader Joe]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

Well I've seen people our age both be called Generation Y and Millenials. However, I would say we are clearly NOT the generation that would have been impacted by Nirvana. You might be right on the edge Since.

[Slick Pinkham]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

By your argument Twain or the Backstreet Boys would be more influential than The Beatles and I know you don't believe that(I'm pretty sure Beatles never sold over 35 mill, but I could be wrong).

Total number of worldwide record sales (albums, singles, downloads, videos) by the the Beatles: 600 million to 1 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

#1 Beatles (600-1000 million)
#2 Elvis (same)
#3 Michael Jackson (350-750)
#4 ABBA (???????)
#5 Madonna
#6 Led Zeppelin
#7 Queen
#8 Elton
#9 Mariah Carey
#10 Celine Dion
#11 Pink Floyd
#12 AC/DC
#13 Rolling Stones
#14 Bee Gees
#15 Whitney Houston
#16 U2
#17 Aerosmith
#18 Genesis
#19 Sinatra
#20 Stevie Wonder
#21 Barbara Streisand
#22 David Bowie
#23 Backstreet Boys
#24 Bon Jovi
#25 Garth Brooks
#26 Chicago
#27 The Eagles
#28 Bruce Stringsteen
#29 Dire Straights (120 Million)



The list seems to cover a 5-fold or more range in sales.

the ease of downloading will likely skew this in favor of modern artists over time. the fact that Sinatra cracks the top 20 is amazing, when most of his career occured when a lot of the world poplulation didn't even have access to affordable (by today's standards) audio equipment

[billbradley]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

It wouldn't be the first time I said that they were wrong, and won't be the last.

Who were the artists claiming Nirvana as the "voice of a generation?"

What criteria does Nirvana have, other than "they" (members of media, and musical artists" said so, do you have?

I think I have a book with musician interviews, I will get those artists for you. As far as criteria and "they" I've already given a laundry list of the most respected institutions that stated this. I guess my question is how and why are these people wrong?

Album sales certainly aren't the only criteria for "voice of a generation" or "most influential artist of a decade." As I said, look at what Shania Twain has done for music. The Genre she is the face of, is now the most popular genre in America. It's not there because of her.

Yes, Grunge is a form of rock, but it's not around in pop culture really any longer. And That music certainly didn't impact the music industry like Twain's did. (And if I had to pick someone as the "voice" it wouldn't be her. I'd probably go with Tupac.)

I already explained the differences between Twain and Cobain. And said several times that argument doesn't work because that same could be said for Twain v. Beatles and we agree that is wrong. Completely agree with Tupac being a voice for a generation. I won't cite anything since I know we agree.

17 years later, Nirvana record still an icon for rock lovers
Rachel Rodriguez

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-11/entertainment/nirvana.irpt_1_nirvana-record-kurt-cobain-grunge?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

"One song changed the way we look at rock music," said Russ Lancaster of "Smells Like Teen Spirit," the first track on the record. "Just like the Beatles changed pop music 30 years prior, Nirvana's breakthrough album achieved the same level of power in terms of changing pop music. They weren't singing anymore about happy, funny songs. They were taking a real dark turn to pop music, and it changed everything. Back then it was really different to hear that on the radio. It opened up a floodgate of artists that might never have been heard before that."

The article goes on about different opinions about Nirvana good or bad for rock, I'm not really posting this as new evididence to prove my point as it is not a really good article at all. I just thought it was something else to look at.

I think maybe Trader Joe and some others were asking why these writers are acting like highschools are filled with people that are grundge. Well, if you look at movies,tv shows, commercial, etc. of the 90s grunge began to be the style for "cool" people. Flannels, plaids, chucks and that roll out of bed look started with the grunge rock scene. I just don't understand how there can be such oppisition to something that is so well understood and documented.

[billbradley]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

Total number of worldwide record sales (albums, singles, downloads, videos) by the the Beatles: 600 million to 1 billion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_music_artists

#1 Beatles (600-1000 million)
#2 Elvis (same)
#3 Michael Jackson (350-750)
#4 ABBA (???????)
#5 Madonna
#6 Led Zeppelin
#7 Queen
#8 Elton
#9 Mariah Carey
#10 Celine Dion
#11 Pink Floyd
#12 AC/DC
#13 Rolling Stones
#14 Bee Gees
#15 Whitney Houston
#16 U2
#17 Aerosmith
#18 Genesis
#19 Sinatra
#20 Stevie Wonder
#21 Barbara Streisand
#22 David Bowie
#23 Backstreet Boys
#24 Bon Jovi
#25 Garth Brooks
#26 Chicago
#27 The Eagles
#28 Bruce Stringsteen
#29 Dire Straights (120 Million)



The list seems to cover a 5-fold or more range in sales.

the ease of downloading will likely skew this in favor of modern artists over time. the fact that Sinatra cracks the top 20 is amazing, when most of his career occured when a lot of the world poplulation didn't even have access to affordable (by today's standards) audio equipment

Sorry, I meant single album.

edit: I will say I did not expect to have such a small amount of crappy bands on that list. But where is Bob Dylan?!?! Greatest lyricist of all time missing?

[Since86]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

17 years later, Nirvana record still an icon for rock lovers

What do you notice about this headline?




The phrase "for rock lovers" sticks out like a sore thumb. Which is what we've been arguing the entire time. For rock lovers, Nirvana might be their voice. But not an entire population. Most of the population doesn't fall in the category, because they're too busy buying pop, country, and hip-hop/rap.

For rock lovers, yes, Nirvana is relevant. To the other 80% of the population, and that's being generous, not at all.

[billbradley]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

What do you notice about this headline?




The phrase "for rock lovers" sticks out like a sore thumb. Which is what we've been arguing the entire time. For rock lovers, Nirvana might be their voice. But not an entire population. Most of the population doesn't fall in the category, because they're too busy buying pop, country, and hip-hop/rap.

For rock lovers, yes, Nirvana is relevant. To the other 80% of the population, and that's being generous, not at all.

During their reign, Nirvana was the most popular music out. You are just not going to understand that because you chose not to.

[Since86]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

Except that they didn't even have the most popular album out that year. A guy named Garth Brooks did.

But carry on.

EDIT: I don't know why you keep presenting this stuff like it's fact. The only facts in this entire thread is album sales and Nirvana clearly falls short. It's a matter of opinion.

Can we atleast agree that there's a difference between opinion and fact?

[cdash]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/050928&num=0

Klosterman: Certainly, music is WAY more subjective. These two subjects are not even comparable. For example, I could insist that the greatest band in the world is actually four unsigned guys from Oregon who have never made a record and are just bouncing around the Portland club scene, and that this band is like what would have happened if Lennon & McCartney had formed a quartet with Keith Richards and Charlie Watts, and that these people write the best songs since The Smiths and they play louder than Blue Cheer. I could argue that this group is cooler than The Arcade Fire or the White Stripes, because I could insist they are more "authentic" or "incendiary" or "visceral." I could create reasons that explain this hypothetical band's greatness, and a few crazy people would find my theory interesting and potentially valid. However, I could never claim that the best quarterback in the country is actually some 28-year-old dude working in a car wash in downtown Detroit, and that this person is substantially better than Peyton Manning. That would immediately seem idiotic to everyone. This is why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is such a failure; there are no quantifiable qualities for the inductees. There is no way to *prove* that a musician is good. And this is not an issue in sports. There's no risk that Greg Maddux won't make the Baseball Hall of Fame simply because certain sportswriters don't think he's hip enough, or because they feel his pitching style is derivative.

I think you somewhat misread my rock writing, though; I don't think I ever imply that my opinions are some kind of universal truth. When I say "Vitalogy" is "irrefutably" the best Pearl Jam album, I'm really just saying that fact is irrefutable *to me.* But I am only speaking about my own reality. If I say a band is good, it only means that *I* think they're good; if I say a band is bad, it only means that *I* think they're bad. All my criticism is autobiography. I have no interest in persuading (or dissuading) readers from liking anything.

This is coming from a music critic, and a pretty well respected one. See what we are saying guys...it's all opinion. You might respect the NY Times opinion more than mine, but it doesn't make it any more true.

[billbradley]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

Except that they didn't even have the most popular album out that year. A guy named Garth Brooks did.

But carry on.

EDIT: I don't know why you keep presenting this stuff like it's fact. The only facts in this entire thread is album sales and Nirvana clearly falls short. It's a matter of opinion.

Can we atleast agree that there's a difference between opinion and fact?

I didn't say they had the most popular album of the year.

I'm just relaying what happened, and you are saying it didn't happen.

[billbradley]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

[Sookie]

Re: Nirvana's place in the world of music....

I think I have a book with musician interviews, I will get those artists for you. As far as criteria and "they" I've already given a laundry list of the most respected institutions that stated this. I guess my question is how and why are these people wrong?



I already explained the differences between Twain and Cobain. And said several times that argument doesn't work because that same could be said for Twain v. Beatles and we agree that is wrong. Completely agree with Tupac being a voice for a generation. I won't cite anything since I know we agree.

17 years later, Nirvana record still an icon for rock lovers
Rachel Rodriguez

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-11/entertainment/nirvana.irpt_1_nirvana-record-kurt-cobain-grunge?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ

"One song changed the way we look at rock music," said Russ Lancaster of "Smells Like Teen Spirit," the first track on the record. "Just like the Beatles changed pop music 30 years prior, Nirvana's breakthrough album achieved the same level of power in terms of changing pop music. They weren't singing anymore about happy, funny songs. They were taking a real dark turn to pop music, and it changed everything. Back then it was really different to hear that on the radio. It opened up a floodgate of artists that might never have been heard before that."

The article goes on about different opinions about Nirvana good or bad for rock, I'm not really posting this as new evididence to prove my point as it is not a really good article at all. I just thought it was something else to look at.

I think maybe Trader Joe and some others were asking why these writers are acting like highschools are filled with people that are grundge. Well, if you look at movies,tv shows, commercial, etc. of the 90s grunge began to be the style for "cool" people. Flannels, plaids, chucks and that roll out of bed look started with the grunge rock scene. I just don't understand how there can be such oppisition to something that is so well understood and documented.

No, the Beatles did for rock..a much bigger genre of music, what Twain did for crossover country. Their influence was much greater.

No one's saying there wasn't influence. What we are disagreeing with, is the idea that it was the greatest influence in the 90s, or that Cobain was somehow the voice of a generation.

These institutions are just giving their opinion. I've given you some criteria, popularity, musical influence, and cultural influence. It's pretty factual that Twain (who as I said, wouldn't have even been my pick, but she beats Cobain) was/is more popular and had a bigger musical influence. Cultural influence is debatable, but I haven't really looked into Twain's influence on that.

This is not to say that Shania Twain makes higher quality of music than Nirvana. But I think that's a different set of criteria than "voice of a decade." For example, Britney Spears would easily be the voice of the 2000-2010 decade. I don't even think that's debatable. That doesn't make her music quality. It's just obvious that she was easily the most popular musical entertainer, had the most influence on music (from the music video establishing musical artists, to starting trends in pop music) and cultural influence..(don't make me get into that..)