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

[cdash]

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

Can we lock this thread?

[Since86]

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

see paragraph after your Twisted Sister comparison

Yeah, and you have things like being mentioned by political leaders as an accomplishment. That's not an accomplishment.....

It doesn't take longevity with art. I showed that with NWA. How is that confusing?

So are they voices of a generation then too? Because all your doing is showing that there are many other artists out there that are influential with their genre, which is exactly what I'm saying. Just because you're influential doesn't mean you should get a pretty exclusive title like "voice of a generation."

IHMO something like that should be given to artists that actually changed the world forever. Not changed it for a couple of years.

That's why I laugh when people try to say that Nirvana paved the way for grunge music. Ten being released BEFORE Nevermind shows that Nirvana was one of the bands to take it mainstream, not THE band. Pearl Jam was signed to a major record company, Epic. They don't sign your neighborhood garage bands without some pretty lofty expectations.





I can't link it right now, so i will when I'm home.

Neither were hailed as the voice of a generation. We already discussed artistic merit for Twain. I'll just give you Brooks and more. So lets jut say you can name 20, I don't think you can, but we will go with it. That means Nirvana is in a group of 20 musicians in history. That also means what you say about Nirvana's accomplishments and legacy are wrong.

And here it is. The ONLY difference is that Nirvana was labeled a voice of a generation, yet they didn't do anything out of the ordinary to get that label.

It's an arbitrary title handed out based on what exactly? The opinion of the person handing out the title! That's it. There's nothing else to it. If a writer deems a certain band worthy of the title, they just automatically get it?

That's why I say The Beatles and Nirvana are in two completely different camps. You can actually cite the cultural influences that The Beatles had. Like how Lennon was almost deported for his political views etc.

[Since86]

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

Can we lock this thread?

There's an option at the top of the thread called "thread options" Click that and there is another option at the bottom that's called "ignore this thread."

Problem solved.

[Peck]

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

Do we even know what we are arguing about anymore?

[Since86]

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

Do we even know what we are arguing about anymore?

I do.

There's no problem between Bill and I, on my end atleast. I don't know about him, but I don't feel like it's a personal thing.

[Constellations]

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

I do.

There's no problem between Bill and I, on my end atleast. I don't know about him, but I don't feel like it's a personal thing.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

[billbradley]

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

I do.

There's no problem between Bill and I, on my end atleast. I don't know about him, but I don't feel like it's a personal thing.

Not at all. I actually enjoy the debate. A flaw of mine is I sound snarky when I debate, but nothing personal at all, as I feel eventually, I will find the perfect story or happening to win.

[cdash]

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

There's an option at the top of the thread called "thread options" Click that and there is another option at the bottom that's called "ignore this thread."

Problem solved.

Your condescension, as always, is appreciated.

[Since86]

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

Your condescension, as always, is appreciated.

I was being serious, but alright.

[billbradley]

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

Yeah, and you have things like being mentioned by political leaders as an accomplishment. That's not an accomplishment.....

If someone running for leader of the free world quotes your work, it is a MAJOR accomplishment.

So are they voices of a generation then too? Because all your doing is showing that there are many other artists out there that are influential with their genre, which is exactly what I'm saying. Just because you're influential doesn't mean you should get a pretty exclusive title like "voice of a generation."

NWA, Biggie and Tupac were, but Tupac mainly got the nod. It's kind of like the Pearl Jam, Dino Jr. Mud Honey thing. You don't have to be the first to be the cornerstone of the movement.

That's why I laugh when people try to say that Nirvana paved the way for grunge music. Ten being released BEFORE Nevermind shows that Nirvana was one of the bands to take it mainstream, not THE band. Pearl Jam was signed to a major record company, Epic. They don't sign your neighborhood garage bands without some pretty lofty expectations.

see above

And Ten didn't do what Nevermind did. Eddie Vedder is no Kurt Cobain in history. You can say it's because Cobain died and I think that is a fair point, but it doesn't change what it is.

IHMO something like that should be given to artists that actually changed the world forever. Not changed it for a couple of years.

They did change it forever, just like othere bands that were around for a couple of years.

And here it is. The ONLY difference is that Nirvana was labeled a voice of a generation, yet they didn't do anything out of the ordinary to get that label.

It's an arbitrary title handed out based on what exactly? The opinion of the person handing out the title! That's it. There's nothing else to it. If a writer deems a certain band worthy of the title, they just automatically get it?

How else does someone get the title besides what I've described? Record sales? Then no Bob Dylan. The popular opinion and the media choses these things. And all we have to go off of for that is historians, print and news media for history. All of that tells us what Nirvana was.

That's why I say The Beatles and Nirvana are in two completely different camps. You can actually cite the cultural influences that The Beatles had. Like how Lennon was almost deported for his political views etc.

Yes, I agree. Nirvana is no Beatles. But Nirvana is in a small group of great musicians for what they accomplished. That sets them apart. That makes them great.

[cdash]

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

I was being serious, but alright.

In that case, thank you. I did already know about the ignore thread feature though.

[billbradley]

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

Nirvana’s rock legacy won’t fade away, 20 years on

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/lifestyle/the-arts/music/nirvana_s_rock_legacy_won_t_fade_away_20_years_on_1_3779033

It’s 20 years since Nirvana released the album that changed popular culture forever. Andy Welch pays tribute to a musical masterpiece.


“It’s better to burn out than to fade away.”

Those nine words taken from Neil Young’s My My, Hey Hey (Out Of The Blue) were written in 1979, but cemented themselves in rock ‘n’ roll infamy when, in 1994, Kurt Cobain quoted them in his suicide note.

The Nirvana frontman had reached the end of his road; unable to deal with the intense pressures of fame, the ubiquity of his music and, of course, the crippling heroin addiction.

Rewind a few years to the release of the band’s debut album Bleach, and things were very different.

Nirvana were a promising group in the Seattle grunge scene, along with the likes of Mudhoney and The Melvins. The release of Nevermind in September 1991, however, changed everything.

“It sounds ridiculous to say it now, but I always thought Nirvana had potential,” explains music journalist Keith Cameron, one of the band’s early champions during his time at now-defunct magazine Vox.

“After the first album, Kurt started getting a stronger idea of what he wanted to do musically, and was clearly influenced by The Beatles.

“He was from a background where making a punk-rock statement was more important than writing a good song, but his instinct with melody kicked in when writing Nevermind.”

The build-up to the album was a lengthy one. The trio – Cobain, bassist Krist Novoselic and drummer Chad Channing (who was replaced by Dave Grohl before final recording sessions for Nevermind began) – were in the process of looking to leave their cash-strapped independent label Sub Pop. In April 1990, they decamped to producer Butch Vig’s Wisconsin studios to record a set of demos, eventually using the resulting tape as an advert to attract a major new deal.

BBC 6 Music presenter Steve Lamacq was live reviews editor at NME at the time. “They came over that autumn and played the London Astoria,” he says.

“They stayed at a B&B in Shepherd’s Bush, so I went over to interview them.

“They were all in one room, and Krist had a cold so he did the interview from bed, under the sheets.

“Occasionally his head would pop out and say something.

“Dave Grohl was relatively new still, so he wasn’t allowed in on the interview

“Halfway through he came in dragging a binbag full of their dirty laundry, went to the bathroom and started washing all their socks and pants in the bath.

“The whole time this was going on, there was a small black and white telly on the wall with the sound down, playing The Wizard Of Oz.”

By the time Nevermind was actually released, the rest of the world remained largely ambivalent. Even Nirvana’s new record label, Geffen, didn’t know what they had on their hands.

They expected sales of around 250,000, and famously didn’t press enough copies of the album to satisfy demand. It went to No 1 in the US in January 1992 and has since sold 30 million copies worldwide.

“All of that success happened so quickly,” says Dave Grohl, Nirvana drummer and now Foo Fighters frontman.

“We were touring in a van when we went platinum. And I was still living in my friend’s back room by the time we’d sold 10 million records.”

Thanks to Cobain’s songs, artists had to be sincere again, and self-aware.

Music fans wanted honesty, not stories of late nights with loose women.

MTV was also rejuvenated by Smells Like Teen Spirit, the video becoming one of the most iconic, and most watched, in the channel’s history.

“Nevermind united all the different factions,” adds Lamacq.

“I reviewed the album for NME in 1991, and I gave it 9/10, calling it a ‘rock blueprint for the 90s’. Not only am I pleased with that, but I still stand by it.”

To mark the 20th anniversary of the release of Nevermind, a special four-CD reissue box-set of previously unreleased Nirvarna material will be released on September 26.


Nevermind the rest – what the album means to us


“The melodies on that album blow my mind. It’s so heavy, but laced with melody. It’s a collection of perfect pop songs.” (Serge Pizzorno of Kasabian)


“It’s an amazing, amazing album. I was too young for it at the time, but have grown to love it. The drums sound brilliant.” (Arctic Monkey Alex Turner)


“If the album came along now its influence would have been equally as profound. That’s what makes it an enduring classic.” (Q magazine editor Paul Rees)

[Since86]

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

If someone running for leader of the free world quotes your work, it is a MAJOR accomplishment.

Because he said "all apologies?" I mean, maybe if he went into some deep lyrics that actually have a profound message, then maybe. But not because he said something as simple as what he did.

NWA, Biggie and Tupac were, but Tupac mainly got the nod. It's kind of like the Pearl Jam, Dino Jr. Mud Honey thing. You don't have to be the first to be the cornerstone of the movement.

So far you've named 4 voices of a generation now. How many are there? I think that kind of title shouldn't be handed out so rapidly. There are a lot of good artists out there that put out socially conscientious messages, that really aren't the voice of an entire generation.

I don't see so much the problem with Tupac, because he encompassed a pretty large majority of the black youth. Nirvana only touched a small portion of the population. Grunge didn't stick. They quickly turned their backs to it and embraced genres that are totally opposite of grunge.

And Ten didn't do what Nevermind did. Eddie Vedder is no Kurt Cobain in history. You can say it's because Cobain died and I think that is a fair point, but it doesn't change what it is.

I'm not saying it did. I'm saying they were signed and recorded by a major studio label. They just don't sign anyone and everyone. They're selective. If they think it can't make mainstream waves, then Epic isn't going to be the company that signs them. They're going to be signed by some smaller company, probably owned by Epic.

Grunge would have came onto the scene with or without Nirvana, IMHO. It might not have reached the heights that it did, but there were a lot of bands out there in grunge churning out hits that would have still became hits. And they were doing it at the same time, or earlier, than Nirvana. So the inspiration for that kind of music wasn't at the feet of Nirvana. They didn't create the trend, they were just the biggest name in it.

They did change it forever, just like othere bands that were around for a couple of years.

Did they really change it or just bump it off course? We've already talked about how grunge was the anti-hair band, how rock music was this mass produced machine that revolved around the glitz and glam, and grunge was the darker side. Well, the darker side of grunge turned into the bright sun shine of pop music. Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys type music rose to the top, and rock n roll fell down to the bottom. The world turned it's back on the music/message of grunge. They never fully embraced it.

Maybe if Kurt wouldn't have committed suicide grunge would have maintained it's popularity. I could buy that argument. But Pearl Jam along with many other popular grunge bands were still around and still producing music. People simply quit listening to it as much as they once were.

If Nirvana kept producing music, and their popularity stayed somewhat consistant, then yeah. But they don't have the important lasting power of a real movement.

How else does someone get the title besides what I've described? Record sales? Then no Bob Dylan. The popular opinion and the media choses these things. And all we have to go off of for that is historians, print and news media for history. All of that tells us what Nirvana was.

It's a personal decision. I've made no bones about that. Anyone anywhere can attach "voice of a generation " to anyone/any band. Doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it though.

Yes, I agree. Nirvana is no Beatles. But Nirvana is in a small group of great musicians for what they accomplished. That sets them apart. That makes them great.

I don't see any special accomplishments. I don't see accomplishments that set them apart from their peers.

I'm not trying to diminish what they did do. The propability of them doing what they did is minute. They took the world by storm, but as quickly as they came, they fell.

Their lasting power is in song only. They get played on the radio still. What they stood for, what they believed in, their message all disappeared shortly after Cobain died.



And quite frankly, their message was lost when he was alive. The things he sang about, the things he felt made him famous. And he hated being famous for it. It was a fad.

I don't think people attached themselves to Nirvana because of their message, but rather because it was the cool thing to do.

[billbradley]

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

Because he said "all apologies?" I mean, maybe if he went into some deep lyrics that actually have a profound message, then maybe. But not because he said something as simple as what he did.

Well, c'mon. He doesn't have time to recite the whole song. He quoted Cobain's work to prove a point.

So far you've named 4 voices of a generation now. How many are there? I think that kind of title shouldn't be handed out so rapidly. There are a lot of good artists out there that put out socially conscientious messages, that really aren't the voice of an entire generation.

No, I named people who were apart of the movement and were before Tupac. Yet Tupac was given the "nod" for voice of a generation and you agree with that. So you should understand why Pearl Jam coming first has nothing to do with anything.

I don't see so much the problem with Tupac, because he encompassed a pretty large majority of the black youth. Nirvana only touched a small portion of the population. Grunge didn't stick. They quickly turned their backs to it and embraced genres that are totally opposite of grunge.

Grunge did stick. It just isn't called grunge anymore. Once you understand these labels for different stages of music don't mean much you can better understand how Nirvana changed music. But lets revisit this.

I'm not saying it did. I'm saying they were signed and recorded by a major studio label. They just don't sign anyone and everyone. They're selective. If they think it can't make mainstream waves, then Epic isn't going to be the company that signs them. They're going to be signed by some smaller company, probably owned by Epic.

So why bring up PJ for just being signed?

Grunge would have came onto the scene with or without Nirvana, IMHO. It might not have reached the heights that it did, but there were a lot of bands out there in grunge churning out hits that would have still became hits. And they were doing it at the same time, or earlier, than Nirvana. So the inspiration for that kind of music wasn't at the feet of Nirvana. They didn't create the trend, they were just the biggest name in it.

Would of or could of, but didn't.

see above

Did they really change it or just bump it off course? We've already talked about how grunge was the anti-hair band, how rock music was this mass produced machine that revolved around the glitz and glam, and grunge was the darker side. Well, the darker side of grunge turned into the bright sun shine of pop music. Britney Spears, Backstreet Boys type music rose to the top, and rock n roll fell down to the bottom. The world turned it's back on the music/message of grunge. They never fully embraced it.

Pretty people singing pretty songs has always been popular and part of the mainstream. Punk changed that. Nirvana changed that

Maybe if Kurt wouldn't have committed suicide grunge would have maintained it's popularity. I could buy that argument. But Pearl Jam along with many other popular grunge bands were still around and still producing music. People simply quit listening to it as much as they once were.

Stopped listening to grunge bands? All of Pearl Jam's albums of the 2000s went gold and were #1 or #2 except for one that was #5. And um, RADIOHEAD?!?

If Nirvana kept producing music, and their popularity stayed somewhat consistant, then yeah. But they don't have the important lasting power of a real movement.

So define how long a movement takes and then I will find things that took less time.

It's a personal decision. I've made no bones about that. Anyone anywhere can attach "voice of a generation " to anyone/any band. Doesn't mean I'm going to agree with it though.

The "anyone,anywhere' applies to this hread. Credibilaity for what will be remembered is what exits in news in print and medi, Cobain was a legend hailed as the voice of a generation.

I don't see any special accomplishments. I don't see accomplishments that set them apart from their peers.

Yet you have only named two artists that accomplished what I highlight. Prove it with a list of peers.

I'm not trying to diminish what they did do. The propability of them doing what they did is minute. They took the world by storm, but as quickly as they came, they fell.

You are trying diminish what they did, that is your argument. You are saying that they didn't accomplish something special. That is wrong. You are saying many other musicians have done the same. That is wrong. And now you are saying they fell, when 20 years later they still manage to be in the media and culturaly relevant.

Their lasting power is in song only. They get played on the radio still. What they stood for, what they believed in, their message all disappeared shortly after Cobain died.

See this is just wrong, people still are writing about what they represented.

And quite frankly, their message was lost when he was alive. The things he sang about, the things he felt made him famous. And he hated being famous for it. It was a fad.

It being a fad is opinion, it being lost on you is an opinion. The fact is the message was felt and not lost while he was alive and dead by popular culture.

I don't think people attached themselves to Nirvana because of their message, but rather because it was the cool thing to do.

And you can think that, I won't argue your opinion. I'm talking about the facts.

[billbradley]

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

I don't see so much the problem with Tupac, because he encompassed a pretty large majority of the black youth. Nirvana only touched a small portion of the population. Grunge didn't stick.

Now this is where you have to explain why you don't see a problem with Tupac being coined voice of a generation. How did you decide "a large majority of black youth" was encompassed by Tupac? The majority of his albums weren't purchased by black youth, but rather white people of all ages. So how do you know this? What did Tupac do that Cobain didn't? What gangster rappers are still around today? Of them, who is more popular and critically acclaimed than bands from the grung scene Pearl Jam and Radiohead? You say grunge and these bands didn't stick, yet Tupac or gangster rap did? Doesn't add up my friend.