Album Rating: 3.5

Isn't the best album one that stands the test of time? One that's still amazing despite a loss of context?

Album Rating: 5.0

This has been there for 25yrs, it's responsible for them horrid t-shirts. Nah the context in terms of ground shaking. Honestly nothing comes close to this thing. In the UK around 95 Oasis were massive and changed culture but it still wasn't this thing. There has been nothing to compare it to.

this is still amazing
iconic and unmistakable and unrepeated, with no concessions made in regards to the passion and anger regardless of any perceived commerciality
having listened to this for my entire life up till now i can confidently say that it hasn't lost its appeal and most people have just lost track of its merits in the midst of their own musical growth
at least that's what it is to me

I mean

Album Rating: 5.0

Testimony

Album Rating: 3.5

"There has been nothing to compare it to. "



Sgt. Peppers honestly made a bigger impact

Album Rating: 5.0

Yeah, I'm sure you were knocking around then tripping off your tits.

Album Rating: 3.5

I wasn't alive when Nevermind was first released either, but The Beatles to this day have more cultural relevance than Nirvana, and they haven't come out with a new album for 46 years

Album Rating: 5.0

Yep they do I'm not arguing that one I'm telling you, you have nothing to put into context in your lifetime how unbelievable this thing was. Potterx10000000

saying nevermind isnt classic is a display of cultural awareness metaphorically equivalent to trying to hit the moon by throwing a rock at it

Album Rating: 5.0

I hope you voted trump spooky

Album Rating: 3.5

It's a classic in a cultural sense



But why should that matter when you rate it?

Album Rating: 3.5

speaking of context, why did AIC, Soundgarden and pearl jam not seem to create half the hysteria that these guys did?

Album Rating: 5.0

Because it was an extension of metal and/or rock. I'm telling ya Nirvana were other world stuff back then

Album Rating: 3.5

"Because it was an extension of metal and/or rock."



So you're saying that Nirvana's to blame for rock trying to stay relevant in pop music?





I'm not sure that's a good thing though

Album Rating: 5.0

I responding to balls. Sorry.

Album Rating: 3.5

Oh...sorry

i think the word classic has a different meaning than just strictly being a 10/10, in order for an album to be classic it has to bring something more to the table than just being "good" it has to supersede some sort of boundary with itself, i believe that this can occur with something like a purely personal and emotional response or an intellectual one, such as understanding of what an album means in a certain place in time, as all things are a result and of time and are inherently unavoidably linked to it. denying the importance of culture in a time you are alive is a drab, reactionary and thoughtless examination.

Album Rating: 3.5

Can I not see this as a 7/10, whilst acknowledging that it's a cultural classic?

to deny cultural artifacts is to deny culture, to deny culture is to limit understanding of one's one personal experiences and how society acts at large, Cobains hyper-real "die for it" status is a modern take on a classical trope of a tortured artist, there is honestly to much to even begin discussing how nirvana shaped the history of society in one way that any other band would shape differently, its not just about "what did nirvana do, what music did they make" its "what did nirvana not do, and how does that lack thereof echo across the culture as a whole" when you try and dissect something that is so overblown, you have to literally de-construct things to the point of alternate timelines, or its not even possible to get everything in scope.