Album Rating: 5.0

Kurt sure knew how to write catchy hooks and lyrics resonating with all the teenage angst out there, but other bands could do similar things. Nirvana was unique because pop sensibility was combined with rather decadent noise rock, opening the eyes of many teenagers. Tracks like “Endless, Nameless” or “Scentless Apprentice” were utterly groundbreaking in the context of their million-selling respective albums that also hosted MTV hits. Kurt’s suicide was shocking and it sure fuelled the hysteria, but many fans felt cheated. I’m actually surprised that it didn’t ignite a suicide epidemic, but probably I’m just overestimating Nirvana’s relevance (oops).

Album Rating: 5.0

There were a couple weren’t there. A few in the states. Two lads in France stick in the mind.

Album Rating: 3.0

> Would you call Alice In Chains or Soundgarden pop punk grunge



naah I'd call them crap

Album Rating: 3.0

Alright, I'll drop the ironic glibness and say what I actually think of Kurt and Nirvana. The band, from recording Nevermind to its demise, was a commercial monster, an engineered Frankenstein's to profit off the early 90s backlash to hair metal and cock rock. Musically, Nirvana is a depressingly formulaic band that Kurt seemed to fall back on once he (they?) realized that they really aren't all that talented. Which is the sad part about it all - he had impeccable taste and I think Kurt's true legacy is how he exposed all them brilliant and wonderful bands that he tried (unsuccessfully) to imitate with Nirvana. That is not to say that what they did was bad - them two records are perfectly cromulent, just real damn boring in my eyes. But it was decidedly pop and fake, compared to what influenced it and what Kurt seemed to try to push for himself.



I get that you're feeling like I'm attacking your childhood here, but that's the core of it. Kurt definitely seemed to know it himself from what I've read from his remarks post-Nevermind. They were being taken for a ride by their record company. Maybe they'd go on to do something that actually pushed the envelope if they'd had more time and space, but just like this album, which was mixed and mastered to milquetoast after Albini's work (which is why I think it's so weird that his death sees tributes in this thread, given that he disliked the final commercial mix), they never got beyond taking things that absolutely did exist before and just made them popular. And it's fine liking that - sometimes taking more abrasive influences and making it into something palatable for everyone is a good thing. It's definitely not for me, for my tastes, Kurt took the wrong lessons from his influences, but that's just a matter of preference and mine are often stupid. But to say that there was nothing like Nirvana is absolute bullshit and I will stand by it regardless of what you think of the rest of my rant.



tl;dr people like Nirvana so I don't because I'm a contrarian

Album Rating: 5.0

You sound phoney and elitist is how you're coming across.



Check Nirvana

Album Rating: 5.0

'But to say that there was nothing like Nirvana is absolute bullshit'



There was nothing quite like Nirvana - name another alternative rock band who had an impact of around the level of Elvis or the Beatles? Impossible. There you go, wasn't difficult...



They're a different beast for that reason and whatever the marketing etc the basics of it are the audience loved it - how many pushed, marketed bands failed in the MTV era?



Often an artist themselves isn't the best person to take a step back and look at what they've produced, I'm sure Kurt was questioning everything but his songs were his songs and they communicated direct, whatever he thought of record labels/success.

Album Rating: 3.0

Sigh, I probably do come across like that and I don't really want to - I wish I could like some consensus classics as much as people do. Maybe one day I will.



Still, you're talking about impact, not the actual music itself. I'll still maintain that musically they were nothing special. I absolutely agree that in terms of popular impact, they're in a league of their own. I don't think I was disputing that anyway.

Album Rating: 3.0

"You sound phoney and elitist is how you're coming across."

and you sound like someone acting butthurt by kkarron 'attacking your childhood' which is something they were explicitly trying to avoid

dissecting / talking about Nirvana's music and whether you think it's a valuable listening commodity, is very different to talking about their history and impact as a band (something I also feel like kkarron made quite clear). Otherwise we start descending into 'objectivity debates' where certain artists are completely untouchable due to reputation or status... oh wait, wouldn't that be... ELITIST?

Album Rating: 5.0

"dissecting / talking about Nirvana's music and whether you think it's a valuable listening commodity"



"Musically, Nirvana is a depressingly formulaic band that Kurt seemed to fall back on once he (they?) realized that they really aren't all that talented."



"But it was decidedly pop and fake, compared to what influenced it and what Kurt seemed to try to push for himself. "



If we're talking objectivity demon, then I'd say these statements show some pretty clear bias. I respect that maybe not everyone likes lean, simple, effective songs, but if you wanted to talk about talent, I'd objectively say that Kurt was better at writing those than many writers out there. Everyone looks for something different but claiming Kurt wasn't talented or throwing around the word "pop" like it's a bad thing does stick in my craw a bit. It's also not about defending my teen years, I just think Kurt was a great communicator via his output, the songs work from a writing and performance aspect, and beyond that, his choices as a vocal performer (down to intonation and accent) seemed instinctually ideal for the material. If you prefer material that's more inward-facing and doesn't aim to communicate on a level that a large group of people would "get", I understand, but maybe then just say Nirvana is not for me. Kurt might not have been publically honest about the level of thought put into the lyrics or his level of ambition, but I don't think that makes the output "fake" by default - the feeling in these recordings does not come across as put on, and the themes and personality of the content feel authentic to the songwriter

Album Rating: 3.0

Taking those lines in isolation, yeah. I read the whole thing and the tone was mostly fine. I think the naysayers (me included) are likely guilty of over-compensating because people like Doof get their panties in a twist any time we dare mention the possibility Nirvana may not be all they're cracked up to be

although to be fair you could say the same for any number of these so-called 'untouchable' bands. I don't need a music legacy lesson every time their greatness needs backing up by the sheer weight of historical relevance and 'what band x meant to people', lol

personal experiences aside of course as I don't mean this as a criticism of your perspective fog, which is a more than reasonable take

Album Rating: 3.0

Aye, I get your point a lot more fogza - I should just clarify that I don't mean "pop" as a bad thing, it's just a descriptor of where Nirvana took their influences to. Fuck, I love ABBA - it doesn't get more pop than that.

Album Rating: 5.0

Also, I've certainly been guilty of hanging in threads talking down acts so I guess I can't claim any high ground, but I do feel there's an insistence here that gets a little old. Looking at your 5's kkaron, I could hang out in a number of them badmouthing them because I think they're trying to be shocking or difficult for the sake of it, that they're pretentious, etc, but I'm not going to do that because I feel it's not worth it and I'm bringing my value system into it to the point of distraction. Nirvana is one of those acts that strikes an incredible balance of accessible and meaningful, and I honestly believe that even without factoring in some sort of nostalgia (which is something that's starting to irk me like I can only possibly be enjoying Nirvana because of fond memories). Were they massively original? I can concede they weren't. Is that something I necessarily value when the songs and statements are so strong? In this case, no.

Album Rating: 3.0

Originality is a weird concept in some ways. I mean, if an artist's music is strong enough to become the pinnacle of a specific sound, then perhaps this alone bestows it with a certain uniqueness. i.e. in fog's example, Nirvana aren't wholly unique in sound, sure, but by virtue of their superior quality and possibly representing the peak of a certain style (for some) then would that then make them... original? Surely the bands of a similar sound who're 'lesser' are then rendered unoriginal. Of course timing plays a part in this, but from a modern perspective we have access to whole decades of music whereby the time of release is almost not relevant anymore (i.e. I cannot possibly artificially elevate my enjoyment of something simply because it 'came first - even if I respect the creativity).

I suppose it depends how you define it. For me if an artist / album has no comparable on which to call upon, it is a unique experience. And this may simply be 'because it's better at...'



tl;dr - didn't expect to type all this

Album Rating: 4.3

kkarron 5s are p much straight fire ngl fogza gonna have to make a bold fuckin case to fingerpoint pretentiousness while sitting on that mountain on indie anemia and affectation

like 90% of all nirvana discourse this thread hangs a little insistently between the two standpoints of Commercial Diluted Stooge Act vs. Kurt Cobain Tortured Genius for my liking. fwiw cobain very much did have talent (and, overlooked in this convo, the peer acknowledgement to show for it) — guy understood the grit that made great rock music *rawk* and had an ear for a catchy songs that most of his heroes hadn't cared for, but that said the nirvana discog draws very clear lines as to how much of the band's success was/wasn't preordained— bleach is the work of a sloppy garage band and half of nevermind is straight filler and even the best tracks are a lyrical tumble. can agree with most of kkarron's points up until this record, even though the best nevermind hooks (+blew) still speak for themselves. half the appeal of nevermind for me is drawing the lines between how much was innate and how much was manufactured precisely because of palpable their mid-coital tangle is

In Utero is something else to me. the writing here is much darker, imo much more substantive, and the aesthetics (beyond the production) are much bolder and more uncompromising. shit like Milk It and Scentless Apprentice don't feel at as though they're catered to any wide audience beyond whoever cobain felt solidarity with as fans of his respective influences, while Very Ape and the opener are confident in their mix of pop songwriting and caustic textures in ways Nevermind/Bleach only hinted at. it feels like an earnest tribute to his noise/alt rock touchstones, but not one that could have been written or performed by anyone else — the 'stooge' factor of Nevermind comes full circle here, you can hear Kurt cracking under the over-exposure and background substance abuse and brb i don't have time to finish this post album is raw it is real it expresses

tl;dr good album / average band

Album Rating: 5.0

'Still, you're talking about impact, not the actual music itself.'



Often they're aligned in that one feeds into the other, and I'd say live performance is a huge barometer and Nirvana were incredible and raw live for a 'mainstream act'.



I dunno, you just seem to be holding a really extreme opinion when really Nirvana sound an awful lot like stuff you enjoy - I could imagine you saying they're 'ok' but all this 'feeling sorry for them' and 'Kurt's influences are miles better than anything he did' just seems far too much like 'a stance'.

Album Rating: 5.0

'you sound like someone acting butthurt'



not really, but such an extreme set of opinions warrants a response! also, why post if you don't want such a (widely widely widely considered the majority opinion) response?



the reality at the time was the band being massive made them a far more interesting, appealing and if In Utero and Unplugged are to go by, actually pushed them to be better musically



If they remained a Tad or Mudhoney I could see them just releasing a 'Bleach' ten times - maybe that's more 'honest' and suits some better, but they'd be a footnote and they'd have released more boring music



'people like Doof get their panties in a twist any time we dare mention the possibility Nirvana may not be all they're cracked up to be'



They were what they were, opinions on whether people should have considered them the best at the time is irrelevant to a large extent. I may not listen to Elvis or particularly care but to try and deny his influence and enduring appeal is just a worthless exercise - with that level of popularity, quality and popularity become entwined. The songs and albums have been canonised - you can't undo that or argue they haven't been.This is what people find hard to understand because stuff is more splintered these days, there's no huge collective consensus and movement at the time where a 'should be underground' rock band ended up as big as Michael Jackson because the songs resonated with near enough anyone (proven through sales, radio play, tours, merch, media coverage, everything - they were huge).



The Strokes? Maybe 1 or 2% the impact. Or Arcade Fire, about 1% the size and impact of Nirvana. BCNR - at most 0.5% the impact. They won't endure as much as I can respect them. Even Kanye West is probably only 30% the impact and he's been around consciously whoring for his legacy/mystique for ages - I doubt he'll have the enduring appeal. Much more Beatles/Elvis/Michael Jackson size - so very unique for a rock band. I mean they made the juggernaut that is/was Metallica look quite small fry by comparison, so insane stuff.



I don't blame anyone for finding that hard to get their heads around because it is a strange thing and can be hard to put across to those not taken up with it at the time (there's no current day context to compare). It's not the law to like Nirvana....but it is the law to not say 'y'know, back then all those people should have been into so-and-so instead cos' better songs'. Fundamentally, what makes a great song? It has an awful lot to do with popularity and endurance of appeal, as well as peer and critic evaluation.

Album Rating: 5.0

"kkarron 5s are p much straight fire ngl fogza gonna have to make a bold fuckin case to fingerpoint pretentiousness while sitting on that mountain on indie anemia and affectation "



well, like I said, I'm not sitting in any of those threads claiming anyone involved is not all that talented or making "decidely fake and pop" music because they don't conform to my idea of what is important

Album Rating: 3.0

maybe you should? I'd like some opinions on them that aren't just circlejerks and make me see things in a different light

Album Rating: 4.5

This argument is kicked and dead but this one little Karron nugget stood out: "But to say that there was nothing like Nirvana is absolute bullshit"



I mean shit this is probably the best critique of Nirvana. I love their music but never want to hear a power chord driven pop rock song ever again.

Album Rating: 5.0

lol, johnny isn't wrong about my vanilla taste and criteria - he even forgot to mention all the boomer standards in my 5's. I've got a fairly limited appreciation for more extreme stuff, so I don't think anyone needs my opinion there (although I have probably done it from time to time, can't help myself sometimes)