See, kids, these are the long-term effects of taking a falling electric bass to the head.

'Nirvana' and current photos of Novoselic:



Good Christ, he's turned into Rob Reiner!

It's been 15 years. Can we finally, finally admit that Nirvana was massively overexposed but decent grunge band, and their influences/contemporaries, like the Pixies and Sonic Youth, wrote better songs and were much more influential in the long term?

Or: almost all interesting rock music today, a lot of what gets shelved in the "indie rock" category, owes something to the Pixies and Sonic Youth.

But who really owes a great musical debt to Nirvana? Nickelback?

bobbette: It's been 15 years. Can we finally, finally admit that Nirvana was massively overexposed but decent grunge band, and their influences/contemporaries, like the Pixies and Sonic Youth, wrote better songs and were much more influential in the long term?

Or: almost all interesting rock music today, a lot of what gets shelved in the "indie rock" category, owes something to the Pixies and Sonic Youth.

But who really owes a great musical debt to Nirvana? Nickelback?

Excuse me, claiming that Sonic Youth actually wrote songs is a bit rich.

bobbette: It's been 15 years. Can we finally, finally admit that Nirvana was massively overexposed but decent grunge band, and their influences/contemporaries, like the Pixies and Sonic Youth, wrote better songs and were much more influential in the long term?

No. No we can't do that. Because to do that would be subscribing to your single-headed, simple-minded philosophy.

And we're not going to do that.

So take your plurals and cram them way up your ass, simpleton.

It's hardly philosophical to question the blind reverence people have for Nirvana. They had some really decent songs and were a refreshing change from ridiculous hair bands, but people treat them as if they were the Beatles of the 90s.

Norad: Nirvana' and current photos of Novoselic:

Looks a lot better than Cobain now.

Nirvana sucks, if you love them you don't know what good music is

suck it, and I wish I was kidding

00ghost27: Nirvana sucks, if you love them you don't know what good music is

suck it, and I wish I was kidding

Your troll powers are weak sir!

I've heard other famous musicians say they were influenced by Sonic Youth, but to me, seeing one of their songs on Rock Band is a cue to quit out and start a different random setlist.

Laughing at a real guitarist because he sucks at Guitar Hero would be like laughing at Jack Nicklaus for sucking at Golden Tee.

NashMcNash: Laughing at a real guitarist because he sucks at Guitar Hero would be like laughing at Jack Nicklaus for sucking at Golden Tee.

Yup - Guitar hero is really hard if you know how to play the songs on a real guitar.

Nirvana songs on Guitar Hero are much harder than Nirvana songs on a real guitar. Of course, almost everything I can possibly think of is much harder than Nirvana songs on a real guitar.

00ghost27: Nirvana sucks, if you love them you don't know what good music is

suck it, and I wish I was kidding

And your basis for either of those statements would be?

/Loves Nirvana. And Chopin.

Tourney3p0: Nirvana songs on Guitar Hero are much harder than Nirvana songs on a real guitar. Of course, almost everything I can possibly think of is much harder than Nirvana songs on a real guitar.

This is also true.

Tourney3p0: Nirvana songs on Guitar Hero are much harder than Nirvana songs on a real guitar. Of course, almost everything I can possibly think of is much harder than Nirvana songs on a real guitar.

Unlike most people here I love Nirvana. However, this is absolutely true.

bobbette: It's hardly philosophical to question the blind reverence people have for Nirvana. They had some really decent songs and were a refreshing change from ridiculous hair bands, but people treat them as if they were the Beatles of the 90s.

Well sure, as far as scope goes Nirvana probably wasn't the Beatles of the 90s. If Beatles-otaku types are honest with themselves, whatever the biggest 90s pop star was would be the 'Beatles of the 90s'.

Unless you're including personal drama. Love certainly gives Yoko a run for her money.

Is this the thread where we all bash Nirvana, because it's so clever, edgy, and original?

All the Nirvana bashers, I really, really hope you LOVED Bon Jovi, Poison, and Warrant.

oooOooOoOOOOoh now im interested.

Discussion: If Nirvana WASN'T the beatles of the 90's, then who was?

What does that even mean?

For my money, I would say Nirvana, or Pearl Jam may qualify. I cant really think of anyone else.

Grunge was the all time low for "trendy" american rock music. Cobain was doing us all a favor when he blew his brains out.

AxL sANe: NashMcNash: Laughing at a real guitarist because he sucks at Guitar Hero would be like laughing at Jack Nicklaus for sucking at Golden Tee.

Yup - Guitar hero is really hard if you know how to play the songs on a real guitar.

Yup. I have 20 years of playing guitar under my belt, and even longer playing videogames, and the first time I tried Guitar Hero 2 my eyes went crossed and I woke up in the fetal position, shivering. I eventually bought GH3, though.

Nirvana Nevermind was the first CD i ever bought. As someone who grew up in the late 80s and early 90s im glad they were around.

overfienduglar: Grunge was the all time low for "trendy" american rock music. Cobain was doing us all a favor when he blew his brains out.

obvious troll trolls obviously

You know Guitar Hero has been out for, what, probably over 3 years now? We now have two major lines of these type of games (Rock Band and Guitar hero) that have seen two and three releases respectively.

Isn't it about time the world figured out that being able to play Guitar Hero well has little or no impact on being able to play a real guitar well, and vice versa?

I can't decide whether he looks more like Droopy Dog or Tim Conway.

jayhawk88: You know Guitar Hero has been out for, what, probably over 3 years now? We now have two major lines of these type of games (Rock Band and Guitar hero) that have seen two and three releases respectively.

Isn't it about time the world figured out that being able to play Guitar Hero well has little or no impact on being able to play a real guitar well, and vice versa?

I thought it already had. Most musician's focus on their instrument when they play, and aren't used to watching a television screen.

Madbassist1: oooOooOoOOOOoh now im interested.

Discussion: If Nirvana WASN'T the beatles of the 90's, then who was?

Deep Blue Something.

Nirvana took the noise of Sonic Youth and the poppiness of the Pixies (loves the Pixies...can't really stand Sonic Youth) and distilled it into something that was, for the most part, listenable.

Nirvana, and Novoselic, were huge influences on me wanting to get a guitar. I owe them for that. "Francis Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle" is still one of my favorite songs by them.

So, you don't like 'em, fine. But you really can't argue that they had no impact on the 90's music scene. Better bands, yeah, Pearl Jam had more "talent", but Nirvana had more influence.

Before you attack, I am also a Pearl Jam fan too. Teenage years were the 90's.

I used to love Nirvana, but I wanted to be admired by elitist assholes - so I decided to despise the band.

/guitarist who sucks at GH

What he said about tuning your ear to hearing different lines, I've also found this to be true.

I play guitar, so I guess instinctively I'm listening for the leads or the hooks. But through GH3, I've discovered a lot of smaller fills I've never really noticed before. Granted, they're not all songs on my iPod, but still.

I guess I'm saying is thanks to Guitar Hero, I'm appreciating a lot of songs more now.



*Also, I'm on hard but I'm stuck on The Muse. It is my nemesis, and I cannot get past it. I swear these songs are easier to play on a real guitar.

emocomputerjock: Madbassist1: oooOooOoOOOOoh now im interested.

Discussion: If Nirvana WASN'T the beatles of the 90's, then who was?

Deep Blue Something.

to be the Beatles of your decade...well dont you have to sell some albums first?

Still around and still better than Nirvana.

Madbassist1: oooOooOoOOOOoh now im interested.

Discussion: If Nirvana WASN'T the beatles of the 90's, then who was?

What does that even mean?

For my money, I would say Nirvana, or Pearl Jam may qualify. I cant really think of anyone else.

I know Oasis THOUGHT they were.... lol

bobbette: It's hardly philosophical to question the blind reverence people have for Nirvana. They had some really decent songs and were a refreshing change from ridiculous hair bands, but people treat them as if they were the Beatles of the 90s.

Here's a confession. i never much cared for the Beatles. I enjoy some of their songs, but never thought they were that great. However, I recognise that others feel differently and can see they were a hugley important band and have left a real and lasting legacy in the world of music and beyond.

Same thing with Nirvana. You may not like them that much, but they were a very important band and the list of recent and contemporary acts influenced by them is long and distinguished.

/Like my johnson
//Sorry

emocomputerjock: Madbassist1: oooOooOoOOOOoh now im interested.

Discussion: If Nirvana WASN'T the beatles of the 90's, then who was?

Deep Blue Something.

You can't judge any particular rock musician or band of the 90s as having the same wide-ranging effect as the Beatles had.

If I had to pick just one rock band, I'd say Radiohead - for overall critical and commercial success, and for evolving from a band that was kind of aligned to a trendy sound (Creep) to creating this perfect mashup of rock and jazz and electronic music, OK Computer. If we count the year 2000, Kid A goes even further in that direction. Radiohead is one of the few bands that can credibly say it's been era-defining in both the 90s and the 00s.

Still, is Radiohead the most Beatles-esque, the most game-changing and influential musical act of the 90s? You can't look at the 90s without recognizing the huge influence of Wu-Tang Clan's music and also their business model, Dr. Dre both with N.W.A. and his solo career, and most of all, Tupac Shakur, who I think is still the biggest-selling hip-hop artist of all time and created a bridge between hip-hop's classic socially conscious and overtly political lyricism, and the law-breaking defiance and consumer excess of 90s gangsta rap, all with massive celebrity and personal controversy.

I don't hate Nirvana, I just think they are horribly overrated. yes they had an influence on the music scene and any bands that helped kill hair bands will always have a place on my shelf. they were a good band with some great songs but Cobain wasn't the messiah.
/I like the Yoko/Love comparison
//Love is better though, she has at least 1 good song

NYRBill: I don't hate Nirvana, I just think they are horribly overrated. yes they had an influence on the music scene and any bands that helped kill hair bands will always have a place on my shelf. they were a good band with some great songs but Cobain wasn't the messiah.
/I like the Yoko/Love comparison
//Love is better though, she has at least 1 good song

Well, in fairness, Love's good song was written by Billy Corgan.

The thing with the Guitar Hero and Rock Band games is that they put every note hit (even the wrong notes and the slight scratches) on expert. That's why it may be so hard to play. When I first got Rock Band I decided to download The Who and play it on drums. I'd never seen any videos of Moon drumming and all I could really hear from the cd I had was a basic 4/4 drum beat with a few fills in. I played it on expert and lasted about 30 seconds. I thought to myself "where the hell did all these notes come from? I can't hear them on the recording!" I saw some videos on youtube with Moon drumming and realized they added all the notes he hit that you can't really hear very well (let it be because of the mics they used or how it was recorded). It not only humbled me to his ability to play but also made me realize there are a lot of things in music you sometimes just don't or can't hear.

NYRBill: I don't hate Nirvana, I just think they are horribly overrated. yes they had an influence on the music scene and any bands that helped kill hair bands will always have a place on my shelf. they were a good band with some great songs but Cobain wasn't the messiah.
/I like the Yoko/Love comparison
//Love is better though, she has at least 1 good song

I actually wore out my CD of Celebrity Skin from overplaying it - but Yoko Ono is so much cooler.

bobbette: It's been 15 years. Can we finally, finally admit that Nirvana was massively overexposed but decent grunge band, and their influences/contemporaries, like the Pixies and Sonic Youth, wrote better songs and were much more influential in the long term?

Or: almost all interesting rock music today, a lot of what gets shelved in the "indie rock" category, owes something to the Pixies and Sonic Youth.

But who really owes a great musical debt to Nirvana? Nickelback?

Everyone influences everything, all the time...by matters of degree. There is Rush influence in REM. The Monkees influenced Lou Reed, to some extent. Seriously.

Stop thinking (and writing) about music, and start listening to it. You'll like it better.

bobbette: emocomputerjock: Madbassist1: oooOooOoOOOOoh now im interested.

Discussion: If Nirvana WASN'T the beatles of the 90's, then who was?

Deep Blue Something.

You can't judge any particular rock musician or band of the 90s as having the same wide-ranging effect as the Beatles had.

If I had to pick just one rock band, I'd say Radiohead - for overall critical and commercial success, and for evolving from a band that was kind of aligned to a trendy sound (Creep) to creating this perfect mashup of rock and jazz and electronic music, OK Computer. If we count the year 2000, Kid A goes even further in that direction. Radiohead is one of the few bands that can credibly say it's been era-defining in both the 90s and the 00s.

Still, is Radiohead the most Beatles-esque, the most game-changing and influential musical act of the 90s? You can't look at the 90s without recognizing the huge influence of Wu-Tang Clan's music and also their business model, Dr. Dre both with N.W.A. and his solo career, and most of all, Tupac Shakur, who I think is still the biggest-selling hip-hop artist of all time and created a bridge between hip-hop's classic socially conscious and overtly political lyricism, and the law-breaking defiance and consumer excess of 90s gangsta rap, all with massive celebrity and personal controversy.

But what about Breakfast at Tiffanys? :(

bobbette: I actually wore out my CD of Celebrity Skin from overplaying it - but Yoko Ono is so much cooler.

what planet are you from? :-p

bglove25: Well, in fairness, Love's good song was written by Billy Corgan.

he also produced it IIRC
/still a good song

emocomputerjock

Discussion: If Nirvana WASN'T the beatles of the 90's, then who was?

Deep Blue Something.

You can't judge any particular rock musician or band of the 90s as having the same wide-ranging effect as the Beatles had.

If I had to pick just one rock band, I'd say Radiohead - for overall critical and commercial success, and for evolving from a band that was kind of aligned to a trendy sound (Creep) to creating this perfect mashup of rock and jazz and electronic music, OK Computer. If we count the year 2000, Kid A goes even further in that direction. Radiohead is one of the few bands that can credibly say it's been era-defining in both the 90s and the 00s.

Still, is Radiohead the most Beatles-esque, the most game-changing and influential musical act of the 90s? You can't look at the 90s without recognizing the huge influence of Wu-Tang Clan's music and also their business model, Dr. Dre both with N.W.A. and his solo career, and most of all, Tupac Shakur, who I think is still the biggest-selling hip-hop artist of all time and created a bridge between hip-hop's classic socially conscious and overtly political lyricism, and the law-breaking defiance and consumer excess of 90s gangsta rap, all with massive celebrity and personal controversy.

But what about Breakfast at Tiffanys? :(

I think I remember the film, and as I recall I think we both kind of liked it. Well that's one thing we've got!

keylock71: Still around and still better than Nirvana.

meat puppets?

seriously, though - nirvana was a shot in the arm (or between the toes) for american culture in the early 90s. it brought indie rock to the wider public. sure, it also issued in myriad crappy "grunge" followers like alice in chains and stone temple pilots. but give them credit for banishing hair metal to the cutout bins of history.

bobbette: It's been 15 years. Can we finally, finally admit that Nirvana was massively overexposed but decent grunge band, and their influences/contemporaries, like the Pixies and Sonic Youth, wrote better songs and were much more influential in the long term?

Or: almost all interesting rock music today, a lot of what gets shelved in the "indie rock" category, owes something to the Pixies and Sonic Youth.

But who really owes a great musical debt to Nirvana? Nickelback?

You're an idiot. Go back to your Jazz albums.

Nirvana may have spawned a wealth of shiatty bands that even now, the music industry still hasn't recovered from like 3 Doors Down, Creed, and Nickelback, but the one great thing about Nirvana is it gave kids the idea that anyone could be in a rock band. Nirvana had a brilliant mix of deep, painful lyrics with beautiful melodies (sung by someone who was in obvious emotional pain), with chords changes that weren't "typical" in the rock music of the day.

At the fact that they single-handedly killed shiatty hair-metal bands like Cinderella, Great White, and Poison is enough for me to be forever thankful to them.

FlashHarry
keylock71: Still around and still better than Nirvana.

meat puppets?

seriously, though - nirvana was a shot in the arm (or between the toes) for american culture in the early 90s. it brought indie rock to the wider public. sure, it also issued in myriad crappy "grunge" followers like alice in chains and stone temple pilots. but give them credit for banishing hair metal to the cutout bins of history.

If you're going after the lesser bands that followed Nirvana, why not go after the TRULY awful ones, like Bush?

/UGGGGGGGH GLYCERINE
//UGGGGGGGGGGH GLYCERINE
/sounds like Gavin is taking a poo during that song

FlashHarry:
it also issued in myriad crappy "grunge" followers like alice in chains

Seriously? Alice in Chains was not a "follower".

Beatle_Matt: Nirvana may have spawned a wealth of shiatty bands that even now, the music industry still hasn't recovered from like 3 Doors Down, Creed, and Nickelback, but the one great thing about Nirvana is it gave kids the idea that anyone could be in a rock band. Nirvana had a brilliant mix of deep, painful lyrics with beautiful melodies (sung by someone who was in obvious emotional pain), with chords changes that weren't "typical" in the rock music of the day.

ALL great bands spawn a load of shiatty imitators. That's how it works. A really transcendent band comes along, and a whole lot of jagoffs copy them because they're incapable of doing something original.

Led Zeppelin spawned all the shiatty 80's hair metal bands, and Nirvana spawned the Nickelbacks and Bushes of the world.