If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Loudwire)   CBS shows how hip it is to the times by proposing a sitcom based on Nirvana's 'Smells Like Teen Spirit.'   (loudwire.com) divider line 134
    More: Stupid, Smells Like Teen Spirit, Big Bang theory, CBS, nirvanas, laugh tracks, 3rd Rock, frat boys, Kurt Cobain  
•       •       •

2910 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 24 Oct 2012 at 12:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



134 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-24 01:31:10 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: frepnog: you can try to re-write history to minimize Nirvana's importance, but it is akin to neo-nazis claiming that the holocaust didn't really happen.

Did...did you just Godwin a pop-culture thread? Holy shiat, man. Take it easy.


look, i like nirvana and all, they were never my fav band or anything but i like them. i don't think they were the bestest band ever. but what they did is undeniable. people that try to claim otherwise are straight up fooling themselves and ignoring reality. Nirvana killed hair metal overnight and opened the gates of success for the bands that followed. Yes, right place and time and all that, but you know what? They WERE in the right place in the right time with the right album and it was pretty damned impressive.
 
2012-10-24 02:01:06 PM  

frepnog: Gunny Highway: frepnog: Gunny Highway: frepnog: bwaa haahaa.

All of the ball-less, soulless rock bands that came out in the 2000's were heavily influenced by AIC. To me, they were the most influential band to come out of the grunge era because you can heard their sound in a millions bands that followed in their wake.

yeah, easily duplicatable slow paced crap rock, AIC's forte, was copied and copied and copied.

Not sure what it means that no band really got famous sounding like Nirvana.

One of a kind, man.

Are you being snarky? If you are you need to work on your delivery.

nope, not really. Never really cared for AIC nor for the copycats that followed.


Shame. Layne Staley had an inimitable voice and meant the words he wrote and sang; it was like watching an athlete you know was playing hurt. He & Cantrell could make some pretty haunting sounds together too. The schlock that followed in their wake though, wow. Holy crap was it bad.
 
kab
2012-10-24 03:11:46 PM  

frepnog: Nirvana killed hair metal overnight and opened the gates of success for the bands that followed.


This post brought to you by someone who's listening was dictated entirely by MTV in the early 90's.
 
2012-10-24 03:34:35 PM  

kab: frepnog: Nirvana killed hair metal overnight and opened the gates of success for the bands that followed.

This post brought to you by someone who's listening was dictated entirely by MTV in the early 90's.


Nope. Wrong. Into death metal at the time.
 
2012-10-24 03:36:00 PM  

frepnog: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Nirvana gets WAY too much credit for their impact. The mainstreaming of alt rock was happening with or without them. If Nirvana gets credit for anything, it's for mainstreaming the specific and godawful grunge genre.

I give Trent Reznor more credit for changing the mainstream rock scene than anyone, given that Pretty Hate Machine came out in 1989. THAT is what destroyed spandex rock.

bwaa haahaa.

Look, I love NIN as much as anyone but no one gave two shiats about PHM and the only song on it worth a turd is Head Like a Hole, a song that was almost as overplayed as Smells Like Teen Spirit... except that it was just a pop song with industrial leanings instead of a rock song.

Oh, and PHM dated so badly that it is practically unlistenable now.

And another comparison - PHM machine went triple platinum IN 2003. That's 3 million copies.

By that time Nevermind had sold 30 MILLION COPIES.

So, no, Trent had shiat all to do with the death of hair metal. Hell, the biggest thing Trent did was this -

[www.musiceffect.com image 300x300]

you can try to re-write history to minimize Nirvana's importance, but it is akin to neo-nazis claiming that the holocaust didn't really happen.


Umm...I lived through that era of rock and I don't remember Nirvana being that important to well anybody, but posers who wouldn't know the difference between good music and a McDonald's hamburger.
 
2012-10-24 04:05:28 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: Umm...I lived through that era of rock and I don't remember Nirvana being that important to well anybody, but posers who wouldn't know the difference between good music and a McDonald's hamburger.


GAWD, I wish I could've traded the lame scene I had in favor of yours back in the day. It sounds so edgy, so EXTREME!!!!! Did you wear black trenchcoats with Marilyn Manson patches on them? Drink a lotta Fruitopia 'til you got a sugar buzz? Oooh, did you drink Jolt Cola? Did you snowboard? Shiat, I was such a poser compared to you!
 
2012-10-24 04:05:34 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: frepnog: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Nirvana gets WAY too much credit for their impact. The mainstreaming of alt rock was happening with or without them. If Nirvana gets credit for anything, it's for mainstreaming the specific and godawful grunge genre.

I give Trent Reznor more credit for changing the mainstream rock scene than anyone, given that Pretty Hate Machine came out in 1989. THAT is what destroyed spandex rock.

bwaa haahaa.

Look, I love NIN as much as anyone but no one gave two shiats about PHM and the only song on it worth a turd is Head Like a Hole, a song that was almost as overplayed as Smells Like Teen Spirit... except that it was just a pop song with industrial leanings instead of a rock song.

Oh, and PHM dated so badly that it is practically unlistenable now.

And another comparison - PHM machine went triple platinum IN 2003. That's 3 million copies.

By that time Nevermind had sold 30 MILLION COPIES.

So, no, Trent had shiat all to do with the death of hair metal. Hell, the biggest thing Trent did was this -

[www.musiceffect.com image 300x300]

you can try to re-write history to minimize Nirvana's importance, but it is akin to neo-nazis claiming that the holocaust didn't really happen.

Umm...I lived through that era of rock and I don't remember Nirvana being that important to well anybody, but posers who wouldn't know the difference between good music and a McDonald's hamburger.


Is it painful being so wrong? I imagine it must be.
 
kab
2012-10-24 05:13:36 PM  

frepnog: kab: frepnog: Nirvana killed hair metal overnight and opened the gates of success for the bands that followed.

This post brought to you by someone who's listening was dictated entirely by MTV in the early 90's.

Nope. Wrong. Into death metal at the time.


Then you should know better.
 
2012-10-24 05:16:45 PM  
When Guns n Roses came out, that's when everyone took off the make-up. Nirvana's meandering 5 chord whinefest was just what everyone attributed it to.
 
2012-10-24 05:35:54 PM  
 
2012-10-24 05:55:22 PM  
 
2012-10-24 06:27:05 PM  
The hatred aimed at Nirvana has always confused me.
 
2012-10-24 06:32:48 PM  

Gunny Highway: The hatred aimed at Nirvana has always confused me.


Nirvana is the Millennials' version of Skrillex. The people who hate, just don't get it.
 
2012-10-24 07:04:34 PM  

Flakeloaf: frepnog: Gunny Highway: frepnog: Gunny Highway: frepnog: bwaa haahaa.

All of the ball-less, soulless rock bands that came out in the 2000's were heavily influenced by AIC. To me, they were the most influential band to come out of the grunge era because you can heard their sound in a millions bands that followed in their wake.

yeah, easily duplicatable slow paced crap rock, AIC's forte, was copied and copied and copied.

Not sure what it means that no band really got famous sounding like Nirvana.

One of a kind, man.

Are you being snarky? If you are you need to work on your delivery.

nope, not really. Never really cared for AIC nor for the copycats that followed.

Shame. Layne Staley had an inimitable voice and meant the words he wrote and sang; it was like watching an athlete you know was playing hurt. He & Cantrell could make some pretty haunting sounds together too. The schlock that followed in their wake though, wow. Holy crap was it bad.


Mad Season's "Above" CD has a permanent spot on my play list. Layne's singing on that was just amazing.
 
2012-10-24 07:49:47 PM  
touch me, i'm sick
 
2012-10-25 12:57:05 AM  
I was never much of a Nirvana fan, but 'Smells like Teen Spirit' was my LEAST favorite song of theirs.
 
Skr
2012-10-25 06:04:41 AM  
Love Nirvana. Been a huge fan most of my life. This T.V. idea just makes me wince though. The premise sounds... horribly misplaced with the title.

/was a guitarist/singer in a Nirvana cover band back in early 2000's, the audience had a lot of energy and loved the material. 
//no point in arguing music tastes, plenty of sound around for everyone under the sun.
 
2012-10-25 09:16:04 AM  

Gunny Highway: The hatred aimed at Nirvana has always confused me.


I like Nirvana, but I don't think Nirvana did anything that other bands didn't do much better.Their fans also strike me as people who are just now discovering music, so talking with their fans about music is always frustrating since they can't seem to move beyond the frame of how other bands are related to Nirvana (specifically, whether Kurt liked them or not.); Playskool's "My First favorite Band", if you will. To be fair, that might be a more recent thing, though.

I also think that for a as big of an impact as Nirvana made in the early 90s, that impact was more or less gone by the late 90s.

Gunny Highway: frepnog: bwaa haahaa.

All of the ball-less, soulless rock bands that came out in the 2000's were heavily influenced by AIC. To me, they were the most influential band to come out of the grunge era because you can heard their sound in a millions bands that followed in their wake.


I do agree that for how much Nirvana is cited as being influential, i really can't name any bands beyond 1995 or so that sound like Nirvana, but I can name quite a few since that took cues from AIC and/or Pearl Jam. At best, Nirvana introduced people to Sonic Youth, et al. who then influenced those same people to form a band... but does Nirvana really deserve credit in that equation?
 
2012-10-25 10:33:28 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: Gunny Highway: The hatred aimed at Nirvana has always confused me.

I like Nirvana, but I don't think Nirvana did anything that other bands didn't do much better.Their fans also strike me as people who are just now discovering music, so talking with their fans about music is always frustrating since they can't seem to move beyond the frame of how other bands are related to Nirvana (specifically, whether Kurt liked them or not.); Playskool's "My First favorite Band", if you will. To be fair, that might be a more recent thing, though.

I also think that for a as big of an impact as Nirvana made in the early 90s, that impact was more or less gone by the late 90s.

Gunny Highway: frepnog: bwaa haahaa.

All of the ball-less, soulless rock bands that came out in the 2000's were heavily influenced by AIC. To me, they were the most influential band to come out of the grunge era because you can heard their sound in a millions bands that followed in their wake.

I do agree that for how much Nirvana is cited as being influential, i really can't name any bands beyond 1995 or so that sound like Nirvana, but I can name quite a few since that took cues from AIC and/or Pearl Jam. At best, Nirvana introduced people to Sonic Youth, et al. who then influenced those same people to form a band... but does Nirvana really deserve credit in that equation?


honestly, Nirvana sounded so much like no one else that I think that it was just impossible to copy. Most of the other bands of that time really weren't all that special (slow driving rock) and so the copycats were rampant. I could be wrong, of course, but that's just what I hear.
 
2012-10-25 10:38:50 AM  

frepnog: honestly, Nirvana sounded so much like no one else that I think that it was just impossible to copy.




I think in terms of the mainstream, yeah Nirvana really stuck out; but they otherwise weren't doing anything Mudhoney, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur, Jr., Replacements, etc weren't doing. I don't think it's so much that Nirvana was "impossible to copy" as much anyone inclined to listen to Nirvana probably moved onto another band to copy.
 
2012-10-25 10:42:26 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: frepnog: honestly, Nirvana sounded so much like no one else that I think that it was just impossible to copy.



I think in terms of the mainstream, yeah Nirvana really stuck out; but they otherwise weren't doing anything Mudhoney, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur, Jr., Replacements, etc weren't doing. I don't think it's so much that Nirvana was "impossible to copy" as much anyone inclined to listen to Nirvana probably moved onto another band to copy.


All of those PacNW bands borrowed heavily from The Wipers sound.
 
2012-10-25 10:47:26 AM  

Onkel Buck:
Mad Season's "Above" CD has a permanent spot on my play list. Layne's singing on that was just amazing.


Why was I not made aware of this while it was being recorded? Heads will roll for this.
 
2012-10-25 11:15:42 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: frepnog: honestly, Nirvana sounded so much like no one else that I think that it was just impossible to copy.



I think in terms of the mainstream, yeah Nirvana really stuck out; but they otherwise weren't doing anything Mudhoney, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur, Jr., Replacements, etc weren't doing. I don't think it's so much that Nirvana was "impossible to copy" as much anyone inclined to listen to Nirvana probably moved onto another band to copy.


i always love that argument against Nirvana.

"these bands that no one listened to were the real bands".

30 million records sold. Of one album. So let me tell you this - if Nirvana was just doing the same thing these other bands were doing, they obviously did it so well that the other bands sounded like crap in comparison, and did it so distinctively that no other band could copy that success.
 
2012-10-25 11:25:58 AM  

frepnog: FeedTheCollapse: frepnog: honestly, Nirvana sounded so much like no one else that I think that it was just impossible to copy.



I think in terms of the mainstream, yeah Nirvana really stuck out; but they otherwise weren't doing anything Mudhoney, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur, Jr., Replacements, etc weren't doing. I don't think it's so much that Nirvana was "impossible to copy" as much anyone inclined to listen to Nirvana probably moved onto another band to copy.

i always love that argument against Nirvana.

"these bands that no one listened to were the real bands".

30 million records sold. Of one album. So let me tell you this - if Nirvana was just doing the same thing these other bands were doing, they obviously did it so well that the other bands sounded like crap in comparison, and did it so distinctively that no other band could copy that success.




Yes, Argumentum ad Populum is a much better argument and totally rooted in fact.
 
2012-10-25 11:53:43 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: frepnog: FeedTheCollapse: frepnog: honestly, Nirvana sounded so much like no one else that I think that it was just impossible to copy.



I think in terms of the mainstream, yeah Nirvana really stuck out; but they otherwise weren't doing anything Mudhoney, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur, Jr., Replacements, etc weren't doing. I don't think it's so much that Nirvana was "impossible to copy" as much anyone inclined to listen to Nirvana probably moved onto another band to copy.

i always love that argument against Nirvana.

"these bands that no one listened to were the real bands".

30 million records sold. Of one album. So let me tell you this - if Nirvana was just doing the same thing these other bands were doing, they obviously did it so well that the other bands sounded like crap in comparison, and did it so distinctively that no other band could copy that success.



Yes, Argumentum ad Populum is a much better argument and totally rooted in fact.


if you can sell 30 million copies of an abrasive rock record with incomprehensible lyrics, you are doing SOMETHING right.

fact is that Nevermind is a classic record that holds up and sounds as fresh today as it did in 1991 when it was released. It hold up better than most of the records that their contemporaries made. It didn't stagnate as a grunge record because honestly, it ISN'T a grunge record; it is a polished rock record with grunge leanings. It has as much cultural significance as much of The Beatles catalog.

You might not agree. That's cool. You are just wrong. Sorry, but you can try to downplay Nirvana's importance, you can pretend that Nevermind was not a watershed moment in music history, you can act like other bands of that era were more important or made better music.

You are still just wrong.

Sorry about that.
 
2012-10-25 12:04:33 PM  

frepnog: you can act like other bands of that era were more important or made better music.


well, you can't be wrong about thinking other bands made better music, but I can point out that I can think of plenty more bands that were influenced by Nirvana's influence (Sonic Youth, et al.) than Nirvana themselves, despite having only a small fraction of the sales. Hell, I can think of more bands influenced by Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, and Smashing Pumpkins than Nirvana.

My point is that Nirvana's musical influence is pretty much non-existent after about 1996 or so. Nirvana's influence in terms of how the major labels were much more willing to sign and/or promote Indie acts more or less ended when Nu Metal and boy bands (re)emerged in the late 90s. You could possibly argue, though I disagree, that Nirvana's popularity meant that the other, lesser selling influences were saved from dying a death in obscurity, but I doubt that would happen with the emergence of the internet. So again: for as big as Nirvana was, what is their legacy now?
 
2012-10-25 12:05:05 PM  

frepnog: FeedTheCollapse: frepnog: honestly, Nirvana sounded so much like no one else that I think that it was just impossible to copy.



I think in terms of the mainstream, yeah Nirvana really stuck out; but they otherwise weren't doing anything Mudhoney, Sonic Youth, Dinosaur, Jr., Replacements, etc weren't doing. I don't think it's so much that Nirvana was "impossible to copy" as much anyone inclined to listen to Nirvana probably moved onto another band to copy.

i always love that argument against Nirvana.

"these bands that no one listened to were the real bands".

30 million records sold. Of one album. So let me tell you this - if Nirvana was just doing the same thing these other bands were doing, they obviously did it so well that the other bands sounded like crap in comparison, and did it so distinctively that no other band could copy that success.


McDonalds sell lots of burgers

Another thing in common between them is that both Kurt and Ronald don't wash their hair for days
 
2012-10-25 12:48:32 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: My point is that Nirvana's musical influence is pretty much non-existent after about 1996 or so


You mean to tell me giants such as Marcy Playground, Disturbed, Kid Rock, Hootie & the Blowfish, Limp Bizkit, Korn, et al weren't influenced by Nirvana? I hope somebody else can break the news to the band, I just can't stand to see grown men cry.
 
2012-10-25 01:03:27 PM  

FeedTheCollapse: frepnog: you can act like other bands of that era were more important or made better music.

well, you can't be wrong about thinking other bands made better music, but I can point out that I can think of plenty more bands that were influenced by Nirvana's influence (Sonic Youth, et al.) than Nirvana themselves, despite having only a small fraction of the sales. Hell, I can think of more bands influenced by Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, and Smashing Pumpkins than Nirvana.

My point is that Nirvana's musical influence is pretty much non-existent after about 1996 or so. Nirvana's influence in terms of how the major labels were much more willing to sign and/or promote Indie acts more or less ended when Nu Metal and boy bands (re)emerged in the late 90s. You could possibly argue, though I disagree, that Nirvana's popularity meant that the other, lesser selling influences were saved from dying a death in obscurity, but I doubt that would happen with the emergence of the internet. So again: for as big as Nirvana was, what is their legacy now?


their legacy now is still what it was at kurt's death. good music that brought about an industry wide shift with a massively popular album that not only stands the test of time but continues to inspire. they are a part of history, with less tarnish than many of their contemporaries since we don't have to worry about any ill-advised reunion tours (and taking into account that their last record was an intentionally overly abrasive backlash at Nevermind that was STILL fantastic). They popularized the "unplugged" events with an album that is still better that every single unplugged record that came after.

They will never be forgotten and are as close to a household name as any rock band ever was.

What do YOU think their legacy is? 3 or 4 crappy records that no one liked, were overrated and that no one remembers?
 
2012-10-25 02:32:44 PM  
Guns n' Roses killed hair metal. Nirvana made it cool for talentless hacks to try to have a musical career. It took twenty years to undo the damage.

/welcome back, guitar solos!
 
kab
2012-10-25 04:10:45 PM  
maximum trolling going on here.
 
2012-10-25 06:44:39 PM  
I never quite get the boner flaring that goes on in music threads. It's kind of like cawk measuring at best. Since I don't care at all though I'll throw my lowly opinion in.

Yes, Nirvana ruled the airwaves and MTV in the early to mid-90's, or whenever Kurt's head went supernova.

Yes, there were other bands out there that may have been better in every way that didn't sell 30 bajillion records.

The fact of the matter that no one ever seems to talk about is luck. That's not to say one that succeeds is a loser with no talent who got lucky. What it has to do with is having the right person with connections find your sound, see your style, maybe even change your style, find a way to market you, power broker some deals to get you more play on the rotation on the radio, TV, whatever to spread it around, hope that it catches on, and all the masses start talking about your band (formula applies to products / movies, anything almost). It's not that complicated really. Something catches fire and the masses select things that they think other people like and think is cool so they think they are cool too.

That's not to denigrate artists and what they produce. I just don't think that many folks realize their is a giant corporate machine that hedges their bets on these, "properties," and markets the shiat out of them until they're over saturated and undesirable then kicks them out. That's the cost of going mainstream I guess. And all of that is a lottery. One band gets to skyrocket while the next plays at Skagg's Saloon.

There's plenty of music for everyone to enjoy. Let's not piss on it. Unless we are talking about Creed or Nickleback. Seriously, fark those guys.
 
2012-10-25 09:53:12 PM  

frepnog: FeedTheCollapse: frepnog: you can act like other bands of that era were more important or made better music.

well, you can't be wrong about thinking other bands made better music, but I can point out that I can think of plenty more bands that were influenced by Nirvana's influence (Sonic Youth, et al.) than Nirvana themselves, despite having only a small fraction of the sales. Hell, I can think of more bands influenced by Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, and Smashing Pumpkins than Nirvana.

My point is that Nirvana's musical influence is pretty much non-existent after about 1996 or so. Nirvana's influence in terms of how the major labels were much more willing to sign and/or promote Indie acts more or less ended when Nu Metal and boy bands (re)emerged in the late 90s. You could possibly argue, though I disagree, that Nirvana's popularity meant that the other, lesser selling influences were saved from dying a death in obscurity, but I doubt that would happen with the emergence of the internet. So again: for as big as Nirvana was, what is their legacy now?

their legacy now is still what it was at kurt's death. good music that brought about an industry wide shift with a massively popular album that not only stands the test of time but continues to inspire. they are a part of history, with less tarnish than many of their contemporaries since we don't have to worry about any ill-advised reunion tours (and taking into account that their last record was an intentionally overly abrasive backlash at Nevermind that was STILL fantastic). They popularized the "unplugged" events with an album that is still better that every single unplugged record that came after.

They will never be forgotten and are as close to a household name as any rock band ever was.

What do YOU think their legacy is? 3 or 4 crappy records that no one liked, were overrated and that no one remembers?



so Nirvana's impact is that they made a popular album... and nothing else? If it didn't really leave anything in its wake, why the hell is talked about as if it's another Thriller, Sgt. Pepper, etc.? I mean, it's a good album, but it's kind of akin to a good album by a band who's not much more than the sum of their influences; enjoyable for being good at what it is, but it doesn't really break any new ground on its own.
 
2012-10-26 11:11:24 PM  

frepnog: honestly, Nirvana sounded so much like no one else


Except, perhaps, like Boston and Killing Joke... at least Smells Like Teen Spirit uses the same riff from More Than a Feelin' and Come As You Are is straight from Killing Joke's Eighties.

Like all bands, they built on what they new. They definitely did something different with it than was already being done, but they didn't pop out of a vacuum.
 
Displayed 34 of 134 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report