GangstaFam said:

Now I have very manly scar on the nose...I feel so butch and macho!

Chicks love it!

Anx said:

"Stole" is bullshit. "Resembled or influenced by", absolutely.

mynameisnotsusan said:

i'm being somewhat facetious...when kurt was alive, the band made comments about how similar 'teen spirit' sounded to that boston song and made jokes about it...it's documented i think in 'come as you are'. they also would play the tori amos version of 'teen spirit' at their concerts and do little ballet performances on stage to it.

Anx said:

Funny I never noticed the Boston thing, but it's kind of true. Not exactly the same though, and even if it was you can't sue someone over chords.

But Kurt pointed it out himself because he was cool. As much as he wanted to be "real" or "punk" he was aware that he was a pop star, and even referred to Nirvana as being a new Cheap Trick.

Actually that's what seperates them from the bands they supposedly stole from like the Meat Puppets. They were just so damned catchy and raw at the same time.

NDRU said:

KEY!

Imago said:

AIC was originally a glam band, but PJ and Soundgarden? Soundgarden used to make fun of hair metal through their music pre-Badmotorfinger and I can't recall PJ ever having anything to do with hair metal at all.

I actually think all three of those bands were far superior to Nirvana in terms of talent, and wrote songs with far more (classic rock-esque) sophistication and musicality.

squiddyren said:

I know a lot of people prefer those bands for their range. The other three bands were more in the tradition of classic rock with the more standard guitar solos, song structure, etc., particularly Pearl Jam.

I think Nirvana was the best example of "grunge" for that reason. Nirvana simply was grunge in it's most basic form. I also think they get more attention because they're really one artist's vision, and more clearly defined than Pearl Jam or Soundgarden, which were more collective efforts.

What is a Troll?

That comment is bugging me.

Is it like in Lord of The Rings?

I've only been a menber a few days and to be offended like that is very disapointing.

I would like to know if I have a case to report this person the the Moderators of the the forum.

Is it normal to be flamed like this for no reason around here?

I totally can't see what I did to offend anyone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...rnet_troll

OK I looked it up.

That was never my intention.

What about my post led you to believe that?

I was trying to open up a discussion about my favorite record.

My ignorance is due to being new to the internet.

I only recently got connected at home.

Therefore have more time to browse on non work related subjects.
[Edited 3/5/07 13:45pm]
[Edited 3/5/07 13:46pm]

Sorry, I simply can't agree with this. WHile Nirvana had some decent songs and helped bring Rock and Roll back, I think they are HIGHLY overrated. Their popularity at the time of his death is the only reason they are still talked about. People would be saying the same about Prince if he died right after Purple Rain (and even he'd have more material by that time than Nirvana did upon Kurts death)

Nevermind will always be a part of rock history. But an influential album (in the way you describe it) for today or even the future? Hardly.

superspaceboy said:

but i think people DO talk that way about prince, especially post-RNRHOF and post-superbowl, and he's not even dead! well, he killed himself off for a few years in the '90s, then he decided to come back from the dead, but that didn't exactly boost his credit rating.

superspaceboy said:

I can definitely see thinking they're overrated, but I can't see denying it's an influential album. For a long while nearly every rock radio station converted (from rock, hard rock, classic rock, alternative ie Depeche Mode) to "alternative" or "grunge" and Nirvana is still a radio staple.

And to my ears (though this is just my opinion) those songs still sound as fresh as any of today's crap they play alongside it.

Anx said:

I think WE do. But the gen public doesn't. I think Prince to them is more like "Oh is he still doing stuff?". I really feel that if he had died right after Purple Rain, he'd be revered in the same way that Jimi is AND he'd probably would have been lauded as better than James Brown. I think because he has shown what his potential really was and has gone through most of the course of his career, he has legend status, but not untapped legend status of what he might be able to achieve.

Here's what I think...I think Nirvana might have done an album or 2 more. Maybe 3 if they would be able to stay together that long. The drugs and his relationship with Courtney Love would have pretty much torn the band apart and that would be pretty much it. I think post Nirvana days would be very akin to what we see now with Guns and Roses. They'd be revered and would make a few attempts to reunite. They wouldn't be assailed like they are now. I actually think he would have died with an overdose.

NDRU said:

I think it was influential for the time. Not so much now. And I hold the same for the future. It will be someone else to do the Rock Renaissance thing, and then they'll be called the new Nirvana. Heck, even Fall out Boy is being called that now.

superspaceboy said:

yeah, but i remember when duran duran was being called the new beatles.

Anx said:

Shut Yo Mou....

I played In Utero today, and one of the things I love about Nirvana's music is that it doesn't date itself like the other so-called Grunge bands. Timeless and punky.

squiddyren said:

Sophistication?

Honey, you're in Bartow Florida!

superspaceboy said:

Oh, I see. Yeah, I think time has that effect on a lot of stuff.

I remember hearing the Sex Pistols a long time ago and thinking it was just crazy noise, not even music. Now it sounds like totally ordinary rock & roll to me.

SenseOfDoubt said:

See, "Lithium" is easily my favorite.

TheKnowledge said:

Don't worry about it. And thanks for your contribution!

AlexdeParis said:

amazing song, and I still love SLTS.

Imago said:

Not exactly the most sophisticated place but we got a few roses down here. *ahem*

superspaceboy said:

it's true! and i probably still have the "smash hits" cover to prove it!

but when the media were first discovering them, they were calling nirvana "the new _____"?

Anx said:

Hey, I love Duran Duran! They may not be the Beatles, but the Fab Five were great anyway!

AlexdeParis said:

yeah, but they were no beatles. of course, i think DD set their own precedent...i'm just making a point of how silly the music media can be with the whole "the next..." proclamations.

squiddyren said:

I live in Valrico so who am I to judge





Wait, you're 16.

I love both "Nevermind" and "In Utero."

Each is a terrific rock album, and I love the fact that they are so different. I don't think there is anything overrated about Nirvana at all, personally. They deserve every accolade they get.

I took a refresher listen to Nevermind recently and actually the production struck me as way cleaner than I remembered.

It ain't even that raw, folks.

CinisterCee said:

are you kidding? nevermind is so clean, you could let your baby lick strained peas off it! that's why they had steve albini produce 'in utero', but the results were so UNclean that geffen made them re-mix it for easier consumption.