midnightmover said:

I said I get what you are saying. Why are you lumping me in with Horatio?

All I mean is saying it's an objective fact that Nirvana shouldn't be held in higher regard than Prince like Hillary isn't as a good a singer as Gladys is funny.

midnightmover said:

Well you gave a foolish comparison to clarify your point...how about comparing Hillary with another politician and saying 'she's a better politician' because that's her job. Ask supporters of either and they'll both swear black and blue that they're right. It's not objective at all.

midnightmover said:

I doubt they'd deny that some singers are better than others, but when you've created classic songs like Kurt and you're a brilliant all around musician like Prince, I think that a person's preference becomes more subjective.

Yes Prince made more music in the 90's and does a lot of things better, but Kurt's music was more relevant to more people in the 90's. Even the Morning Papers shows the influence of the times, Prince wore flannel & stage dove I bet a lot of people wish Prince would simplify his music and focus on the song like Kurt did.

People just have different ways of valuing music. Dylan doesn't sing like Jeffrey Osborne, but his music isn't less valuable.

But I don't say someone is wrong for preferring either artist. They simply have different taste.

sextonseven said:

The point is not even about whether Prince is better than Nirvana, but about the fact that there is such a thing as an objective fact at all. Some try and avoid serious discussion by saying "it's all just opinion". Once you've said that, where is there left to go? You've effectively shut down all further discussion since what's the point if it's all "just opinion"? Sometimes there is a right and a wrong, but you're never gonna get near it if you just shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well, it's all just opinion". That's my point.

ALL OF YOU STFU!

this is such a brilliant topic. i have always said that this band and kurt cobain are overrated. i'm not saying they didn't make good music but they're not as great as people make them out to be, plus they killed off hair metal which i loved and rock music has not been the same since.

mynameisnotsusan said:

I'll put my kid gloves on now, 'cos you obviously aren't the sharpest tool in the box. The point is that some things can be objectively established as facts. For instance, Gladys sings better than Hilary. That's an objective fact. What part of this statement don't you understand?

midnightmover said:

Okay, so one more time, what is the right and wrong when reviewing Nirvana's music?

dancerella said:

thank you

midnightmover said:

That's an incredibly insightful point you've made, a singer actually sings better than a politician.

NDRU said:

This is a novelty for me. You've actually understood my point and responded to it in a straightforward way, which means the discussion can actually move forward. Having dealt with several MJ fans recently I'd forgotten what that felt like. Okay, Nirvana made what, three albums? So even if every single track was a stone cold classic (which of course they weren't) that would only give them about thirty classics. Prince released about 18 albums before he finally lost it in the mid 90s, plus a ton of b sides and songs written for others. If you go through that body of work you would quite quickly find a lot more than 30 classics, so even if you massively flatter Nirvana, Prince still wins. Now you could argue that Kirt died young so the comparison is not fair, but it is fair. Ultimately we can't judge what could have been, we have to judge what is. We have to judge the body of work that is actually there. Now as for musicianship? Let's not even go there. Live skills? Let's not even go there. Even if you don't like P's music his showmanship at it's best is pretty hard to resist. So overall, I say Prince kicks the whinging white boy's ass. Hell, Chuck Berry does too, and so do Blondie. Yes, I said it. Blondie are a better band than Nirvana.

midnightmover said:

I love Blondie, and dislike Nirvana, so I would agree.

InsatiableCream said:

Dance said:

okay, I want a pet wabbit now.

midnightmover said:

You could make a case for either, though I don't think you could really say Prince had 30 classics in the 90's (not to say Kurt did either). Maybe you meant over the course of his whole career?

Actually it's a pretty good comparison for the 90's. If you consider classics (to me that means songs that actually permeated into our culture ala Cream), they might stack up pretty evenly. I'd say both had less than 10.

Prince is more musical, but I'd say Nirvana was more influential.
[Edited 1/8/08 13:48pm]

Possibly they were overrated compared to the other underground bands of the day - Didjits, Melvins, Mudhoney, Jesus Lizard and the Gits are just a few of the bands I thought were better.

But as far as rock star bands go, that's the last one I thought was any good at all. OK, Soundgarden was the last but Nirvana was the first one in a VERY long time that made any kind of impression.

Slave2daGroove said:

Ummm, yes. Look at the first page.

It's threads like this that make me not surprised to see that Prince is trying to shut things down. It took going all the way to the third page to see any sort of debate, honest discussion or even sentient thought. Who'd blame Prince for not wanting to have this kind of thing happening to him?

JoeTyler said:

That's kind of true. I liken him to 2Pac. Both a bit too smart for their own good. When you listen to the way they talked, they were so smart, but obviously very misguided. Victims of their own "realness," which in fact was a pose. I think they were two of the all time great posers in music

I want to go back in time and slap some sense into them both.

Yup.

TANKAEFC said:

I'm kidding.
[Edited 1/8/08 17:12pm]

NDRU said:

I'm talking about his whole career, and by "classic" I don't mean songs that permeate our culture, I just mean flat-out great songs. "My Humps" permeated our culture, and it's rubbish. "The Beautiful Ones" on the other hand has certainly not permeated the culture, but it's unquestionably a great song. Prince has got a lot more great songs than Nirvana. No question. Therefore Cobain's place above him in the pantheon is a joke. Case closed.

midnightmover said:

Well, flat out great songs is pretty subjective, but this is turning into Prince vs Nirvana, which wasn't really the point.

Certainly Nirvana isn't the greatest musical act ever. Are they overrated? I say "yes." Are they great? I say "yes."

And you should know that no case is ever closed around here! There are nothing but threads of "open cases!"

midnightmover said:

I'm sure someone could argue that "The Beautiful Ones" isn't a great song and that Nirvana had more great songs than Prince. I couldn't, but I'm sure someone could. I don't think it's so black and white.

sextonseven said:

yeah I think most people at prince.org would rate Prince higher than Nirvana (including me), but probably not fans of hard rock.

This is the New Musical Express Top 20 Greatest Albums of All Time printed on 02 October 1993

PET SOUNDS The Beach Boys (Capitol, 1966)
REVOLVER The Beatles (Parlophone, 1966)
NEVER MIND THE BOLLOCKS The Sex Pistols (Virgin, 1977)
WHAT'S GOING ON Marvin Gaye ( Tamla Motown, 1971)
THE STONE ROSES The Stone Roses (Silvertone, 1989)
THE VELVET UNDERGROUND & NICO The Velvet Underground ( Verve, 1967)
LONDON CALLING The Clash (CBS, 1979)
THE BEATLES The Beatles (Apple, 1968)
IT TAKES A NATION OF MILLIONS TO HOLD US BACK Public Enemy (Def Jam, 1988)
THE QUEEN IS DEAD The Smiths (Rough Trade, 1986)
EXILE ON MAIN STREET The Rolling Stones (Rolling Stones,1972)
NEVERMIND Nirvana (Geffen, 1991)
THE CLASH The Clash (CBS, 1977)
HIGHWAY 61 REVISITED Bob Dylan (Columbia, 1965)
ASTRAL WEEKS Van Morrison (Warners, 1968)
SIGN 'O' THE TIMES Prince (Paisley Park, 1987)
BLONDE ON BLONDE Bob Dylan (Columbia, 1966)
FOREVER CHANGES Love (Elektra, 1968)
THREE FEET HIGH AND RISING De La Soul (Big Life 1989)
CLOSER Joy Division (Factory, 1980)

Nirvana were in the mix then before he died. Kurt dying didn't elevate them. They were already there.

This is the next time NME published A Greatest of All Time List in 2006

1. The Stone Roses – The Stone Roses
2. Pixies – Doolittle
3. The Beach Boys – Pet Sounds
4. Television – Marquee Moon
5. The Beatles – Revolver
6. Love – Forever Changes
7. The Strokes – Is This It
8. The Smiths – The Queen In Dead
9. The Velvet Underground – The Velvet Underground
10. Sex Pistols – Never Mind The Bollocks…
11. My Bloody Valentine – Loveless
12. The Clash – London Calling
13. Oasis – Definitely Maybe
14. Joy Division – Closer
15. Nirvana – In Utero
16. Radiohead – Ok Computer
17. Spritualized – Ladies And Gentleman We Are Floating In Space
18. Blondie – Parallel Lines
19. Nirvana – Nevermind
20. The White Stripes – White Blood Cells

Oh look Blondie's even there

I can definitely see how if someone wasn't particularly fond of Nirvana could be annoyed by their constant appearance in these sorts of lists.

They are as serious as you want to make them. The only reason I've continued posting on this thread is to acknowledge that they were as important to me as any band has been.

mynameisnotsusan said:

What's interesting about these lists is the creeping generational influence which is reflected among the choices. In the 1993 list, the 1960's artists are more heavily represented than any other decade, which shows the huge bias towards the baby boom generation. But in the 2006 list, the 1990's artists are more heavily represented, but more notable is the almost complete lack of 1960's artists. That reflects more of the tastes of the presumably Gen X critics currently writing the magazine than any revisionist lack of talent that the 1960's artists had.

I remember when Rolling Stone put out their list of the greatest singles of the rock and roll era a few years ago, and half of their readers went ballistic when they included the Backstreet Boys in the top 10 with the Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin. I had major problems with that list as well, but not because they included boy bands. Their criteria for that list only considered songs dating back to 1964, which would basically exclude all of the greatest pioneers of rock like Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and Jerry Lee Lewis, who made the Beatles and Rolling Stones existence possible in the first place.

No. They were brilliant and deserve the attention they get. I also loved Alice in Chains if we are talking about bands from Seattle.

Wonderwall said:

Gotta add though...that list of the best albums of all time mentions Stone Roses on and near the top...now their album is completely underrated here in the states. THATS the one I think is absolute, pure BLISS.

midnightmover said:

Your stance on this thread is basically like trying to prove that red is better than blue simply because it's red. You're not making any sense. OF COURSE Prince is going to have more classics, because by the time Nirvana hit it, he'd been on the scene for 10+ years. Had Kurt lived, they'd have probably almost as many or they would have petered out. Either way, you're basically saying that Prince is better because he's released more records.

If anything, Nirvana are under-rated.


Nevermind is overrated.

In Utero, though.....whoa.


Tracks like "Francis Farmer Will Have Her Revenge on Seattle", "Scentless Apprentice" and "Serve The Servants" are seriously amazing songs and very under-rated.


Oh, and to my fellow Nirvana fans on here.....anyone else made the trip to the Wishkah Bridge in Aberdeen, WA? I went there and wrote on the wall.....went to the Lake Washington house as well and left a message to Kurt on the bench.

Oh and get this.....at the bridge there was a handwritten note to Kurt from Aaron Burckhard. It read something like "miss you Kurt, thanks for letting me play drums with you". Could have been a fake, but I don't know why anyone would bother to pretend to be Aaron.