InsatiableCream said:

yeah, you're confused...

No, that title goes to the Beatles, but Nirvana does suck ass.

Slave2daGroove said:

Ummm, yes. Look at the first page.

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.

Militant said:

So this is what a Militant fan is?

Let this thread live on forever

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.

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.

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.

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.

Slave2daGroove said:

i don't see whats so funny. I was in Seattle, so made the trip to Aberdeen. No different to Elvis fans going to Graceland, Beatles fans going to Liverpool or Prince fans going to Minneapolis.

NDRU said:

You remember that scene in The Breakfast Club where the kids all start whining about how hard it is to be young and misunderstood? That's always how Cobain came across to me.

midnightmover said:

See, the problem is that you really have no clue what you're talking about.

Cobain did not revel in angst or negativity; he just suffered from depression from his heroin use, which he started using to aid his horrible back pains (not that that makes it smart).

He was actually a very humourous, very spiritual person.

All this tearing apart of Nirvana is pretty silly. I realize Cobain's been mythologized since his death, as that always happens with mega star rockers, but that doesn't change the fact that he was able to say really powerful things in simple ways and write really infectious hooks.

Their impact isn't speculative; it's right there for anyone to see. Cobain's songwriting resonated with an entire generation. The proof is in the facts.

I tried to not like Nirvana.
But they kicked too much ass.

I'm saying when evaluating an artist's position in the pantheon, you have to look at one thing and one thing only, THE BODY OF WORK. How long they lived, what they might have done in another 10 years, etc, should not come into it, because it's just speculation.

The fact is Prince's body of work contains a lot more songs that could be considered great than Nirvana's, and yes, the amount of music he made is a factor in that. You cannot judge what could have been, you have to judge what is.

And by the way, that's just one of the many arguments that could be made in Prince's favour. There are a dozen more. And even if you prefer Nirvana, can you honestly say that they are so much better to justify the far greater praise they get?

On another note, compare them to Nick Cave. They are probably about 10 times more acclaimed than Nick Cave. Does that mean they're ten times as good? Of course not. Therefore whether you like them or not, you would have to concede that they are overrated. I'm glad to see there are a few Nirvana fans here who are happy to do that.
[Edited 1/9/08 5:19am]

I discovered them recently (I know, I lived under a rock) and I think their music is incredibly strong. It pops out!!! The songs have shape and tension, and there is a tangible authentic spirit, although so incredibly pained I find it hard to take in. That's what I call art.







really lame grammatical error edit
[Edited 1/9/08 11:15am]

heartbeatocean said:

Y'know,
just to be sure,
I just finished listening to 'em.
Hate to say it,
but they are not over-rated.
I think that, relatively, that if the term over-rated could be used to described them ( or any other musical act for that matter), it could only be on a general level.
And, IMO, one the best ways to lessen one's own individual music-listening experience is to pay attention to things on general level.
It seems to me, & this is based juston my own personal experience, that focusing on one own's musical enjoyment & not so much on how it is percieved by the public in general, tends to make that enjoyment alot more satisfying.

Illustrator said:

Sort of a complicated remark, but I think I know what you're saying. And I agree, if you think about Nirvana vs. ____ or what lists they make, or how many instruments Kurt plays, or how many albums they made, then maybe they're overrated.

But for me personally, I don't know how I could enjoy their music any more than I do, so how could they be overrated? They've made albums that I like as much as Prince, The Beatles, Miles Davis, Bob Dylan. They didn't make as many, but for what they are, they couldn't hardly have been any better to me.

It's like saying Robert Johnson was overrated. He didn't do many songs, he didn't record with a band, he died young, etc. But certainly what he did has proven to be as valuable as Zappa or some other more "complete" artist.
[Edited 1/9/08 14:40pm]

You've based most of your points on speculating that Kurt didn't live long enough to embarrass himself by putting out crap records and that had Prince died in 1988 his legendary status would have been so much greater, which I said was a futile argument to begin with!!\

What people have tried to explain over and over to you is that "IT'S YOUR OPINION".

mynameisnotsusan said:

Once again, you've totally missed the point. My argument is that we should judge an artist on their body of work only. Nirvana are rated as one of the ten best groups of all time. Personally, I feel that as good as they were, they are not good enough to justify that position on merit alone. Other factors are at play. That's my point.


I hate to break this to you, but the whole purpose of this thread is to debate our opinions, so to dismiss my view because it's "just my opinion" is pretty dumb. You yourself have admitted that ranking sytems are not infallible and are meant to generate debate, so why are you complaining when I say the ranking system is wrong? And the fact is these ranking systems do not simply reflect musical merit. And if you think it's all just opinion why don't you say that to those who think Nirvana are the best band of the 90s? I doubt very much if you've ever done that.

Here's the bottom line. If you can honestly say that you believe Nirvana would be just as highly rated if Kirt were alive, then go ahead. But if you can't honestly say that then you'll have to agree with me that their standing is not simply a reflection of their musical worth. There is simply more to it than that, and that's what this all boils down to.

I know pretty much everyone here hates them, but I do like Nirvana, a lot.