Thinking about Nirvana
 

I do enjoy some Nirvana, but I gotta thinkin', if Cobain didn't die would anybody think they'd be as good as we're led to believe?

I think if he had continued to make music, it would have gotten progressively worse with each release, and people would say "They were better in the early 90's."

Zen v.w.o would have a thing or two to say about this subject.

Cobain's death was the best thing to happen to them. They would have been ripped to shreds in time.

This pretty much happens to every band, and I agree that Nirvana wouldn't have been an exception. KK is definitely right when he said that Kurt's death is the best thing that could have happened to Nirvana.

Exactly.

Why do you think Cobain had that "it's better to burn out than to fade away?"

He knew that in due time they'd drop off the face of the Earth, so by killing himself at his appex, he ensured himself the symbol of a rock God.

This is why I say Nirvana is the most overrated band of all time.

Well either them or U2.

I think Cobain would have known when to stop making records, personally.

If you believe that the note was originally a retirement note then they would have been done making records, but nothing enshrines one like an untimely demise.

KooS hit the nail on the head

Don't really get the hype.

Isn't this kind of hard to answer because grunge basically died when he did?

Their sound would have evolved and their entire "genre" would have survived a lot longer had he not died.

I don't think they would have been so massive though - their reputation has grown because of how everything happened moreso than the quality of the music imo.

I believe they would've either stopped making records by now or they would be one of the decent rock bands still around from the 90s, sort of in a position like NIN is, I'd say, nothing special, but better than most of the stuff currently coming out in rock.

Like another poster said, I believe he would know when to stop or he would know how to "evolve" his music in the right direction.

Grunge was already on a decline....

This is good enough for me

Weren't they on the verge of breaking up anyways?


I think he just couldn't stand Courtney Love any longer... :shifty:

Courtney Love had him killed.

I don't think she would need somebody to kill him. I get the impression just being around her would drive anybody to the barrel of a gun.

I can only guess how screwed up Francis bean is going to turn out.

All that would have differed from now was he'd have less fans claiming to love them. The music would have stayed the same as it always has been, and always will be. They were great and influential before he died, they were a breath of fresh air before the death of Kurt...his death did nothing to alter their music.

It's not as if his death affected any of that in any manner to a large degree.

Overrated? Not at all, and there's no argument for such a claim.

Overrated how? Musically? Nope. Influentially? Nope.

They already made their mark well before his death. His death simply allowed them to never regress like certain bands have, aka the Stones, and any other dinosaurs that dont know when to let it go.

Fuck that fanboy shit, there is an argument. Their "influence" is not readily heard in modern music, except in people from the same generation of bands, who were largely concurrent in the first place (And just ripped off the Pixies like the hacks in Nirvana).

Overrated musically? Of course there's an argument. You see, while I'm not saying they outright suck, nobody could live up to the hype they were given.

Influentially? "post-Grunge" bands were already going on before Nirvana was even out there...And were subsequently renamed to fit a "new" genre. Kinda like how Mission of Burma are Post-Punk, though they started in 78 (Still considered the punk era).

You'd think they had had a lasting significant effect on the music scene, but a decade later, this isn't true. Did they make a mark? Yes. Did they make the giant mark fanboys claim? No. Classic case of overrated.

Norvana are treated as a singular band that changed the face of music in the modern era. The problem is, so are a dozen other bands from the same era treated as such. They're not Lennon and McCartney, but are treated as such. Overrated.

Their impact is undoubtful. They happened to allow their kind of music and bands alike and not so alike to be heard in the mainstream. That changed music in a big way. Without Nirvana, as a mattar of fact, many of you, probably yourself included, would have never even known about the Pixies or say the Melvins. Kurt talked about them often and told us how they influenced him, but they influenced Nirvana...Nirvana influenced the masses.
In fact, Nirvana was the band to give the Pixies that rub. So I dunno man, bringing that up only magnifies my argument for the better.
The Pixies didnt start a movement, Nirvana did, and the Pixies pocketed some extra dough because of it. Even the Beatles were influenced by somebody, I dont think that takes anything away from them.

Not to mention the fact artistically speaking, Nirvana created albums well worth the praise they got, which they had gotten well before anything happened to Cobain.

As far as influence goes in terms of bands, there are many, so many of them crap, as you'd expect, and others inspired by them but not trying to totally come off sounding like them. That just cant work.

Kids today are looking up at Nirvana like they were our Led Zeppelin, which is how kids of the past generation looked while Nirvana were still playing garage tour shows.

Take a look at bands today, whether they be considered grunge, punk, indie, emo or nu-metal, whatever...they all claim Nirvana to be a band that they loved and were inspired by, in some manner..they get that overall, universal credit...they dont have to be heard in some way in all these bands music to have made their mark upon them. You dont get that same credit, at least on that level with the other bigger bands that were smash hits back in the early 90's, such as Pearl Jam or Soundgarden.

Of course bands such as Nirvana with leaders like Cobain recieve a lot of flack or backlash, that's always the case. People try to deny or take away what it was they accomplished, but Nirvana created more quality music in such a small amount of work then most other bands create in bodies of work twice as large, if not more than that.

Never say all bands claim Nirvana as a band they loved and were inspired by.

Last I heard the Stones were still selling out arenas all over the World.

Oh and that's with the amazingly high ticket prices. That means people from all around the World will pay over $175 a ticket just to see them perform.

Every album that a band comes out with doesn't have to be at the top of the charts to still be an impactful band. If you draw as a band live, then that means more than being #1 on the album charts but don't bring in as much people as you'd expect.

Empty platitudes from a fanboy.

I'd take those odds. Considering I'd been listening to the Pixies since before you were likely fawning over Nirvana. :)

The Pixies were doing well for themselves before. That you try and bring in that they got a "rub" from Kurt only weaknes your argument.

Also, I was bringing up the Pixies because you said they could not be disputed musicially as ovberrated. They ripped off concurrent and prior bands. We're not talking influences. Even the Beatles made a distinct sound, rather than ripping off the Boston Scene and simply calling it a new sound. Nice dodge, though.

Artistically speaking, they are uninspired knockoffs of other people before and during Cobain. :p

You can call them worth their praise, but they were praised as new and original, and they were neither.

Empty words.

That is the dumbest thing you've ever said.

No, but you would hear some influence. Somewhere.

You don't get the same credit on that level with Nirvana, either.


Actually, it's the other way around. People always try and make their favorites bigger, more epic.

But...But...They don't wear flannel! They're washed up!

And none of the band members killed themself!

And most importantly, I'm not a rabid fanboy for them!

I mean, so what if the Stone actually managed to stay contemporary for at least twice as long as Nirvana did....

But you can't stay contemporary if your lead singer is dead. :roll:

But...But...The Official Nirvana Fanclub and my psychic link with Kurt tell me that he would have retired anyway!

I heard that Kurt is actually still alive and is the lead singer of Nickelback, that's why I have all of Nickelback's CDs and posters!

Musically, you cannot deny Nickelback's talent and influence!

i liked them when i first got into them, like 10 years ago, but also at the same time sooooo many people were worshipping them, and honestly i just got sick of their fake fame and shit, and also i can't stand their songs anymore so I have deleted all their albums off of my computer.

zen vwo you are ridiculous.

Kurt Cobain is basically a household name. Why? Because he killed himself. That's it.

I own a few of their CDs. Mostly because they were especially popular when I was still DJing. They're not bad or anything, they're just a generic band who was big largely because of an image. Shallow fuckers eat that up and take a decent band and make them into something "amazing."

It's funny that new Nirvana "fans" are the same fans that listen to shit like Panic at the Disco and Fall Out Boy.

Oh, but don't you hear the influence in their music, KoOS? It's blatantly evident.

The only reason those kids listen to Nirvana is because those bands claim Nirvana as an influence. Thus, they must be "cool" and worth checking out.

Let's be fair. Fallout Boy's sales in the current climate are phenomenal. Which is probably because Kurt Cobain's ghost is writing all their songs.

Zombie Kurt Cobain album in 2013!

Makaveli is really Kurt Cobain.

He killed Tupac to start the countdown to his return.

You know, I can't find any mention of an influence of Nirvana or Cobain under Fall Out Boy.

ZOMG FANBOY CONSPIRACY!