Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zen v.W.o.
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.