Page 1 of 2
Nevermind
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:12 pm
by Crackpot
No really,
Nevermind. Fuck. This makes me feel old.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:08 pm
by Gob
September 24th marks the 20th anniversary of one of the greatest and most influential albums of all time,
Slight exaggeration there. A great album, but "greatest" and "most influential"? I think not.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:16 pm
by Crackpot
You're operating on the "older than dirt" chronometer there Gob.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:05 am
by loCAtek
I still don't see KISS on the cover...
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:22 am
by Sean
Nirvana were a huge influence on a whole genre of music but IMO vastly overrated as a band. They were one of those bands that it was considered 'cool' to be into so a lot of people were into them whether or not they actually liked them as a band (I call this 'Tarantino Syndrome'). Cobain regularly gets into top 10 greatest ever guitarists lists simply because he is dead and his output is seen through rose-tinted glasses.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:41 am
by Crackpot
While the guitarist thing is definitely undeserved. THey more or less "created a genre and influenced most everything that came afterwards. Overratted just means you didn't like them that much (after Nevermind I pretty much lost interest myself) but I've heard the same about just about every other band that has been considered ground breaking.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:28 am
by Gob
I don't really think they created a genre, just got pop metal back in the limelight. They didn't really do anything new.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 12:37 pm
by Crackpot
the Grunge sound was "new" (as new as any sound can be) and as for "pop metal" it was the early 90's people were just Starting to come to their senses that "hair metal" sucked ass.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 3:32 pm
by loCAtek
It were the lyrics that were ground-breaking; finally deep, meaningful, poetry, instead of trite love/lust songs. Real introspection instead of 'my guitar is an extension of my penis' rock.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:05 pm
by Gob
Crackpot wrote:the Grunge sound was "new" (as new as any sound can be) and as for "pop metal" it was the early 90's people were just Starting to come to their senses that "hair metal" sucked ass.
I don't think anyone will disagree with your views on 'hair metal".
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:37 am
by Sean
Crackpot wrote:Overratted just means you didn't like them that much
No it doesn't. There are many genres and artists whose output I find unappealing. However, I can appreciate musicianship and artistry when I hear it whether it appeals to me aesthetically or not. I don't hear too much that in Nirvana's music. What I do hear is a lot of gimmickry and style over substance. The music and image are designed to tap into a very lucrative market (teen angst) and do so very effectively. Commercial success and musical artistry are very different things however and are sadly all too often mutually exclusive. If Eddie Vedder rather than Kurt Cobain had died I believe that we would be discussing Pearl Jam and '10' in the same way and Nirvana would long since have faded into relative obscurity.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:28 am
by Crackpot
You think Pearl Jam has faded into Obscurity? THose twats have a dedicated channel on Sirius/XM.
Personally I think you are confusing the genesis with what followed. Nirvana was first (at least to be noticed) with a "new" sound (yes and teen angst but it you think Nirvana invented that I got a bridge to sell you) And no matter how much I wish that it was Eddie Vedder that sucked a shotgun it wouldn't have changed that fact.
When you get down to it Nirvana was just another punk/metal fusion which has always been a great sound ever since Iron Maiden pioneered it (and then rapidly lost) They (along with much of the grunge scene) just managed to keep it going longer than most.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:05 am
by Sean
No confusion here at all CP.
I have listened to Nirvana with a critical ear and have formed the opinion that they are nowhere near as talented as the fanboys would have me believe. I didn't claim that they invented teen angst, simply that they aimed themselves squarely (and succesfully) at that particular demographic.
Oh and I didn't mean that Pearl Jam have faded into obscurity (although I can see how you might've read that from my last post) just that Nirvana would have if Cobain hadn't died from lead poisoning.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:33 am
by Crackpot
I'm not talking about talent just originality The two are often confused and not necessarily related. As for what would have Happened who knows. It's a Hitler getting into art school situation. You may be right and from what I've heard Cobain probably would have liked it that way. THe band didn't seem to have the self promoting ego sustain it during the lean times Which leaves it to the fans which is a total crap shoot.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:53 am
by Sean
Fair enough mate but I don't think they were particularly original either. It was more about a huge publicity drive which promoted Cobain as the poster-boy of grunge.
I didn't buy his "I don't want to be famous" bullshit for a minute either. Somebody should've pulled him to one side and said, "If you don't want fame then why are you playing huge gigs and making albums you soft cunt?"
I've known many talented musicians who didn't fancy the whole 'fame' thing. They managed to avoid it quite nicely thank you very much!
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:12 am
by Crackpot
Don't underestimate the power of labels (at that time at least) to put one through the ringer. It all depends on the contract. If we want to play armchair psychiatrist we could have a field day with this case. But suffice to say some people don't know what they're getting into when they sign on the dotted line and/or are easily bullied by those who claim to have you under contractual obligation.
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:59 am
by Sean
Believe me CP, I know a plenty about the power of record labels... and about the power of artists!
If people don't know what they are getting into when they sign a contract agreeing to provide 'x' number of albums and 'x' number of singles to a label then they are in the wrong business. Either that or greed takes over when they see the advance. It shits me to see these privileged arseholes who bleat about being treated so unfairly because they are asked to keep their end of a contract for which they are being richly compensated.
Yes George Michael, I'm looking at you!
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 12:33 pm
by Crackpot
I don't disagree At least not after the first contract
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:27 pm
by Gob
There is much to be still grateful for in grunge's sudden ascendance. As the last music movement to overwhelm the mainstream, as opposed to being an easily suborned genre, grunge initially marked a return to raw instrumental power and lyrics that trafficked in self-lacerating angst and alienation. You cannot overstate how bad popular music was in 1990, or how tenuous and ignored the underground was, and as Generation X's dismissal of the baby boomers, grunge changed that.
Read more:
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/mus ... z1Z61xv6g4
Re: Nevermind
Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:39 am
by Sue U
You cannot overstate how bad popular music was in 1990, or how tenuous and ignored the underground was
Nothing to disagree with there, but the same could be said for most of the period between 1973 and the mid 1990s. (I'm not sure it's much better now, but it's a different industry.)