- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Best Band of the past twenty-five years
Posted on 4/9/15 at 4:04 pm to Marciano1
Posted on 4/9/15 at 4:04 pm to Marciano1
quote:
Soundgarden and Alice in Chains are far and I mean FAR superior to them. Not even a contest.
Agreed, but Nirvana paved the way. Those bands never would have been able to go mainstream or reach any kind of popularity without Nirvana. Nirvana practically created "grunge" in the consciousness of the world outside of Seattle. In that way, they were much like Elvis. Nothing Elvis did was revolutionary. Everything he did had been done before a million times by black rock & roll, jazz, & r&b singers, but it was Elvis that was the vehicle of that music, driving it into the ears of the mainstream audience and making rock and roll possible for the rest of us. Just as Elvis did for early rock and roll, Nirvana did for grunge in the 90's. The biggest difference was that Elvis had a long career, filled with flame outs and reinventions, before his death where Cobain committed suicide before he had any time to really show any dynamism or mature as an artist in a noticeable way.
3
Posted on 4/9/15 at 4:17 pm to kingbob
quote:
Those bands never would have been able to go mainstream or reach any kind of popularity without Nirvana.
Huh? Except that Man in the Box was a pretty big hit and was played a lot on MTV and rock radio. Facelift was a platinum album before anybody knew who Nirvana was. Alice in Chains was up for a Grammy Award with Man in the Box. That sounds about as mainstream or popular as it gets. The only thing is that it took about 9 months after release until it hit big. By that time though, "alternative" music was becoming more popular. Most people were getting sick of the hair bands that were forced on you. It was only a matter of time.
Soundgarden was gaining momentum too.
IMO, Cobain would have split from Nirvana. It seemed to be trending that way only b/c of Courtney Love. I remember people joking about her being the Yoko of Nirvana. It would have been a safe play by Cobain. He keeps his legacy of Nirvana intact and could start to do his own thing without as much pressure to live up to anything.
This post was edited on 4/9/15 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 4/9/15 at 7:40 pm to kingbob
nm
This post was edited on 4/9/15 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 4/10/15 at 10:21 pm to DannyB
I'm confused on how you came to that conclusion from my post???
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:09 am to kingbob
quote:
Please name one current band that didn't evolve as they got older and music became more refined, all while maintaining mainstream success.
quote:
U2. They sound just as shitty and formulaic today as they did 30 years ago.
You may not like them, but to infer they haven't changed is just not accurate.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK
And these are all from just the 90's.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:11 am to sparkinator
The more I think about it, Sleater-Kinney is probably the answer to this question.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:16 am to HandGrenade
quote:
The Black Crowes
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:35 am to HandGrenade
Foo Fighters
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:11 am to kingbob
quote:
Agreed, but Nirvana paved the way. Those bands never would have been able to go mainstream or reach any kind of popularity without Nirvana. Nirvana practically created "grunge" in the consciousness of the world outside of Seattle. In that way, they were much like Elvis. Nothing Elvis did was revolutionary. Everything he did had been done before a million times by black rock & roll, jazz, & r&b singers, but it was Elvis that was the vehicle of that music, driving it into the ears of the mainstream audience and making rock and roll possible for the rest of us. Just as Elvis did for early rock and roll, Nirvana did for grunge in the 90's. The biggest difference was that Elvis had a long career, filled with flame outs and reinventions, before his death where Cobain committed suicide before he had any time to really show any dynamism or mature as an artist in a noticeable way.
Were you alive during this time? When this was going on I was in high school so I was very aware of the music atmosphere. I love Nirvana but they are very overrated. As others have said, there were other Seattle bands that were bigger than they were. They had the grunge "anthem" with Smells like Teen Spirit but other bands had better music.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:19 am to LSUDUKE
quote:
but other bands had better music.
Not really actually, at least if we're talking about their direct contemporaries.
There's this whole movement to try to act like Nirvana wasn't all that, like somehow it was just blind luck that they were the band that completely changed pop culture overnight
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 1:27 am
Posted on 4/11/15 at 1:35 am to Draconian Sanctions
Zebra
SIAP
SIAP
Posted on 4/11/15 at 2:49 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Not really actually, at least if we're talking about their direct contemporaries.
There's this whole movement to try to act like Nirvana wasn't all that, like somehow it was just blind luck that they were the band that completely changed pop culture overnight
They had a part in it. They're the face of it because Cobain killed himself. AIC and Soundgarden put out much better music as a whole.
edit: some would argue that Pearl Jam was much bigger at the time but their music hasn't aged well imo.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 2:51 am
Posted on 4/11/15 at 10:02 am to LSUDUKE
quote:
They're the face of it because Cobain killed himself.
Wrong. They are the face of it because before Nevermind it was still all hair metal bands and whitney houston on MTV.
quote:
AIC and Soundgarden put out much better music as a whole.
Also flat out not true. Those are both good bands but Nevermind had classic song after classic song and In Utero is an extremely underrated example of a band not only challenging themselves creatively and artistically but challenging their audience as well. Both are better than anything those two bands put out.
quote:
some would argue that Pearl Jam was much bigger at the time
PJ was briefly the robin to Nirvana's Batman, but they were never ever ever bigger than Nirvana.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 10:46 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Wrong. They are the face of it because before Nevermind it was still all hair metal bands and whitney houston on MTV.
Alot of these bands came out right around the same time, 90-91 ish. Why does Nirvana get the "credit" for ending hair metal? I totally disagree with you but oh well.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:10 am to sparkinator
quote:
You may not like them, but to infer they haven't changed is just not accurate.
Not the first time he's been inaccurate about his comments about U2. I would have argued but it's pointless when someone is that entrenched with their beliefs.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:14 am to LSUDUKE
quote:
Why does Nirvana get the "credit" for ending hair metal?
Nirvana was a big deal. In fact, THE deal (Pixies had to become something on the other side of the pond).
All these young whippersnappers with their revisionist reading of history are flat out fricking wrong. These other bands, no matter how good, did NOT exist outside of Seattle suburbs. They had no mentionable following.
You´ve seen those videos of Grohl when still Nirvana´s drummer joking about all the money he, as a fricking drummer, had made with Nirvana.
They were an absolute phenomenon, and it had NOTHING to do with Cobain´s death. If anything, it accelerated it (his killing himself).
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 11:16 am
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:24 am to Dandy Lion
quote:
All these young whippersnappers with their revisionist reading of history are flat out fricking wrong. These other bands, no matter how good, did NOT exist outside of Seattle suburbs. They had no mentionable following.
As someone already mentioned, Facelift was released in 90' and sold millions of copies and was nominated for a grammy but that never would have happened unless Nirvana paved the way. Nevermind was released in late 91'.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:26 am to LSUDUKE
quote:
Alot of these bands came out right around the same time, 90-91 ish. Why does Nirvana get the "credit" for ending hair metal? I totally disagree with you but oh well.
That's like asking why The Beatles get all the credit when the Monkeeys came out around the same time
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:29 am to Draconian Sanctions
For all the people debating over the grunge bands, have you ever seen Pearl Jam 20?
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:46 am to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
Wrong. They are the face of it because before Nevermind it was still all hair metal bands and whitney houston on MTV.
For the most part yes. But some of the 120 minute or "alternative" type groups were getting more popular. The shift was starting to occur. The Cure, Depeche Mode, The Cult, Jane's Addiction, REM, U2 and like I posted before Alice in Chains. It seemed there was a more definitive line of mainstream and college/alternative at that time.
If you were in the group of alternative type listeners, you knew about Soundgarden. They got played on 120 minutes, they appeared on soundtracks. The difference IMO is that while Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and Alice in Chains had that metal/hard rock edge, Nirvana had the punk element that really separated them.
quote:
Nevermind had classic song after classic song
So did the others. Credit Butch Vig production just as much as Nirvana as that album exploding like it did. I'm not saying this to poo poo on Nirvana but Butch made it palatable for a larger audience.
quote:
In Utero is an extremely underrated example of a band not only challenging themselves creatively and artistically but challenging their audience as well.
And also to say "frick You" to the execs that wanted them to make another Nevermind.
quote:
Both are better than anything those two bands put out.
Well that's just opinion. In Utero is great. I can only listen to a few songs off Nevermind now.
quote:
PJ was briefly the robin to Nirvana's Batman, but they were never ever ever bigger than Nirvana.
I don't know about the Robin comment but Nirvana was bigger than PJ, AIC, and soundgarden until after that shotgun blast.
This post was edited on 4/11/15 at 11:48 am
Page 9 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News