re: What Makes Nirvana Great?

Nothing...most overrated band of the 90's and almost of the last 300 years

quote:

---

Nothing...most overrated band of the 90's and almost of the last 300 years

---

This thread just further proves that for ever thing that gets really popular and = backlash claiming what ever is "over rated" or something such as that. Its a byproduct of too much media saturation and our inability to adequately praise something with out resorting hyperbole. Nirvana was a significant band for the reasons many outlined above. Cobain (like Lennon-McCartney) wrote some great, catchy, pop tunes that really captured their time. But, the past is always over romanticized. Many of you that were too young or not born at the time they could never live up to the hype and its much cooler to bash something others have over praised.

Those saying Nirvana became a cult following after his death don't know what they are talking about. Those saying they are glad he is dead can DIAF.

I worked in radio when Nirvana and PJ all broke. For me it's not revisionist history - I didn't see what all the fuss was over when it came to Nirvana. I didn't think 'Teen' was that great and I certainly didn't think he sang well. We started to play Lithium and In Bloom about the time Teen was hitting it's peak - we were ready to move on and play other tracks. I recognize the movement but I didn't think they were extremely talented then and certainly don't know -even then I felt PJ and Soundgarden were better.

Meh.

quote:

---

even then I felt PJ and Soundgarden were better.

---

Of course you did. Because if you were working in radio at the time, you were older. And PJ and Soundgarden sound a whole lot more like the classic rock bands of the 70s and 80s than Nirvana did. Nirvana was the major tonal shift, that PJ wasn't (and I like PJ, but they would've fit comfortably with 1970s arena rock).

Were their other bands in the "movement"? Of course. Were there similar bands that I like more? Sure. I love Mudhoney and Screaming Trees. I think there is an alternate reality in which all of the Cobain adulation is centered on Mark Lanegan, who was every bit the songwriter in a band with some tremendous chops.

but that's not what happened. Nirvana WAS the band the crossed over. Was it luck of the draw? Partly, yeah. But it happened to them, not another band. It happened in Seattle, not Chapel Hill. Yeah, it could've been Archers of Loaf and it kind of was Pavement.... but it didn't happen the way. Nirvana was lucky to be the right band at the right place at the same time. So were the Beatles.

quote:

---

Nirvana was lucky to be the right band at the right place at the same time. So were the Beatles.

---

Partly, but the songwriting for each struck a mass nerve, something other seattle and mersey bands couldn't sustain. Writing a solid middle eight sold the beatles to the public, and that's what kurt was good at too.

Here's a question for those more in tune with the time. Would Mother Love Bone been the "it" band instead of Nirvana had Wood not ODed? They were on track to go mainstream and with the possibility to do what Nirvana did imho.

quote:

---

Would Mother Love Bone been the "it" band instead of Nirvana had Wood not ODed?

---

Almost certainly not. It's possible, but I highly highly doubt it. MLB was much more of a prog band than the punk/metal hybrid of grunge. MLB would've been more of the same and, like Alice in Chains, might've needed a rebranding to not get left off the train leaving the station.

I just don't see them tapping into the zeitgeist like Nirvana or Pearly Jam.