Nirvana - Over rated?

[Frosty Jack]

He didn't put a foot wrong while he was in Nirvana. He played his parts well, with the minimum of fuss, and let the songs work their magic. I remember him running Flea and Mike Inez close in best bassist polls at the time. The last thing they needed was a show off, because ultimately what made the band work was their chemistry and the strength of their material.

YouTube - Nirvana - Sensational Bass Toss

[Domino]

YouTube - Nirvana - Sensational Bass Toss

Don't people practice throwing guitars and flipping 'em before stage?

[lepeep]

I never could stand that whining depressive rubbish and the kids who listened to it.

oh, the irony...

you should write a song about that.

[Kharn]

Nirvana were a good band. but i think they are overrated. for every good song they have a bad song...which means half there songs are crap.

a bit like neil young.

[ZeromiserY]

YouTube - Nirvana - Sensational Bass Toss

thats good stuff. it should be on an "it'll be alright on the night: rock special"

[KimyReizeger]

My view of Nirvana, is that the quality of the sound they produced, can in no way come close to the great esteem it is generally held in. I can't really see how anyone can argue against that, considering the mass of other, non-musical things that gave rise to Nirvana's popularity and seem to affect peoples' perception of 'the music', which is all we here care about....right?

[WeirdAl]

I think it's fantastic that the internet has no quality control, let people decide for themselves if they like something rather than being told what to like by massive corporations and their aggressive marketing campaigns. I think this concept scares some consumers more than they are willing to admit.

Producers definately are a commodity which will always matter and become increasingly important, which is why I've chosen this route as a way to possibly make some actual money while at the same being able to put my own material out.

People ought to realise that we have infact gone back to the drawing board and this has been happening for nearly a decade, you have to look at what's been going on before murdochs myspace and itunes. Independantly run shoutcast stations running regular live shows have been around for years and are a total joy, this is the platform for independant artists to get involved in a scene and get people switched on to their music.

We have the chance now to redefine the terms and it's just unfortunate that so many people don't realise it, because they are too busy strolling around with those ubiquitous white headphones in their ears in the typical passive consumerist manner.

I am in complete agreement with Stripey on this. There are so many great bands out there that get completely ignored by everyone simply because the reviewers at (for example) NME haven't been paid by the industry to rave about them. The marketing people behind it all are ruthlessly clever I'll give them that, but there comes a point when you have to say "that's enough" and hopefully one day people will listen. In the mean time cd collections will continue to expand with cd's that will be listened to for a week or 2 and then never again. And when it comes to quality control, the internet might not have any but you've got a far better chance of finding good quality music on the net. The reason is simply because of something else that the internet doesn't have; creative control.

As for the original topic, I've heard way more people say that they think Nirvana are over-rated than I've heard say that they were the best band of all time. It would seem to me then that the only reason they are over-rated is because everyone thinks they are? o_O

[Jimboo]

My view of Nirvana, is that the quality of the sound they produced, can in no way come close to the great esteem it is generally held in. I can't really see how anyone can argue against that, considering the mass of other, non-musical things that gave rise to Nirvana's popularity and seem to affect peoples' perception of 'the music', which is all we here care about....right?

"the mass of other, non-musical things that gave rise to Nirvana's popularity " You mean following their musical popularity it gave rise to all sort of non-musical reasons as to the perceeption of the band. Death , Suicide = Rock & Roll martyrdom. An untarnished image. A legacy is left and that turns into the myth.

Then you have to play the records. Ok, verse chorus verse , screaming guitars , rawk vocals and a pretty boy singer. Nothing that new. To be fair before Nirvana the guitar was in danger of being so last year. They are not that bad. Cobain himself was not all that happy the way things got out of control. I would have liked to have seen where he was going next. Nirvana (i believe) were going to split and had Cobain managed to sort himself out who knows.

He couldn't have done anything as bad as the Foo Fighters surely?

[Guest Steven Dedalus]

"

He couldn't have done anything as bad as the Foo Fighters surely?

Few people could...

[KimyReizeger]

As for the original topic, I've heard way more people say that they think Nirvana are over-rated than I've heard say that they were the best band of all time. It would seem to me then that the only reason they are over-rated is because everyone thinks they are? o_O

I actually think it's an impossible question, one that can never be answered through 100 or so 'they got me into music' type opinions. The concept of 'rated' is absurd as everyone perceives everything differently - there is no collective view point. No-one has a pure sense of music, all are in differeing degrees influenced by image and the tendency to 'use' music - to consolidate personality traits, to be accepted, to dance etc.

So, as I said, in musical terms there is no doubt that they are over-rated, an 'over-rated-ness' that has developed, I feel, due to an over-inflated, irrelevant aspect of the band - image. Initially, the mind associates 'bands' with 'music', not image, so the fans of the image (in their millions) perceive themselves as fans of the music when in fact their subconscious is going through an identity crisis and couldn't give a toss about texture, technique, rhythm.....

And Jimboo: Whatever way round, image pollutes any sense of true value, and because it's an image fostered, cultivated and massively publicised to make as much money as possible (at a time when America was on the tail end of a cocaine crisis and heroin-chic was all the rave) you simply can't believe whatcha read in the Goddamn papers!

[Guest Steven Dedalus]

Initially, the mind associates 'bands' with 'music', not image,

That is a tremendously naive opinion. The two go hand in hand, and in the checkered history of pop music, it has always been so.

[KimyReizeger]

That is a tremendously naive opinion. The two go hand in hand, and in the checkered history of pop music, it has always been so.

the fact that music and image are inter-twined was precisely what I was referring to, merely (once again) making the point that image and all associated bollocks is no criteria on which to judge music, and the fact that pop is littered with this nonsense is testament to the impossibility of obtaining an objective, non-biased view-point and answering the initial question! Someone said this is a good topic for a thread. It's not; it's crap, its only use is to highlight our own inability to think without the chains of conventional bullshit wisdom.

[Kharn]

getting back to the question at hand...when you consider the fact that kurt cobain still gets into the top ten guitarists (OF ALL TIME!!!), over-rated does come to mind...there's 12 year olds playing better in guitar shops...and im not taking the piss.

Some of the songs on bleach and one or two other ones are about as much as i'll listen to, i think it might be his voice...i'm really not sure.

[scottyboy]

why you would you pay any attention to that rolling stone list or whatever it is?

cobain is one of the few technically limited rock players whose playing i really like (i.e. for its own sake rather the song writing).

[Guest Steven Dedalus]

the fact that music and image are inter-twined was precisely what I was referring to, merely (once again) making the point that image and all associated bollocks is no criteria on which to judge music,

Sorry, I can't let that one slide. Surely part of the fun of pop music is the fact that it is so rooted in image? I'm not a little child anymore (or am I?), but even now, I'm big enough to adit that image is still something that floats my boat.

Even on the simplest level, it is iimportant: Bowie as Ziggy, Robert Smith's hair, Dylan's sunglasses, the Velvets dressed in black, the Ramones' leather jackets, Debbie Harry's lipstick, Siouxsie's eyes, etc etc.

I take on board that you are primarily referring to when the image becomes more important than the music, but to say that image is no way to assess pop music, is to fundamentally ignore one of the most interesting parts of it. It is a varied medium which works on diferent levels, and it's best when you get to enjoy them all.

Someone said this is a good topic for a thread. It's not; it's crap, its only use is to highlight our own inability to think without the chains of conventional bullshit wisdom.

Well, it's got loads of people talking, some really good points have been raised, people have gone back to check out a band many of us love (and many of us don't love), music seems that little bit more personal, etc etc.

I think it's quite a good idea for a thread, to be honest. Yes, we'll never have the 'answer', but that's hardly the point, is it?

[Guest DustyDeviada]

Well, I would say I'm a "casual" Nirvana fan, but as someone who was aged 14 when Nevermind came out I can appreciate the impact it had on the music industry as a whole.

I've still got the 1992 MTV Video Music Awards on tape somewhere, it has Nirvana giving an ace performance of Lithium, but it also has Def Leppard on it. Nirvana really managed to sweep away a lot of dross like that, so in that respect they were an important band. But I do find it quite amusing seeing kids going about with Nirvana t-shirts on, I guess they are just one of these bands that will always be "cool", like Pink Floyd.

I can still remember exactly where I was when i found out Cobain was dead, round at Phil Wood's house in Bieldside, he had MTV, which not very many people did back then, and it was on the MTV news.

Where were you?

[britheguy]

I don't think they were overated. I think they had some classic tunes. It also makes me wonder why someone would ask if they are overated. Is it because their songs were not superduper technical etc?

I know of a few guys who now play guitar because they managed to pick up the chords to Teen Spirit - an all time classic by the way - really quickly. So that can't be a bad thing....can it?

Also by the shear fact that this thread has reached several pages already, should sow they were not overated.

[Lemonade]

Well, I would say I'm a "casual" Nirvana fan, but as someone who was aged 14 when Nevermind came out I can appreciate the impact it had on the music industry as a whole.

I've still got the 1992 MTV Video Music Awards on tape somewhere, it has Nirvana giving an ace performance of Lithium, but it also has Def Leppard on it. Nirvana really managed to sweep away a lot of dross like that, so in that respect they were an important band. But I do find it quite amusing seeing kids going about with Nirvana t-shirts on, I guess they are just one of these bands that will always be "cool", like Pink Floyd.

I can still remember exactly where I was when i found out Cobain was dead, round at Phil Wood's house in Bieldside, he had MTV, which not very many people did back then, and it was on the MTV news.

Where were you?

I was 14 and in my kitchen in Fraserburgh having breakfast. It was on the front page of the Press and Journal! There must not have been much local news that day.

[Diesel]

but it also has Def Leppard on it. Nirvana really managed to sweep away a lot of dross like that

Def Leppard? Dross?

How dare you......

......compliment them in that manner.

Those suckers are the suckiest bunch of suckers who ever sucked.

Dross would be promotion for those cunts.

I fucking HATE that big poofy cunt Elliot's forced American style vocals.

Nirvana, yes, yes, important band and all that - yadda, yadda, yadda

[Guest DustyDeviada]

I was 14 and in my kitchen in Fraserburgh having breakfast. It was on the front page of the Press and Journal! There must not have been much local news that day.

It's only because he was from Aberdeen.

[Diesel]

I can still remember exactly where I was when i found out Cobain was dead, round at Phil Wood's house in Bieldside, he had MTV, which not very many people did back then, and it was on the MTV news.

Where were you?

I was in Cobain's loft at the time discussing guns, I can clearly remember saying "Fuck sake Kurt, what did you buy this pile of shite for, did you not know that there's a problem with the trig............Kurt?, Kurt?...erm...a little help here please"

[KimyReizeger]

I don't think they were overated. I think they had some classic tunes. It also makes me wonder why someone would ask if they are overated. Is it because their songs were not superduper technical etc?

.

They are over-rated because the practice of elevating people to super-human status on the basis of music is stupid and representative of our society's tendency to find meaning by clinging onto celebrities, sob-stories and the kind of rags-to-riches fame everyone believes they can emulate.

[Guest DustyDeviada]

They are over-rated because the practice of elevating people to super-human status on the basis of music is stupid and representative of our society's tendency to find meaning by clinging onto celebrities, sob-stories and the kind of rags-to-riches fame everyone believes they can emulate.

So I guess you're not a fan of X-Factor either then?

[koolsville]

what do you think. were nirvana over rated? would they have been as popular had cobain not shot himself? (not a conspiracy discussion....he did it himself for the purposes of this topic)

My answer would have to be yes, but not as over rated as 100 other groups throughout rock/pop history, for example The Beatles - the most over rated of them all.

[Lemonade]

You want to talk overrated lets mention Led Zeppelin. Absolute garbage.