Quote:
Originally Posted by Vertigo
This may be, no is a rather shallow viewpoint but there is only one aspect of a band or artiste that is ultimately (to me) the most important;
Do I enjoy their music?
Maybe it's a combination of my age increasing and my patience decreasing that I find myself caring more and more about this and less and less of what are, maybe, the more important aspects like how they helped music evolve or the bands they influenced.
For now, I'll take the songs. Just the songs.
Nirvana were....ok, not great, just ok. I much preferred Nevermind To In Utero and I still consider Come As You Are to be their finest moment. And the unplugged gig that they did for MTV was class.
Just my two penneth.
|
...and man, I have NO quarrel with that. None whatsoever.
There's a big difference between what we absorb and appreciate subjectively as opposed to an objective point of view regarding, well, just about anything.
Some people just don't get Picasso.
It's fine that they don't. And far be it from me to disparage that subjective outlook on the man's art.
But to try and roll along and say, "it's just hype, Picasso actually sucked, he wasn't **** compared to what my niece paints in kindergarten" is just revealing your lack of knowledge regarding art, it peeps you for being a novice and likely someone very young that hasn't spent any time understanding the kinds of things that make art great.
So it is with those that try and write off Nirvana. These are individuals that have more of an interest in desperately trying to be "different" than they have in trying to understand just why 2+ decades of universal acclaim falls upon this band.
It's childish and sophomoric.
If you don't like the sound, that's fine. But don't disrespect something that was significant and was significant for MANY reasons just because
you're lazy, trying to be "cool", and don't want to take the time to learn what it really was about the whole thing that made it the way it is.
-Ghost Jam