Quote:
Originally Posted by Pursuingchange
I like positive, more energtiec music more than music that is overly-personal and depressing, which is one reason I can't stomach most of Nirvana's stuff. They may have been "relevent" at the time, but the way I look at it is this:
|
You must absolutely despise Alice in Chains then.
Quote:
|
What I get tired of is people acting like Nirvana's message and impact should mean so damn much to me and that everyone should hold their impact so sacred when the whole tenant of their impact and message means nothing in my life at all. I wasn't around when all that was going on, so why do people think I should consider them to be such a hallmark of my life? People always look at me like I need to be locked up when I say I don't like them.
|
I doubt anybody gives a flying fig whether you like Nirvana or not.
Quote:
|
The only thing I can do is view them from hind-sight. And from hind-sight, there are many other bands whose impact I can see and feel way more vividly and passionately than Nirvana's. Bands such as The Beatles, Queen, and Zeppelin come to mind. This tells me that the impacts these bands made must have had way more of an enduring meaning and importance to them. I feel like these bands were actually talented and there were more things about them to admire. I don't see this with Nirvana. All I see with them is a lot of talk and hype about them being so great, and nothing much to show for it. That's why I feel that Nirvana's impact was very bound to its time and place.
|
Nirvana had just the same impact as the bands you've mentioned above, so stop trying to justify them as being a lesser band than the others. If you don't like Nirvana that's fine, but no need to work on a cock and bull story to impress people with.
Quote:
|
So basically, when I look back upon the history of music, I can only see the small tidbits that these bands/artists left behind. Today, I still feel the impact of Queen and Zeppelin and even to this day their music seems so relevant and important to me. Nirvana, however, has never made a lasting impression on me, and I don't see their impact as very enduring, and I didn't live during the time of Queen or The Beatles any more than I did during Nirvana's time. So this tells me that Nirvana's impact just wasn't as intrepid and lasting as the greats I mentioned. This is why I don't boast them to the status everyone else does.
|
If Queen's music still feels relevant to you, then you have my deepest sympathies.
Quote:
|
I believe that for any one band to be regarded so highly with such "legendary" status as Nirvana is, there needs to be a little something more to them besides just an angsty persona and a message of indifference. The music needs to be truly great. And if the traits I just mentioned are the grounds of Nirvana's fame, then they should have just started a counter-cultural movement and left music alone because it has nothing to do with making quality music.
|
This is gibberish!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Well you should ask if it's Nirvana first or second album before you jump to conclusions.
|
You know me, I jump to all types of conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon
I'm guessing he and Unknown Soldier are just joking about how so many people made a big deal about Stone Temple Pilots being included in the "90s Seattle-Era Band" thread.
|
STP were too well dressed to be part of that scruffy Seattle scene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ki
I absolutely love Bleach.
|
Another poseur.