Nirvana ruined rock music. Who agrees?

TheCunningStunt · 04-25-2010, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by captured

Lol, fair enough I guess,
And I would have to aagree with that.
And I don't know if Kurt just has a weird way of pronouncing words or if my ears are retarded but in Bleach, half the time it seems like he's just saying random **** so it fits into the song.
Either way, sounds good.

If Nirvana aren't your thing, fine.
If 80s hair metal isn't your thing, fine.

To say either are shit is ridiculous, hair metal had its place and was relevant around its time. Just like Nirvana, but I believe Nirvana has stood the test of time a whole lot better than hair metal.

Don't get me wrong, I like a bit of AC/DC now and again. but "She was a fast machine, she kept her motor clean, she was the best damn woman that I'd ever seen." I'd much rather listen to interesting lyrics about self pity/drugs/apathy/surrealism coming out my speakers.

captured · 04-25-2010, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

If Nirvana aren't your thing, fine.
If 80s hair metal isn't your thing, fine.

To say either are shit is ridiculous, hair metal had its place and was relevant around its time. Just like Nirvana, but I believe Nirvana has stood the test of time a whole lot better than hair metal.

Don't get me wrong, I like a bit of AC/DC now and again. but "She was a fast machine, she kept her motor clean, she was the best damn woman that I'd ever seen." I'd much rather listen to interesting lyrics about self pity/drugs/apathy/surrealism coming out my speakers.

Ahahaha, well I don't really pay attention to lyrics myself but then again I'll get really into a song just because of its lyrics.

And I've never really liked ACDC. I've no idea why. But he still had talent and all that. I won't deny :P

boo boo · 04-25-2010, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper2

Rock music in the 80's was awesome! There were great bands with awesome talent like AC/DC, Van Halen, Def Leppard, etc. The music was fun and full of energy! Bands actually knew how to play their instruments well.

Then along one day came Nirvana and a new revolution of no-talent boring depressing whiny music started. These "grunge" bands barely even knew how to play their instruments, but somehow got popular. I remember the first time I saw one of Nirvana's videos (whichever that first popular one was), I thought to myself "Is this a joke?" "How did these kids with no-talent actually get a music video?" "This just sounds horrible!". But little did I know that was the beginning of the destruction of rock music.

Opinions?

This is pants on heads retarded.

People either champion or detest Nirvana for "killing" hair metal which is something they don't deserve all the credit for in the first place.

Though if you tried to think rationally and remember what kind of bands were big before Nirvana hit the scene you'd know that hair metal at that point was a terrible parody of itself and it was bound to die out anyway. Nirvana gave it a quick and painless death, you should be thankful. And besides, Nirvana were just in the right place at the right time, if it wasn't them, it would have been REM or Pearl Jam.

And in all seriousness, genres don't die, hair metal is still around and these idiots still parade themselves on celebrity reality shows and their songs are still flooding classic rock radio and they still perform for overweight, middle age failures at life who can't appreciate anything made after 1991.

To say any one band "ruined" rock music because they started a new musical movement is incredibly stupid, you could apply that logic to any new musical movement, you could say hair metal killed new wave which killed punk which killed prog which killed psychedelia which killed surf music which killed rock n roll which killed crooning and so on.

There is no "should" or "should not" in rock music, things just happen, music is in a constant state of evolution and only someone who can't look beyond the past would want to keep it in an eternal state of infancy.

I hate people who crap on Nirvana for not being "rock n roll" as they're usually the same people who crap on progressive rock for not being "rock n roll" as if rock n roll is the only kind of music that has a right to exist. It's arrogant as all hell.

Not all rock music has to be about bum sex or having a good time. Though if you don't think bands do that kind of music today you need to get out more. NO ONE has taken post grunge seriously in like a decade, why are you bitching about it now?

Songwriters have the right to write about whatever they feel, if that's not what interests you then fine, but don't bitch about how it's killing "fun time music" when the radio is chop full of music with the pretense of being "fun".

John Lennon wrote songs about depression and self pity, does that make him a hack? No. Nor was Cobain a hack. He may not have been Yngwie Malmsteen on the guitar, but his music meant something to a lot of people and it went a little deeper than just having good music to f*ck to.

captured · 04-25-2010, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

This is pants on heads retarded.

People either champion or detest Nirvana for "killing" hair metal which is something they don't deserve all the credit for in the first place.

Though if you tried to think rationally and remember what kind of bands were big before Nirvana hit the scene you'd know that hair metal at that point was a terrible parody of itself and it was bound to die out anyway. Nirvana gave it a quick and painless death, you should be thankful. And besides, Nirvana were just in the right place at the right time, if it wasn't them, it would have been REM or Pearl Jam.

And in all seriousness, genres don't die, hair metal is still around and these idiots still parade themselves on celebrity reality shows and their songs are still flooding classic rock radio.

To say any one band "ruined" rock music because they started a new musical movement is incredibly stupid, you could apply that logic to any new musical movement, you could say hair metal killed new wave which killed punk which killed prog which killed psychedelia which killed surf music which killed rock n roll which killed crooning and so on.

There is no "should" or "should not" in rock music, things just happen, music is in a constant state of evolution and only someone who can't look beyond the past would want to keep it in an eternal state of infancy.

I hate people who crap on Nirvana for not being "rock n roll" as they're usually the same people who crap on progressive rock for not being "rock n roll" as if rock n roll is the only kind of music that has a right to exist. It's arrogant as all hell.

Not all rock music has to be about bum sex or having a good time. Though if you don't think bands do that kind of music today you need to get out more. NO ONE has taken post grunge seriously in like a decade, why are you bitching about it now?

Songwriters have the right to write about whatever they feel, if that's not what interests you then fine, but don't bitch about how it's killing "fun time music" when the radio is chop full of music with the pretense of being "fun".

John Lennon wrote songs about depression and self pity, does that make him a hack? No. Nor was Cobain a hack. He may not have been Yngwie Malmsteen on the guitar, but his music meant something to a lot of people and it went a little deeper than just having good music to f*ck to.

Yay, someone who gives a detailed explanation that makes sense. Couldn't have said it better myself/

boo boo · 04-25-2010, 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Viper2

Nirvana and all the other grunge bands were nothing but a bunch of kids who barely knew how to play their instruments. They sounded like very amateurish garage bands.

On the other hand, bands like AC/DC, Van Halen, and Def Leppard were absolute experts at their instruments. Plus they were older and had much more musical experience. They were true serious musicians, not just a bunch of garage band kids like the grunge bands.

There is just no comparison. I think the only reason Nirvana and other grunge bands became popular is because teenage kids liked the depressing whiny no-talent music. It was just a stupid fad that kids liked back then, but unfortunately that stupid fad ended up ruining rock music.

Is this a joke?

I love AC/DC, but calling them absolute experts at their instruments? Are you kidding me?

None of those bands are virtuosos, except for Eddie Van Halen.

For one, Dave Grohl is a a damn good drummer, way better than Phil Rudd and Rick Allen, I'll give you Alex Van Halen. But do you know who Grohl is playing with right now? John Paul Jones. That's not a position just any random talentless hack would find himself in 20 years from now.

Novoselic is a bassist of average abillity, but so is Cliff Williams, Michael Anthony and whoever the hell Def Leppard's bassist is. I personally prefer Novoselic just because he had some pretty great basslines.

Cobain did what he did, he didn't do fancy guitar solos but neither did Malcolm Young, he made some killer riffs and if you're such an AC/DC fan you'd know that's all that you really need. As far as his singing abillity is concerned, once again, David Lee Roth and Brian Johnson aren't exactly American Idol material.

If you were comparing Nirvana to Rush I'd understand but in regards to the bands you're comparing them to, there's really not that much of a skill gap.

And writing off all grunge bands as talentless is ridiculous. Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, The Melvins and Alice in Chains are all very talented bands and as musical ensembles I'd rate them higher than the bands you mentioned, in terms of technical abillity.

TheCunningStunt · 04-25-2010, 04:21 AM

^

I was gonna mention that, about other terrible grunge bands.
Jerry Cantrell isn't a talented rock guitarist? Don't think so.

boo boo · 04-25-2010, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

^

I was gonna mention that, about other terrible grunge bands.
Jerry Cantrell isn't a talented rock guitarist? Don't think so.

There's not really a weak link as far as any of those bands are concerned.

Grunge was much more of a sincere musical movement than the hair metal thing, it may have turned into a media phenomenon but it started out as a humble movement of bands just playing the kinda music they loved. And a lot of them had their own styles.

Unlike hair metal where virtually every band sounded identical and where anyone with a lot of hairspray had at least one chart topping anthem and one chart topping power ballad in them. All they ever wanted was celebrity so it's no surprise that even 20 years later so many of them continue to desperately try to find any remnants of fame they can from the clogged drain of pop culture that is VH1.

TheCunningStunt · 04-25-2010, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

There's not really a weak link as far as any of those bands are concerned.

Grunge was much more of a sincere musical movement than the hair metal thing, it may have turned into a media phenomenon but it started out as a humble movement of bands just playing the kinda music they loved. And a lot of them had their own styles.

Unlike hair metal where virtually every band sounded identical and where anyone with a lot of hairspray had at least one chart topping anthem and one chart topping power ballad in them.

Yep, grunge bands singing about sincere things, even if it's them wallowing in self pity, you can tell it's sincere thinking, where as hair metal bands were just singing (for the most part) about having a fun time and sexual conquests. I think hair metal had its time and isn't as bad as some makes out.. but to say it was much better than the Grunge movement is a bit ridiculous. Well pointed out, you explained it in your first post better than I could

I was a bit surprised someone would actually come out and claim hair metal bands were superior musicians..

boo boo · 04-25-2010, 04:52 AM

I have nothing against good fun rock n roll. I love Zeppelin, Cooper, AC/DC, Van Halen, GnR, New York Dolls and all that stuff.

But most hair metal just straight up sucked and just because it was "all about having fun" isn't much of an excuse for me.

And for the record, I can't stand Def Leppard. <_<

TheCunningStunt · 04-25-2010, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I have nothing against good fun rock n roll. I love Zeppelin, Cooper, AC/DC, Van Halen, GnR, New York Dolls and all that stuff.

But hair metal just straight up sucked and just because it was "all about having fun" isn't much of an excuse for me.

And for the record, I don't like Def Leppard. <_<

Yeah, comparing bands like Van Halen to Poison is a bit silly, Van Halen blew them out the water.

04-25-2010, 04:21 AM	#26 (permalink)
TheCunningStunt love will tear you apart Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Manchester, UK. Posts: 5,107	^ I was gonna mention that, about other terrible grunge bands. Jerry Cantrell isn't a talented rock guitarist? Don't think so. __________________ I don't feel and I feel great. Last FM