Flyingpig437

I used to hate Pink Floyd even though I didn't know any of their songs, maybe apart from ABITW2. It was in the mid 80's and I was into The Sex Pistols so just decided Pink Floyd must be ****. I even defenestrated some guy's copy of Animals. Then a few yrs. later a guy came into the place I worked and put Dark Side on and it was so ****in' good. I just can't put into words how instantly it struck me how good it was or why it seemed so good.

__________________
Proper music for proper people!!!

spacetruckers99

i used to dislike GnR's music till i started playing music myself and learnt how to appericate Slash's choice of feel over speed.

sleepy jack

Yeah basically. Nirvana totally did do something unique with their influences and in no way was one of the most derivative bands ever.

__________________

Insane Guest

lastFM does wonders in introducing me to new bands, and I try to get as many from this site.
Bands I've discovered through the good people at MB-

The Velvet Underground, Poison Idea (Thanks UHM), The Stone Roses,
10 Ft. Ganja Plant (Thanks to Jackhammer), The Smiths, Electric Wizard...
I want more though, so read my sig...

someonecompletelyrandom

Is being derivative a bad thing? Come As You Are is a better song than the Killing Joke one and the only thing that's derived from that song is the guitar riff. And the only reason any one cares is because they're both singles. This sort of thing isn't at all uncommon and I'd attribute it to coincidence or accident. Besides that, as per what I posted, would you honestly say the Killing Joke song is aesthetically similar to Come as You Are at all?

I don't worship Nirvana or anything but if we're going to talk mainstream acts anyway then I don't see why anyone should get their panties in a bundle if I say they were better than their mainstream influences (Wipers and Melvins aside).

sleepy jack

Being derivative is a bad thing. Evolution is important to music otherwise all you get is the same thing over and over. There is no way Nirvana is better than David Bowie or Black Sabbath, or even on the same level at all. I don't know how you could be a music fan and think that.

__________________

someonecompletelyrandom

Please don't pull that card. I'm fairly certain I'm a music fan. What I'm getting at is that something can be better then it's influence. Whether or not that's the case with Nirvana is obviously up to you. Now I wont hide behind the "its my opinion" wall, but in my original post I was speaking purely from a personal perspective.

But about being derivative, before we get caught up in terms of what words mean what - I'll go ahead and assume we're talking about very different concepts here. Your use if the term implies that something is essentially a copycat or stale material that's been done all before. I'm thinking more of a combining of different influences and or an improvement or expansion of a previous concept. Now obviously I agree with what you said about musical evolution, so no need to further that point.

Now when it comes to the actual band in question, That debate has been had so
Many times on this website that I'd hate to pain future Internet archeologists with yet another nirvana discussion. I can respect your point fair enough but I personally don't agree with it and I'm happy to leave it at that if you are.

nirvana89

never cared for radiohead until i heard some of the stuff from the 90's.