Urban Hat€monger ?

I think it all depends on the context of what you are looking for in them.

If you're going to go by the 'legend of Nirvana' that's been built up over the past 20 years you're going to go away disappointed because I doubt any band could live up to that expectation.

If however all you're looking to see in them is a just a rock band that had a half decent set of songs and who rocked harder and lived faster than most of the mainstream bands around them in 91/94 then you might just enjoy them.

__________________

Ghost Jam

You see, this is why I hate genre labeling. It pigeon-holes artists into a narrow and rarely accurate compartment of convenience, which lends to inaccurate points of views and misguided nonsense, such as that presented by the OP.

Pearl Jam was as different an animal from Nirvana as they were from Gang of Four. Same with Soundgarden and AiC. The only thing these bands had in common was an era and a region. They each had an entirely different sound, attitude and thematic purpose to what they did, some better than others.

Where Pearl Jam really was musically talented, big arena music, Nirvana was stripped down. The former looked to elaborate monumental rock such as Led Zeppelin for inspiration in their music while the latter looked to bands like the Pixies and the Wipers.

To lump them all together into a label such as "grunge" is simply lazy, narrow minded and smacks of willful ignorance.

-Ghost Jam

Euronomus

While I have no intention of joining in on the finger pointing going on here, I can agree with the deeper sentiment. The "cult of Cobain" has definitely colored the way I view the band. As far as Nirvana's music is concerned it's always been kind of middle of the road and whatever to me, I could listen to it all day, but it's not great art. However having all these people shove them down my throat as some sort legendary band everyone should respect and love really puts me off of them more than the band itself.

__________________

Ghost Jam

So...

Dude brings the entire matter up in the first place, there's a response to that, and it's "shoving it down throats".

haha whatever



-Take a Look at What You Ghost Jam

Rjinn

I don't know if you misinterpreted the point of what I said. I didn't say all grunge follows the same cognitive road, but genres will have certain typical characteristics that people make to recognise. Grunge brought depression into attention, which is part of the reason why it emerged. I'm not implying that's a bad thing. It can be quite thoughtful, and a lot of it is pulled off in a metaphoric way.

Look at Alice in Chains, they were heavily dark emotionally. Early Soundgarden were grating, critical and angsty then turned poetic and often somewhat sad. Pearl Jam dug and romanced up tragic situations at first in Alive and Jeremy, which were two of their most successful songs. People can be really impressionable and tred on the surface. Especially influenced by bands that have worldwide success.

Nirvana are just the main example.

__________________
last.fm

Euronomus

I was not referring to anything in this thread with that line,I was referring to the fact that culturally, Nirvana are put up on a pedestal as one of the greatest bands ever, 20 years later and Cobain still ends up on magazine covers. For a band I find to be mediocre it's pretty tiring to have to listen to people act like Cobain was the second coming

Like I said, I found the finger pointing in his post pretty childish, and went out of my way to point that out. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and you're more than welcome to express it, so chill.

__________________

Ghost Jam

Yeahh...just like all those other mediocre bands.

lol

-Ghost Jam

Ghost Jam

Yeah I'm not following.

Rock n Roll by it's very nature is steeped in loss, angst, rebellion, heartache, and tragedy.

Sure, not all of it reflects those themes, but it's music that emerged directly from 3 centuries of slavesong, manifesting into jazz, blues, ragtime and then eventually Rock n Roll.

SO...does that make Robert Johnson, Billie Holiday, the Rolling Stones, Black Flag and Marvin Gaye all "grunge".

And before you say it was the sound, like I said, each band that people like to wedge into the free-of-thought-box of "grunge" had an entirely different sound from one to the other as well.

I think that the only reason people insist on this "grunge" label is because it's easy to do so...it brings less of a challenge to the average brain to consider the music of the era...but again, the only common thread between them is that they all came from the part of the country. I mean that really is it.

So yeah I'm not really getting it. I love Nirvana, not so much Pearl Jam. The reason is they are completely different bands with totally different sounds, themes and direction, like, on every imaginable level.

Putting them in the same category is just stupid.

-Ghost Jam

Rjinn

First of all I'm not one either for listening to music because of the genre. I'm only trying to explain how I think it works.

I just pointed out one characteristic of the entire genre. It doesn't mean they automatically fit into it. Music will be placed in genres they have the most characteristics with. Genres have comparisons, so yes they can relate to one another.

Both Nirvana and Pearl Jam had grainy, harsh vocals and distorted electric guitars, had hints of the same origins that formed grunge musically, are under alternative rock, apathetic or angsty lyrics, contrasting dynamics, and even common stripped down aesthetics. It doesn't mean they had the same ideas.

Part of the reason grunge became accredited is because of the Seattle emerge, sure. But If Pearl Jam came out as a thrash metal band do you really think people would consider them grunge?

__________________
last.fm

Pursuingchange

Ghost Jam, look, please don't tell me that my perspective on music is "misguided". I agree that labelling sucks. I hate it. The only reason I really intended make this thread was to see if there were others out there who share my dislike of Nirvana, and to hopefully express my point of view accurately.

From what I can see, it seems that people admire Nirvana more for what they did rather than love their music because they think its the best music out there. And I can totally agree. I just don't think they have enough musical merit to their name to justify being considered amongst the greatest bands of all time. I guess that's just my opinion.