I mean that's clearly the thing, man. Hate for the sake of hate. It makes some people feel good to simply have a buncha hate for things that everyone else likes, because it makes them feel unique and different.

That works sometimes.

In the case of Nirvana, it's just stupid. It's like that other poster pointed out with the Beatles. You can simply switch the band names out and have the exact same threads of retarded hate.

On the subjective level, many of the posters in this thread are 100% correct. Nirvana isn't everyone's thing. I totally get that. There's nothing wrong with that.

But when you take YOUR subjectivity and attempt to apply it to something that has 20+ years of educated consensus of favor and use that subjectivity to try and tear it down, well...you're every bit the idiot you think you're exposing EVERYONE ELSE to be.

So that's that.

LIKE IT OR NOT, Nirvana WAS IN FACT one of the greatest bands of all time.

I'd put them in the top 5. Easy.

Eat it, Nirvana haters. Just ****ing EAT IT. :laughing:

lol

-Teenaged Angst has Paid Off Well, but Now I'm Bored and Ghost Jam

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

Teenage angst has paid off well
Now I'm bored and old
Self-appointed judges judge
More than they have sold

-If She Floats then She is Not a Ghost Jam

That's cool, and I don't wanna seem like I'm coming down on you for being passionate. I love passion for music. I myself have gone on several fanboy rants about Manowar and Hammerfall in recent memory on this site. But I don't truck with this hair band hate. ;) They may be ****ty bands and their lyrics may be dumb, but many of them are more fun than shooting a barrel full of monkeys. And I will go to the mat any day of the week over Motley Crue's first two albums.

Dude you know what I am talking about. You keep saying that Nirvana is the top 5 rock bands. That is your opinion not fact. Not everyone is going to agree with that statement. You are too busy being an ******* instead of seeing that you are stating YOUR OPINION. That is fine but not everyone agrees with your view.

- Franco Pepe Kalle

There are some bands that become legendary simply by being in the right place at the right time. Nirvana is one of them. They were a good band but they have also become incredibly overrated over the years. Groups that preceded them, like Pixies or Husker Du or The Melvins, are easily their equals, if not their superiors, but Nirvana makes the "best of" lists largely by virtue of releasing the right album at the perfect moment when everything aligned for their music to click with massive numbers of people. It could just have easily been some other band in their place.

Exactly, if Nevermind had been released 5 years earlier or 7-10 years later no one would have given a ****.

Nirvana was important to my generation, having graduated high school in 94. I enjoyed their music then and still enjoy it now.

I never worshiped them or Kurt Cobain.

I don't care who likes them or who doesn't.

They're just a milestone in the history of music like many other bands.

Of course you're not the only one not to like Nirvana.

Timing has to do with a lot of bands or artists mystique and fame. Some just get lucky in that aspect of it. I like some of Nirvana's music but I'm not a die hard fan boy or anything of it. I do think they deserve credit for introducing to a lot of people a different sound and style. Its easy in hindsight to say anybody could have done it and been just as good, and maybe thats true. Fact is it was Nirvana that did it first with any success on the mainstream market and shed light to so many that something new was taking place in the music world.