The Official Nirvana/Kurt Cobain Thread (lyrics, single, album, quote)

sleepy jack · 09-10-2006, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Probaly 'cause nirvana revolutionized mainstream music during the 90s..

Did I say music? Nope, all you did was repeat what I said, genus.

Tons of bands havn't brought anything new to a sound, does it make them bad? Not really, just because a band is mind blowingly original doesn't make them bad.

Ace · 09-10-2006, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Probaly 'cause nirvana revolutionized mainstream music during the 90s..

Yeah they did. It wasn't like they were so very very talented, (and alot of idiots seem to think it's only talent that defines a band, and if they aren't the best in the world they're 'overrated'), and there were plenty of underground punk bands associated with Nirvana. But with all the underground bands out on stage every night, Nirvana was the one that broke through when they recorded the Nevermind album. And it's funny how most of the haters used to be obsessed. Or the ones I see anyway. "I LOVE NIRVANA MAYYYNEEEE"......two years later....."the hell with em, everyone else says they lacked talent, so even though I like the music I will take their side on it!"

Me = Nirvana fanatic
anyone who disagrees = Forrest Gump

Untitled_00 · 09-10-2006, 09:11 PM

the death of capitilism: What a very compelling reply. If anything, you're the one who should be shutting the *** up. Get lost, we don't need ignorance like yours here.

Crowquill: They didn't revolutionize anything of the 90's. All they did was take a genre which has existed since the early eighties into public eye. As far as the band itself went, they brought nothing to the sound that hasn't been done before.

tdoc210 · 09-10-2006, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untitled_00

the death of capitilism: What a very compelling reply. If anything, you're the one who should be shutting the *** up. Get lost, we don't need ignorance like yours here.

Crowquill: They didn't revolutionize anything of the 90's. All they did was take a genre which has existed since the early eighties into public eye. As far as the band itself went, they brought nothing to the sound that hasn't been done before.

lmao two words search funtion

im not ignorant seems as though you are though

Untitled_00 · 09-10-2006, 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the death of capitilism

im not ignorant seems as though you are though

Hahaha... really? You don't consider telling someone to shut the **** up, saying a band like Nirvana is revolutionary because we've made so and so said threads about them, then finishing the reply by calling that person a noob ignorant?

~~hiu~~ · 09-10-2006, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untitled_00

Crowquill: They didn't revolutionize anything of the 90's. All they did was take a genre which has existed since the early eighties into public eye. As far as the band itself went, they brought nothing to the sound that hasn't been done before.

In a way I agree partially with this, although, Nirvana did add a strong pop senseability in their songwriting not as easily evident in the likes of The Wipers, The Melvins or Dinosaur Jr and other bands that influenced them.

Untitled_00 · 09-10-2006, 09:29 PM

Ha! What irony you showcase. If you're going to try to sarcastically mock me with the word genius, the least you could do is spell the word right.

But that's besides the point. Yes, bands don't necessarily need to be innovative to be good. But when you call a band revolutionary for causing something which was enevidable for the music industry? Er, no. You'll need much more reason than that.

sleepy jack · 09-10-2006, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untitled_00

Ha! What irony you showcase. If you're going to try to sarcastically mock me with the word genius, the least you could do is spell the word right.

But that's besides the point. Yes, bands don't necessarily need to be innovative to be good. But when you call a band revolutionary for causing something which was enevidable for the music industry? Er, no. You'll need much more reason than that.

Contradiction much? "But when you call a band revolutionary for causing something which was enevidable for the music industry?". Point remains, they did cause it making them revolutionary in that way.

Untitled_00 · 09-10-2006, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

Contradiction much? "But when you call a band revolutionary for causing something which was enevidable for the music industry?". Point remains, they did cause it making them revolutionary in that way.

But that's not revolutionary. It's just being successful.

sleepy jack · 09-10-2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Untitled_00

But that's not revolutionary. It's just being successful.

To revolutionize something, would be to change it in a radical manner. Which nirvana did do for 90s mainstream music.

View Poll Results:
	0	0%
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll

09-10-2006, 09:11 PM	#3 (permalink)
Untitled_00 Groupie Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 14	the death of capitilism: What a very compelling reply. If anything, you're the one who should be shutting the *** up. Get lost, we don't need ignorance like yours here. Crowquill: They didn't revolutionize anything of the 90's. All they did was take a genre which has existed since the early eighties into public eye. As far as the band itself went, they brought nothing to the sound that hasn't been done before.

09-10-2006, 09:29 PM	#7 (permalink)
Untitled_00 Groupie Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 14	Ha! What irony you showcase. If you're going to try to sarcastically mock me with the word genius, the least you could do is spell the word right. But that's besides the point. Yes, bands don't necessarily need to be innovative to be good. But when you call a band revolutionary for causing something which was enevidable for the music industry? Er, no. You'll need much more reason than that.