"1. Lacking education or knowledge.
2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
3. Unaware or uninformed."

That post was more for tdoc then you, and also just a general statement of something i've noticed.

Nirvana popularizing a genre is not radical. You can cause Grunge artists to sell millions of endless CD's, but all that really does is give them notoriety, it does nothing to increase their degree of talent or originality.

Okay, for everyone I edited the poll a bit to include (I think?) all of nirvanas hits, at least the ones I could recall then added an other option. Cause the original poll was pretty bad...=/

I vote other & pick Love Buzz <3

Okay, I never said the fact nirvana popularizing grunge made them special, but they still changed mainstream music. Which is something you seem to keep dodging and ignoring, they did revolutionize mainstream music and popularize grunge, its not like you those two things contradict eachother. I never said they revolutionized grunge or anything, your going off about stuff I never said.

As for them being not so talented, Grohl was pretty talented, great drummer & his work with the foo fighters. Novoselic wasn't an awful bassist or anything. Cobain was a slightly below average songwriter, he wasn't horrible and he had his moments. I personally love his unplugged stuff, and so what if his guitaring isn't some complex technical guitar wanking? I learned to play guitar because of stuff like nirvana and the ramones. Simplicity doesn't mean its bad.

Penny Royal Tea ftw.

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.

I don't particularly care for Grohl. Novoselic's bassline in "Come As You Are" doesn't really alure me, although I still have to say I think that was his best instrumental showcase in Nirvana. Kurt Cobain was so constantly and overpoweringly depressive with his vocals and atmosphere it causes them to be be very repetitive. Plus, he was so over-influenced by his idol bands there is no sincerity in his playing- it's just him trying to become his idols. He tries to base his songwriting styles on such artists as Pixies and The Beatles, and it results it lowers the degree of originality for Nirvana very greatly.

Alot of bands are very repetitive and stick to the style they use.

As for the vocals and atmosphere thing, so? That once again doesn't make them a bad band, it takes a certain taste to like it yes, but its kind of stupid to say its bad just based on you disliking that. Say you don't like it yes, to say it sucks completely different.

Plenty of artists in a way try to become their idols, I don't see a problem here and just because a band isn't original, doesn't make them bad.

1. It's not about sticking to their style. Kurt Cobain overdid many things as far as their song structure went.

2. I never said I disliked depressive atmosphere. But you can only make so many songs before it becomes too much.

3. I'm fine with Kurt Cobain relentlessly ranting about them in his logs, annoying as it may be. When he tries to write songs in their form of lyrical style, it sort of makes me get the impression he's a bit dependant, but I'll let it slip. When he goes as far as to hire Steve Albini the producer of Pixies' "Surfer Rosa" for In Utero, in hopes of achieving a closer sound to that said Pixies album, he is trying way too hard.

Those are understandable, but not exactly reasons for nirvana sucking seeing as they're both subjective.

So? I see nothing wrong with wanting to sound like bands you love.