The Official Nirvana/Kurt Cobain Thread (lyrics, rock, genre, albums)

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by oojay

after reading this, my immediate thought was "this is the dumbest question ever." but after putting some thought into it, i think that they may have actually not killed, but definitley fatally wounded the world of rock as it was known at that time. the main rock bands during nirvana's early years were mostly hair and metal bands. so nirvana bursting onto the scene with a new sound, that basically knocked the world of rock and roll on its ass, may have forever changed the direction of the genre.

Well, "Rock N Roll" for the most part sucks ass anyway.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Well, "Rock N Roll" for the most part sucks ass anyway.

i guess that depends on which bands you consider to be "rock and roll"

[swim]

Originally Posted by oojay

after reading this, my immediate thought was "this is the dumbest question ever." but after putting some thought into it, i think that they may have actually not killed, but definitley fatally wounded the world of rock as it was known at that time. the main rock bands during nirvana's early years were mostly hair and metal bands. so nirvana bursting onto the scene with a new sound, that basically knocked the world of rock and roll on its ass, may have forever changed the direction of the genre.

So they didn't kill it all they gave it change and freshness in a different direction. I mean that's how I look at it. If change is bad for a genre than anyone who's original is bad for music.

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

They changed it for a couple of years.

I`ve never been convinced of this breaking the underground stuff though.

If they did perhaps someone would be able to make a list of all the independently released albums that have made it to the U.S. top 10 over the past 15 years.

[[MERIT]]

Originally Posted by swimintheundertow

So they didn't kill it all they gave it change and freshness in a different direction. I mean that's how I look at it. If change is bad for a genre than anyone who's original is bad for music.

exactly what i was getting at.

[Merkaba]

Originally Posted by boo boo

And for the record, Pink Floyd would never cover The Foo Fighters.

In fact, Pink Floyd rarely do covers at all.

You didn't read the line after that comment did you lol.

And while it's easy and cool to have your own opinion and preference it's even easier to nail a person to the wall for poor reasoning.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by cardboard adolescent

Run of the mill wanna-be punk? I'd say that would be your bias getting in the way of making some sort of informed judgement. If anything, they were "wanna-be" Melvins on Bleach, "wanna-be" Pixies on Nevermind, and I'm not sure what they were going for on In Utero but it ended up sounding like a Steve Albini record.

They didn't kill music, they brought the alternative scene that had been building since the early 80's into the mainstream, where it was subsequently bastardized, and made underground music spiral away from its guitar-oriented post-punk tendencies and towards... prog.

Prog was forgotton for the most part during the late 70s and all of the 80s, it hasn't really seen much of a rivival until the mid-late 90s and recently this decade, but I don't see how the hell Nirvana are involved with that in any way.

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Merkaba

You didn't read the line after that comment did you lol.

And while it's easy and cool to have your own opinion and preference it's even easier to nail a person to the wall for poor reasoning.

But it wasn't much of a point, The Melvins and Nirvana were two bands that had a good deal of mutual respect for another, while I highly doubt Pink Floyd would ever want to associate themselves with someone like The Foo Fighters, it's not the best comparison you could have made.

[cardboard adolescent]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Prog was forgotton for the most part during the late 70s and all of the 80s, it hasn't really seen much of a rivival until the mid-late 90s and recently this decade, but I don't see how the hell Nirvana are involved with that in any way.

Just like punk in the 70's was a reaction against the pretentious overblown prog/metal that was flooding the music scene, so too (in my opinion) is the rise of post-rock a reaction against Nirvana's introduction of simple, punk-influenced rock back into the mainstream, overwhelming the overblown hair-metal and metal that was there.

Or something to that extent.

[Merkaba]

Originally Posted by boo boo

But it wasn't much of a point, The Melvins and Nirvana were two bands that had a good deal of mutual respect for another, while I highly doubt Pink Floyd would ever want to associate themselves with someone like The Foo Fighters, it's not the best comparison you could have made.

Yeah it was pretty outside wing wasn't it. The general message was a perfect point though.