"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.

If Kurt Cobain wants to be his wish-he-were list of bands, he could have settled as a Tribute artist. But he is not a cover band, he is his own band, and he needed to realize that and treat Nirvana as so.

Steve Albini doesn't get hired he chooses what he wants to produce. This is fact.

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

Okay, for one hes dead so all that shold be in past tense ;D. I see your point, but I disagree with it. Making music is funner then covering it, and if nirvana wants to sound a paticular way then its fine. Tons of other bands sound like other bands.

"Singer/guitarist Kurt Cobain was aware that Nirvana risked alienating its core fanbase of punk and indie rockers with its recent superstardom, and the band chose Steve Albini, a well-respected "recording engineer" (working with the likes of The Pixies, major influences to Nirvana) and member of the bands Rapeman and Big Black, to record the album." - exerpt of Wikipedia entry for "In Utero"

A couple days ago I edited the mario wikipedia to say the highest mario score ever was a trillion bajillion.

Wikipedia = not that great of source for this kind of thing.

Amen to that.

Why does that not surprise me?

And On topic.

Nirvana, not insanely talented yes. But like it or not, extremely well recieved and they did, in a way, revolutionize Grunge as a genre.

Saying a band sucks, means nothing. You may personally dislike them, but to go so far as to brand them is a waste of time.

I'm sure I probably think a lot of the bands you listen to aren't all that great, but respectively, they've all done their part for the Music industry. Be it large, like Nirvana, or small, like False Advertising (Sorry)

Well Steve Albini said himself in an interview that he chooses what bands he produces. It's even in a link somewhere on the wikipedia website.

The way I heard it in an interview, is just that. Nirvana shot him the idea, and he thought it was a good one. I'm not going to quote anything....because.....why the hell does this really matter?
In Utero pwned. Period.

Heh, I can't wait for False Advertising to hit the Singstar series!

I personally think Nirvana were just in the right place at the right time, and luckily for them they had some good attributes. These three things got them off the ground.

Too bad In Utero dragged down by an unnecessary bulk of moans and incoherent vocals, and constant depressive songs, as reflected in songs like Scentless Apprentice and All Apologies. I have nothing against bands who record music consisting of helplessness and dark tones. But this sort of thing was really more suited for bands like Joy Division and The Smiths... frankly, Kurt just couldn't execute songs with as quite much succession in Nevermind. And he still can't in this record, even though there is a sense of a little more effort.

First of all, the songs mentioned there are some of the best. Secondly, if Kurt were alive he would tell you he really could care less what you think it should have been, or who should have done it. The definition of a great band is someone who writes the music they feel like writing. Not writing about whatever the current fad is, or writing a certain way just to appeal to certain people.

EDIT: And with this last statement, I'm out.
As a friend of mine says...."Opinions are like *******s....everybody has one."

Hey, I agree that they rank high in the album too. But with that said, I still by all means hate them.

For a writer who wrote what he "felt like", he'd commonly criticize his songs afterwards. And he seemed to take his status seriously, regardless of what nature the reaction was. Loved by his fanbase as he may have been, many say that very same fanbase contributed in driving him to his suicide.

You should become more educated on a subject, before speaking about it.
As for his death, consult http://cobaincase.com

Haha, what an excellent Website. There are too many stories surrounding his death. I personally think it should be left alone.

I'd agree with that. There is no way of really knowing, but that site atleast shuts up the theory of an absolute suicide. Especially since the damn police even ruled it out without a very thorough investigation.

His ultimate fate of death is besides the point.

they were influential, but after a while they bore me.

Word.

Plus there are many bands with more "incoherent" vocals than Nirvana... Such as Radiohead.

Also Untitled_00, if you're a black metal fan by any chance I'm gonna have to kick your ass.

Those kids are simply posers though, ya know?Posers that only know some of Nirvana's "hits" and that he (Kurt) most likely died before they were even born.

Nirvana has stood the test of time and there songs are still some of the best hardrock songs ever.I'd also like to let the creator of this thread know that not only did Nirvana create many more songs than what is found on his/her list, but they also created many better ones too.I'm not totally sure on my favorite song, but I'll list a few songs that I think were greats from their albums.I'll also bold the one's that have been some of my most favorite or influential songs to jam to as a musician.

Bleach - About A Girl, School, Love Buzz, Negative Creep, Big Cheese.

Nevermind - In Bloom, Breed, Territorial Pissings, Drain You, On A Plain, Endless Nameless.

Incesticide - Dive, Been A Son, Aero Zeppelin, Aneurysm.

In Utero - Serve The Servants, Scentless Apprentice, Frances Farmer Will Have Her Revenge On Seattle, Tourette's.:beer:

There were plenty of great ones on the box set too. Especially the outtakes like Verse Chorus Verse, and Old Age.

I kind of, completely disagree with that. Every person i've met who has been into nirvana was typically into them 11-whenever. They're not exactly some super hard to listen to band.

Nirvana is for 12 year olds who think their life is tough.

Or 15 year olds who will never admit to liking them because of those bastard 12 year olds...

Mmm I got Nevermind and Bleach. I really liked Nevermind but I wouldn't go around saying they're an extraordinary band.

Possibly, but when you see young kids nowadays wearing shirts with Kurt's face on it and telling everyone that they remember the times and have been a fan of Nirvana, and especially Kurt, since the band first started, it's not hard to tell that these young kids are full of it, ya know?I mean, seriously, Kurt died around 10 something years ago, so where would've this 12-16 year old kid have been in life back then?Well, it looks like they would've been just born or about to enter preschool, ya know?

If these young fans really are true fans, then that's great.At the same time, I'd feel more like I'm talking to a real fan if I saw one with a Nirvana tour shirt or Incesticide shirt on instead of the same old Kurt (is sadly gone) shirt, ya see?Believe me more or believe me less, I won't care either way.All I appreciate though, no matter for whatever band/artist, is to see true fans caring about or listening to legends rather than trying to be popular because of their fashion statement...lol.Nice talkin' regardless.:beer:

Well put.

Uh...Do you just make this sh*t up? I've seen seen a twelve year old dumb enough to do that and age = whether or not your a true fan!?