Did Nirvana kill mainstream rock? - Page 2

evil nickname · 18 Jul 2004, 04:26

I don't agree with most of what the pro-Nirvana camp are saying over Guns N Roses. Saying that they're "mediocre" and that is "all noise and no heart" I don't get is, in my point of view, ridiculous.

I guess I could say the same as wat was said to me: "If you can't see what all the fuss is about then you're very stuck in your ways."

RSG · 18 Jul 2004, 04:36

I just took down an old CD off the shelf. Guns N Roses, the one with November Rain, i sat down to listen to November Rain, and really, GnR is more of a great band and not a "not bad" band. As I said earlier. But my opinion still slides with Nirvana. Is G'n'R really a Hair Metal band?

Rob The Badger · 18 Jul 2004, 11:16

Appetite For Destruction is a far better album than Nevermind. Nevermind is not the best Nirvana album (In Utero is) and is way overrated.

There, I said it.

However, that said, Nirvana have produced a very small amount of work. And they really wouldn't have been what they were now if they'd carried on and Kurt hadn't got himself shot.

Still, Nirvana changed the preception that all rock was men in tights singing in falsetto. It gave guitar music credibility again. That's why I'm in their camp.

Pudding · 18 Jul 2004, 12:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Still, Nirvana changed the preception that all rock was men in tights singing in falsetto. It gave guitar music credibility again. That's why I'm in their camp.

Yes they did. To the perception that rockstars are now scruffy sods who grunt and are in need of a bloody good wash. Also that anyone who knows 4 chords can strum away like a maniac, mumble some bullshit down a microphone and call it a song. They gave absolutely NO credibility to rock music but the only positive thing they did contribute was that any ~~~~ can make a shit song and still be successful.

Nirvana were shite always have been and always will be. Thank God we won't have anymore albums from them.

Pud

evil nickname · 18 Jul 2004, 12:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Still, Nirvana changed the preception that all rock was men in tights singing in falsetto.

I seem to remember a very succesfull, untitled album with a black cover, by a band that I can't even imagine in tights, with a singer who I haven't heard do a falsetto, that was released in '91. Co-incedentely, the same year Nevermind was released.

Maybe the mainstream thought that, but rock has never been a mainstream thing.

Rob The Badger · 18 Jul 2004, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pudding

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Still, Nirvana changed the preception that all rock was men in tights singing in falsetto. It gave guitar music credibility again. That's why I'm in their camp.

Yes they did. To the perception that rockstars are now scruffy sods who grunt and are in need of a bl**dy good wash. Also that anyone who knows 4 chords can strum away like a maniac, mumble some bullshit down a microphone and call it a song. They gave absolutely NO credibility to rock music but the only positive thing they did contribute was that any [...] can make a shit song and still be successful.

Nirvana were shite always have been and always will be. Thank God we won't have anymore albums from them.

Pud

That's tripe and you know it.
And I'll tell you why:

The Coral
The Flaming Lips
Pearl Jam
The Smashing Pumpkins
Interpol
The White Stripes

Yadayadyada. . .I could go on.

All these bands are far better than Guns and Roses ever were. Interpol have only made one album!
You see, the idea that rock has to be stupid guitar solos and big stadium rock concerts is gone. It's just not there. Rock music has come back to the poets, where it belongs.

Have you ever even sat down and listened to a Nirvana album? I mean really listened?
To call it four chord strumming and mumbling bullshit shows complete ignorance on your part. To write off a band who've had enough impact on a generation to still be rated today seems like sour grapes to me. No offence intended.

"I'm so happy.
Cause today I found my friends.
They're in my head.
I'm so ugly. But that's ok.
'Cause so are you.
We've broke our mirrors.
Sunday morning. Is everyday for all I care.
And I'm not scared. Light my candles.
In a daze cause I've found god. "

Maybe I'm acting like an uptight muso. Maybe I am, I don't know. But if you can honestly tell me that Nirvana were shit, then so is everything released before or since. Sorry.

Nickname, I was reffering to the likes of Bon Jovi, Twisted Sister, Judas Priest ect. I think you know that.

Pudding · 19 Jul 2004, 00:01

Why don't you just accept the fact that the majority of this board disagrees with you and then we can move on.

If you like Nirvana then fair enough, no one can argue with that but to expect people to agree with your statements because you like them, shows not only naivety and ignorance on your part but is insultive to other peoples opinions and tastes.

Get over it, Nirvana sucks - although I do like All Apologies and that's it.

Pud

Rob The Badger · 19 Jul 2004, 11:28

The fact that you had to make a poll to try and prove your (non-existent) point proves just how tiresome you are.

I have presented numerous, valid points as to why Nirvana are where they are.

You on the other hand simply spout "Nirvana suck, Nirvana are crap" blah blah blah. . .
In fact, all I'm reading is:
"OMFG!!!!!!!11!1!1 GNR |2 T3H 1337!!!!!!!!!!!1!11!!!ONE!!!!11!! NIRVANA |2 sUxx0|2Z!!! 1 PWN J00!!!!!ONETHOUSANDONEHUNDREDANDELEVEN!!!!!!!!!1!!!!"

Moreover, saying "Nirvana sucks" is insultive to my tastes and opinions, please don't be a hypocrite.

This seems like some vain attempt at being bohemian and 'anti-cool', and I can see right through it.

The majority of this board can think what they like, it makes not one bit of difference to me. I would throw record sales in your face but that's just petty.

You're boring me now. Please go away.
Someone lock this thread please, it's making me want to stab people.

evil nickname · 19 Jul 2004, 12:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

The fact that you had to make a poll to try and prove your (non-existent) point proves just how tiresome you are.

Says the one who makes a poll called "GNR vs. The World", propably to prove some point that I'm completly missing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

I have presented numerous, valid points as to why Nirvana are where they are. You on the other hand simply spout "Nirvana suck, Nirvana are crap" blah blah blah. . .

Yes, I agree, force-feeding your opinion that Guns N Roses has no heart, no conviction, crap lyrics, overblown productions, noodly guitar solos, etc. is so much better.[/sarcasm]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

The majority of this board can think what they like, it makes not one bit of difference to me.

Well, apperently, it does make a difference to you. See, I don't give a rats' ass if you like Nirvana, and and have a huge distaste for all that you think Guns N Roses stood for. All I've been trying to do in this discussion, is to adress the "valid points" you've been making, when and if I doubt their validty.
And for what it's worth: I don't think you've built a very solid case for Nirvana, or against GNR for that matter, since most of your points are your opinions, assumptions and generalisations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

And they really wouldn't have been what they were now if they'd carried on and Kurt hadn't got himself shot.

I happen to think that is one of the truest statements in this topic. Nirvana has reached a mythical status. Just like ABBA. What they have to do with it? Just imagine what would happen if they would reunite and tour/record again. It can only take away from the public image there is of them.

W.

Rob The Badger · 19 Jul 2004, 12:45

I didn't start this topic, okay? I was defending the band because otherwise it would have turned into a "NIRVANA SUX" thread.

The point of the "G'n'R vs The World" poll was to parody the pointlessness of the G'n'R vs Nirvana poll.

Here is my side for and against each band. I'm going to say this then I'm not going to post in this thread again.

Note: Yes, I do think providing reasons for why I think the band aren't all that is better than saying they plain suck. There's nothing technically wrong with the band, therefore I can't say there is. So I'm pointing out points that annoy me. Some most people (Except yourself, actually) have just said "Oh, Nirvana, that's not real music. Let's go listen to some ROCK!"

Guns n' Roses:
FOR
1. Slash has great hair.
2. Slash really can play the guitar.
3. Slash has nice hats.
4. Their albums have cool names.
5. erm. . .
AGAINST
1. Axl has one hell of an annoying voice.
2. Too much noodly guitar work.
3. The song structure of many songs is remarkably similar.
4. Covered Bob Dylan.
5. Awful production.
6. No real lyrical intensity.

Nirvana:
FOR
1. Kurt Cobain has great hair.
2. Lyrical intensity of the highest order.
3. 4 chord progressions that sound better than the 15 million chord changes in any one G'n'R song.
4.The Nirvana Unplugged concert.
5. Excellent rythm section.
6. Changed rock, history.
AGAINST
1. Cobain was an asshole.
2. They really are overrated.
3. The song structure of many songs is remarkably similar.
5. Covered David Bowie.

Pudding · 19 Jul 2004, 12:53

Admit it Rob, you don't like anyone who has an opinion different from your own and when they do you try and come up with smart arse answers that aren't smart. Your last couple of posts have proven this.

Let it go Rob, you can do it, we have faith in you........................just-let-it-go.

Pud

**The Flying Mouse** · 19 Jul 2004, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

The fact that you had to make a poll to try and prove your (non-existent) point proves just how tiresome you are.

Cmon folks.
Don't let this turn personal.

This has been a very interesting thread to read

.We're all interested in music, and there has been some great debating and well thought out posts

.
PLEASE remember to keep this as a musical debate, and refrain from any personal attacks.
Attack the words, not the person

.

Continue

Biter · 19 Jul 2004, 15:16

Right. Listen Pudding, you are the one who started this argument, yet you don't like it when other people say stuff you don't agree with. This is wrong. I thought everyone had a say on this forum but as soon as somebody (i.e. Rob The Badger) speaks their mind and tells you their opinion, you smack them down. Ok, this is a good subject but do you have to be so aggressive with people who don't share your opinion?
Rob has made some good points but you seem to speak down to him. People go onto these forums to get away from that because they've had to put up with crap like that at work too. Anyway, if you really want a good debate, choose a band like Iron Maiden or Led Zepplin. Decent bands who haven't had all of their members kicked out by their drugged up crap-for-brains of a lead singer.
You gonna have a go at me now?

Rob The Badger · 19 Jul 2004, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pudding

Admit it Rob, you don't like anyone who has an opinion different from your own and when they do you try and come up with smart arse answers that aren't smart. Your last couple of posts have proven this.

Let it go Rob, you can do it, we have faith in you........................just-let-it-go.

Pud

Don't patronise me. I don't mind people with different opinions, if they back them up. You tell me that I'm force feeding my opinions on people, then you tell me "Nirvana sucks, get over it!".

Hypocritical nonsense.

Pudding · 20 Jul 2004, 06:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biter

Right. Listen Pudding, you are the one who started this argument

Actually I didn't. 03gills started the thread, Rob then replied disagreeing, and then I gave my opinion, then you 'Totally agreed with Rob The Badger'.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biter

You gonna have a go at me now?

Not at all, your opinion matters very little to me and it's obvious your going to agree with everything your friend Rob The Badger says anyway.

Pud

Pudding · 20 Jul 2004, 06:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Don't patronise me

If I want to patronise you I bloody well will and there's not a great deal you can do about it.

I'm through with this thread

Pud

KebLou · 20 Jul 2004, 06:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

IGuns n' Roses:

AGAINST
1. Axl has one hell of an annoying voice.
2. Too much noodly guitar work.
3. The song structure of many songs is remarkably similar.
4. Covered Bob Dylan.
5. Awful production.
6. No real lyrical intensity.

I've heard more bad things about Guns and Roses, but to be honest neither of them I really like.

Slash's outbursts on stage even though they were before my time weren't pleasant from all accounts.

Nivana to me is just noise but everyone is entitled to an opinion and not everyone will like every artist.

Biter · 20 Jul 2004, 13:40

'your opinion matters very little to me and it's obvious your going to agree with everything your friend Rob The Badger says anyway.'

Well, you know what, I don't really care. The only reason I agree with Rob is because he thinks about what he is going to write instead of spewing up a load of tripe like yourself. I also stick up for people who can't defend themselves such as Kurt. You put your opinion across and expect everyone to feel the same and when they dont, you have a go at them. You're just a spoilt little child. I don't care how old you are.

Rob The Badger · 20 Jul 2004, 13:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pudding

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Don't patronise me

If I want to patronise you I bl**dy well will and there's not a great deal you can do about it.

I'm through with this thread

Pud

I find you wise beyond your years, sir. Now let us eat cake, till we shall both grow old.

**The Flying Mouse** · 20 Jul 2004, 14:00

This is going nowhere.
I'm gonna lock it and melt the lock.

18 Jul 2004, 04:26	#26
evil nickname Guest Join Date: 19.04.2003 Posts: 2,238	I don't agree with most of what the pro-Nirvana camp are saying over Guns N Roses. Saying that they're "mediocre" and that is "all noise and no heart" I don't get is, in my point of view, ridiculous. I guess I could say the same as wat was said to me: "If you can't see what all the fuss is about then you're very stuck in your ways."

18 Jul 2004, 04:36	#27
RSG Mega Loafer Join Date: 27.07.2003 Location: Canada Posts: 3,296	I just took down an old CD off the shelf. Guns N Roses, the one with November Rain, i sat down to listen to November Rain, and really, GnR is more of a great band and not a "not bad" band. As I said earlier. But my opinion still slides with Nirvana. Is G'n'R really a Hair Metal band?

18 Jul 2004, 11:16	#28
Rob The Badger Too sexy for this post Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 2,895	Appetite For Destruction is a far better album than Nevermind. Nevermind is not the best Nirvana album (In Utero is) and is way overrated. There, I said it. However, that said, Nirvana have produced a very small amount of work. And they really wouldn't have been what they were now if they'd carried on and Kurt hadn't got himself shot. Still, Nirvana changed the preception that all rock was men in tights singing in falsetto. It gave guitar music credibility again. That's why I'm in their camp.

19 Jul 2004, 00:01	#32
Pudding I'm A Prize Fight Lover... Join Date: 22.10.2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 5,532	Why don't you just accept the fact that the majority of this board disagrees with you and then we can move on. If you like Nirvana then fair enough, no one can argue with that but to expect people to agree with your statements because you like them, shows not only naivety and ignorance on your part but is insultive to other peoples opinions and tastes. Get over it, Nirvana sucks - although I do like All Apologies and that's it. Pud

19 Jul 2004, 11:28	#33
Rob The Badger Too sexy for this post Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 2,895	The fact that you had to make a poll to try and prove your (non-existent) point proves just how tiresome you are. I have presented numerous, valid points as to why Nirvana are where they are. You on the other hand simply spout "Nirvana suck, Nirvana are crap" blah blah blah. . . In fact, all I'm reading is: "OMFG!!!!!!!11!1!1 GNR \|2 T3H 1337!!!!!!!!!!!1!11!!!ONE!!!!11!! NIRVANA \|2 sUxx0\|2Z!!! 1 PWN J00!!!!!ONETHOUSANDONEHUNDREDANDELEVEN!!!!!!!!!1!!!!" Moreover, saying "Nirvana sucks" is insultive to my tastes and opinions, please don't be a hypocrite. This seems like some vain attempt at being bohemian and 'anti-cool', and I can see right through it. The majority of this board can think what they like, it makes not one bit of difference to me. I would throw record sales in your face but that's just petty. You're boring me now. Please go away. Someone lock this thread please, it's making me want to stab people.

19 Jul 2004, 12:45	#35
Rob The Badger Too sexy for this post Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 2,895	I didn't start this topic, okay? I was defending the band because otherwise it would have turned into a "NIRVANA SUX" thread. The point of the "G'n'R vs The World" poll was to parody the pointlessness of the G'n'R vs Nirvana poll. Here is my side for and against each band. I'm going to say this then I'm not going to post in this thread again. Note: Yes, I do think providing reasons for why I think the band aren't all that is better than saying they plain suck. There's nothing technically wrong with the band, therefore I can't say there is. So I'm pointing out points that annoy me. Some most people (Except yourself, actually) have just said "Oh, Nirvana, that's not real music. Let's go listen to some ROCK!" Guns n' Roses: FOR 1. Slash has great hair. 2. Slash really can play the guitar. 3. Slash has nice hats. 4. Their albums have cool names. 5. erm. . . AGAINST 1. Axl has one hell of an annoying voice. 2. Too much noodly guitar work. 3. The song structure of many songs is remarkably similar. 4. Covered Bob Dylan. 5. Awful production. 6. No real lyrical intensity. Nirvana: FOR 1. Kurt Cobain has great hair. 2. Lyrical intensity of the highest order. 3. 4 chord progressions that sound better than the 15 million chord changes in any one G'n'R song. 4.The Nirvana Unplugged concert. 5. Excellent rythm section. 6. Changed rock, history. AGAINST 1. Cobain was an asshole. 2. They really are overrated. 3. The song structure of many songs is remarkably similar. 5. Covered David Bowie.

19 Jul 2004, 12:53	#36
Pudding I'm A Prize Fight Lover... Join Date: 22.10.2003 Location: New Zealand Posts: 5,532	Admit it Rob, you don't like anyone who has an opinion different from your own and when they do you try and come up with smart arse answers that aren't smart. Your last couple of posts have proven this. Let it go Rob, you can do it, we have faith in you........................just-let-it-go. Pud

19 Jul 2004, 15:16	#38
Biter Lurker Join Date: 12.07.2004 Location: Kent Posts: 1,067	Right. Listen Pudding, you are the one who started this argument, yet you don't like it when other people say stuff you don't agree with. This is wrong. I thought everyone had a say on this forum but as soon as somebody (i.e. Rob The Badger) speaks their mind and tells you their opinion, you smack them down. Ok, this is a good subject but do you have to be so aggressive with people who don't share your opinion? Rob has made some good points but you seem to speak down to him. People go onto these forums to get away from that because they've had to put up with crap like that at work too. Anyway, if you really want a good debate, choose a band like Iron Maiden or Led Zepplin. Decent bands who haven't had all of their members kicked out by their drugged up crap-for-brains of a lead singer. You gonna have a go at me now?

20 Jul 2004, 13:40	#43
Biter Lurker Join Date: 12.07.2004 Location: Kent Posts: 1,067	'your opinion matters very little to me and it's obvious your going to agree with everything your friend Rob The Badger says anyway.' Well, you know what, I don't really care. The only reason I agree with Rob is because he thinks about what he is going to write instead of spewing up a load of tripe like yourself. I also stick up for people who can't defend themselves such as Kurt. You put your opinion across and expect everyone to feel the same and when they dont, you have a go at them. You're just a spoilt little child. I don't care how old you are.

20 Jul 2004, 14:00	#45
The Flying Mouse Armed ba$tard and Jo's other half. Join Date: 06.08.2002 Location: In the middle of nowhere near the end of the line. Posts: 16,104	This is going nowhere. I'm gonna lock it and melt the lock.