not the best argument (probably sarcasm)

Man Who Sold the World was a Bowie song

the exact appeal was that they weren't polished up - they were just a raw gritty angsty band from seattle and they caught on at the right time... i always preferred the other seattle bands like AIC, soundgarden and PJ but nirvana still has some good tunes... people just want to find anything to be angry at now

aic never sounded like nirvana, what are you smoking? sure their sound changed a little but all good bands change - no truly creative mind stays static and keeps making the same **** over and over

I hate that chit but if I did like that music it would still be completely irrelevant to the topic

its a shame Melvins never got much exposure in the grunge scene. Nirvana wouldnt have even existed if it werent for the Melvins

Its funny because most of the arguments in favour of Nirvana ITT would also apply to someone like Justin Bieber as well ("right place right time", "cultural shift", etc) and yet these same people would never give someone like Bieber the same respect, in fact they'd probably trash him. It just goes to show you that no matter the generation the whole "back in my day it was different" vs. "kids today just don't know" dynamic will never change.

That was a good performance you *******!

And I just kinda like them...

Would rep but on rc..

Tried to rep but out for today. I'll try to catch you later as you do make a good point.

The main issue I have with this comparison is that myself and people around me who loved Nirvana didn't like them just because they were new or different to us. We liked them because we could feel the emotion pouring out of Kurt. He may have been a mediocre singer, songwriter and guitarist but music isn't all about technical prowess it's about hitting a nerve and Nirvana did just that for many people.

And to the person who posted that Black Motorcycle gang stuff above, thanks! Never heard of them and am definitely going to check them out.

Yes, time and place. After a lot of the crap late 70s to early 90s "pop" music it was time to get back to basics.

Because Rock bands were made famous by late teens or 20 somethings who bought albums and went to concerts.

Bieber was made famous by 10 year olds on youtube who's moms chaperone them to concerts. Who different dynamic.

You sound like a pretentious kunt srs

Why? I'm praising these bands but saying that subjectively i don't like them.. wtf was pretentious about my comment you dickhead?

Whats the difference? I'm sure that plenty of "experienced" 30+ year old rock and roll listeners at the time of Nirvana's ascension looked at them no differently than you now look at someone like Bieber: talentless trash holstered into fame by a bunch of angsty teenagers. You think someone in that era who worshiped "guitar virtuosos" of the past saw Kurt Cobain flailing away at his guitar like a novice as some groundbreaking moment in music history? Probably not, and that is the point. Its a pretty big step going from Clapton and company on the guitar to...Kurt Cobain.

Yes, Nirvana showed that you could rise to fame despite looking like **** and arguably possessing below average musical talent. Just like Justin Bieber showed that you could rise to fame on the basis of Youtube videos despite coming from a tiny town in Canada. Both are comparable, in different ways. Both are examples of "shifts" in music. Justin Bieber was very groundbreaking once you consider how Internet now dominates music and how any kid can become recognized without an A&R, manager, agent, or anything. Rap is being dominated by a bunch of guys that no longer even need to sign record deals; they just blow up on Soundcloud and do their own thing.

I'm not even trying to make any sort of judgment into the musical validity of Nirvana, I'm just pointing out the longest standing "law" when it comes to all forms of art: you thought that this stuff was "revolutionary" when you were younger, but there were probably a majority of adults who thought that it was trash. Now you are one of those adults, and you very likely look at today's musical trends as trash. Its a repeating cycle. By the way, while you may think that Nirvana's meteoric rise was "all organic" and fueled by edgy teens buying albums, that is romanticized at best. They were manufactured just like most sudden sensations. They could have picked any number of similar bands to lead this new revolutionary wave; is it a shock that the one with the ultra-handsome yet extremely troubled and fascinating lead is the one that "blew up"? Its not a coincidence. For all the talk about how Nirvana "dressed like bums" and threw off a ratchet vibe, Kurt Cobain basically rivaled someone like Brad Pitt in terms of natural masculine beauty, and THAT is why they were "chosen" amongst similar (and often better) alternatives.

by being the first group to strike out and define the unknown genre which they were playing their music in. No better than Elvis Presley with Rock n roll, Michael Jackson with pop music or even NWA with gangster rap if we wanna go there.

Since we've been posting about other Seattle bands in here, I thought I'd take the opportunity to post one the most overlooked bands to come out of the early 90s Seattle scene--probably because they didn't fit the stereotype--but check them out, especially if you are a fan of power pop and pop punk:

Michael Jackson was definitely legendary. So was Elvis Presley. I think those 2 were legit talented.

I actually went to Graceland and saw Elvis's hall of awards. Chit goes on forever and is endless. Dude had a brilliant career.

If you can't listen to Lithium and INSTANTLY know why they made it, you'll never know why they made it.

your point about the dynamic never changing is true, but what the phuck has bieber done?

Bieber has not changed a generation of music or introduced anything new..

They made good songs. You don't have to be the best singer to make good music and write good songs. Otherwise you'd be listening to Opera or whaling whores like Christina Aguilera. Yeah they can hit every octave but their music fukn sucks.

Nirvana blew up a completely new genre of music. It's not that hard to get.

I think Soundgarden and Alice in Chains were the best grunge rock bands, and two of the best musical artists of all time IMO. I used to like Nirvana more but they aren't as great to me anymore.

You have to look at it from a generational point of view. Up until Nirvana, A large segment of Generation X had no real representation music wise. They hated that cookie cooker trash like Madonnna, Phil COllins, etc...

Nirvana was something that sounded totally different that struck a chord with a large segment of Gen X-ers who just couldn't understand the phoniness of 80s music

People wanted something that wasn't Guns n Roses and glam rock

Kurt Cobain was better looking than any of the others.

Why make music when it's all about the face?

I don't have a lot of nice things to say about Kurt as an artist or performer, but one thing i really loved was how he would put respek on the names of his lesser known contemporaries that he admired. he knew he had the platform and he used it to to help a band like sonic youth(who opened the door for him on some level) get a legit record deal. that's just one example. he would put over fugazi and nation of ulysses as well. that was cool of him. i also enjoyed the unplugged but i always htought nirvana was massively overrated and that the people who worshipped them were plebs.
like your favorite band is nirvana? you can't do any better?

Have none of you seen the MTV unplugged "girl, where did you sleep last night?" How can anyone say it's not great?

Strong avi to post content correlation.