Premier Rock Forum

nirvana is not crap and i think _sappy_ is super cool

I remember seeing Mudhoney post-1991 (when "punk broke") and Mark Arm went on this tirade about how all these bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden sold out to Scientology (meaning the LA entertainment industry). This was old news to me, but refreshing to hear from someone I respect. I think Pearl Jam was pretty much sold out from the get go (or did they sell in?)

I have to admit, I don't care for Mudhoney records after EGBDF, but that one and the ones before are really good. One thing I will say, Mudhoney never tried to fit into the co-opted alternative scene. They went the route of sounding like a cross between the Stooges and Country/Western music. A blend that really doesn't appeal to many people at all. This lost me, but I respect that they went in a direction because it was where they wanted to go, and not where the money was. I saw them maybe 5 years ago at some venue in Santa Cruz (I want to say the Catalyst) and they were pretty good. I think they have been able to make a fair amount of money without having to get on their knees for the record companies.

As for Genesis, you can laugh all you want. They have 5 solid records, and maybe 3-4 that are listenable, and 2-3 that are sold out crap. They made crap music, but it is such a small part of their catalog. But yes, since I am not a Nirvana fan, the obvious thing to do is to make fun of Genesis, because there are plenty of people who are more familiar with their 2-3 crappy pop records, which is why they like Nirvana -- very little depth in their research of music.

If Nirvana had a similar repretoire, I would not be critical. But what you have is one great record recorded for $600, and a bunch of records with grunge stereotypes with the occasional easy listening tune.

The funny thing is Jon Anderson loves Nirvana. Sure, he's from Yes and not Genesis. But I was watching some DVD and in the interview he says they created their own sound, much like the Who or the Beatles. I just think Jon Anderson hasn't heard much other alternative music...

I'm just saying this so people with a bone for Nirvana won't start making fun of Yes (just because I like them). Yes have 3 perfect records, 3 excellent records, 4-6 listenable ones, and a few crappy pop records. If Nirvana did the same, I would respect them no matter how many units they moved...

I have conflicting opinions concerning Nirvana.

On the one hand they were one of the first bands I got into back in elementary school. They, along with a few other bands, started my love of music.

But, on the other hand, I hate the following they've garnered over the years. I hate bands who sound like Nirvana; I hate 20 somethings who cite Nirvana as their biggest influence,doing Nirvana covers in their crappy "90's alt. rock" Seven Mary Three cover bands, and I hate bands who sound exactly like them that neglect to cite them as an influence even more--bands who think no one will notice because they're "original". Nirvana has a ridiculously uncreative and unoriginal 3rd wave following, even more so than Pearl Jam and Green Day combined. And the sad part; none of the bands I've mentioned so far are original! Yet I'm still hearing bands introduce themselves as "...influenced by, you know......a lot of bands. We draw influence from, you know, our surroundings... and like... Nirvana."

Nirvana wasn't, in my opinion, a great band, but I think I would like them a bit more if they didn't attract such unoriginal clods.

Heliotropic, you hit the nail right on the head. Kudos. I don't know whether or not they're a "great" band or not though...probably...something about those songs...almost a folk quality to them or something.

I like Nirvana because the songs were genuinely catchy, often extremely well-performed, and hell...it sounded like they meant it (man). I think most of the bands who cite Nirvana as an influence have about as much talent as warmed-over dogshit, but Nirvana was a great band.

When I say that Nirvana was a "great band," I am not saying that they were one of those bands like the Beatles or the Stones - e.g., the kind of band that made absolutely unassailable records. You could definitely take potshots at Nirvana's discography. "Bleach" has a lot of songs that sound alike, "Nevermind" is probably one of the most predictable records ever in terms of song structure, and "In Utero" can feel somewhat forced. But when you take into account the positives - that "Bleach" was a pretty weird, melodic, underproduced, and really fun slab of garage crunch; that "Nevermind" was an extraordinarily catchy rock record stuffed full of varnished pop smarts and guitar hooks; and that "In Utero" was mostly a really heavy, heartfelt, and agonized yell that still remained catchy and melodic - then I would have to say that Nirvana was a great band.

And that's not even taking into account the greatest Unplugged album ever, which I might rate as also the best Nirvana record ever. Look - I guess this is subjective, but I find it nearly impossible not to be moved to some degree by the performance of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" on that album. That is not faked emotion. That is deeply felt pain, and a marvelous performance.

I really like Big Long Now off of Incesticide

I'm surprised (but I guess not that surprised) at the reaction that just mentioning Nirvana gets, while Pearl Jam has definite supporters here. I guess it is the difference between a band that people assume "sold out" and one which was never really part of the indie community to begin with. I can't hate nirvana because of their major label status, or even production or that matter, because tons other bands were doing the same thing - nirvana was signed to a major label "independent," just like tons of other shittier bands at the time.
I will say that what separates Nirvana from these other bands is that they didn't lose their spark after their signed to their major - UNLIKE Husker Du, Sonic Youth, etc... etc...
In fact, they sounded pretty good.

I think Kurt wrote some good songs. He had a knack for melodic hooks, and his ability to scream in a particular key was pretty great.

IN UTERO is a terrific album, and I especially like the more fucked-up tracks, such as "Milk It" and "Serve the Servants". And, of course, Steve's recording is, as usual, wonderful. I remember hearing this record and thinking, "I have never heard an album on which the band sounds like it's playing right there in your living room. This is fucking nuts!" Hearing this at the time, when I was listening to glossed-over, wimpy crap like Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins, really helped to alter my tastes in a better direction.

NEVERMIND...it has some good songs, but the production sucks all the life out of the band's sound. BLEACH was pretty lame.

Overall, Not Crap. It sounds like you guys are judging Nirvana based on criteria that have little to do with the band's music--i.e., their popularity, their influence, their continued reputation. None of that stuff has any bearing on my vote.

i liked nirvana better when they were called "joy division".

kerble wrote:yes! and the snub-nose style cannister fits into the rectum more easily.

but still not as well as the dog shit dildo i gave your mother.