placidtrucker4 said:You're talking nonsense. I guess Kurt was a likable guy, but I'd argue nirvana was more of a cultural phenomenon than anything strictly falling under the category of genius music. Besides, you can love music as much as you want, but I don't think that necessarily makes you a better musician than someone who puts their family and friends before everything else. At the end of the day, it comes down to talent, the ability to express oneself, and hard work.
By the time they arrived, nirvana was already firmly in the MTV era, which doesn't automatically make their music bad, but I suppose it was much easier for them to get any kind of promotion compared to bands that started back in the seventies. You have to consider that nirvana emerged at a time when most of the mainstream audience was practically begging for something "new," and they just happened to fit the bill perfectly. In my view, the vast majority of people responsible for nirvana's success aren't really connoisseurs of fine music; they're more like the late 80s/early 90s equivalent of teenage girls screaming for the Beatles. In other words, the general public's sentiment and the market demand essentially required something like nirvana to exist. As I mentioned before, it feels more like a cultural phenomenon than a display of truly brilliant music.
If we were to compare the actual amount of QUALITY material this band produced against the sheer volume of various idiotic releases, TV specials, and now even the recent documentaries they've sold off, they seem much more like a commercial product than a musical entity. Of course, I suppose that has nothing to do with Kurt himself, since others exploited his image and his work—and his music—following his death.
I really don't see nirvana as being serious pioneers of anything, and I guess comparing a band for whom everything was perfectly laid out—with a market practically crying out for something of that nature—to bands like AC/DC is just pointless. Back in the seventies, people had to spend years playing in tiny clubs, working side jobs, constantly changing lineups, and slowly grinding their way up just to succeed (which, in other words, meant you actually had to possess quality for the audience to notice you, rather than just relying on a wow Effect). Ultimately, I feel that discussing nirvana's legacy and trying to compare them to legitimate legends of MUSIC is somewhat tragicomic.
Look, you've shared so much nonsense in your post that it’s hard to take you seriously when you call someone else out for talking nonsense. Let's break this down step by step:
Kurt was a likable guy, but I’d argue that nirvana is more of a cultural phenomenon than a collection of truly genius music.
Whether you’re a fan of nirvana or not, you have to admit the music is pure genius. Even if you think Nevermind feels a bit overplayed or commercialized, it’s an absolute masterpiece. If you browse any "best albums of all time" lists online, you'll notice Nevermind is everywhere, and that’s coming from the most relevant critics out there. It isn't by accident, either. On Rolling Stone's list of the top 500 albums ever, Nevermind landed at a massive number 17, sitting right alongside the greatest legends in music history. They have two other spots on that list as well: Unplugged in New York at 313 and in Utero at 435. Personally, I think in Utero is an incredible record, though it always seems to get underrated. It just had the misfortune of following up Nevermind, but it truly is an excellent album.
Nirvana was already well-established by the time the MTV era hit. That doesn't mean their music isn't good, but they definitely had a much easier time getting airplay compared to bands that were grinding it out back in the seventies.
I don't quite follow this logic. Are we saying it was easier for them to get exposure than it was for bands back in the 70s? If that's the case, what's the next step—just trash everything released after the 70s because MTV finally showed up?🙄
Keep in mind that Nirvana emerged right when the mainstream was starving for something "new," and they stepped into that void perfectly. Most of the people responsible for their massive success weren't necessarily connoisseurs of great music; they were more like the late 80s/early 90s equivalent of teenage girls screaming for the Beatles. In other words, the general public's mood and the market itself practically demanded the arrival of a band like Nirvana. As I’ve said before, it’s more of a cultural phenomenon than a case of pure musical genius.
Look, you have to realize that back when nirvana was hitting its stride, there were tens of thousands of bands out there on this planet. And wouldn't you know it—nirvana is the one that actually blew up. You’re talking about nirvana like they were some manufactured boy band designed by a committee, where everyone else wrote the songs and a massive marketing machine paved the way for them to succeed. It's like you think those three guys just had to learn a few dance moves, sing a little bit, and act cool to make it happen.
If you weigh the amount of ACTUAL quality material this band produced against the flood of mindless re-releases, TV specials, and lately, all those documentaries they've put out, they look more like a commercial product than a musical entity. Of course, that has nothing to do with Kurt, because it was everyone else exploiting his image and his work—and the music—after he passed away.
Every major band puts out plenty of mindless re-releases. Every single one. That includes nirvana. No matter how many of those exist, they don't diminish the actual quality of nirvana's music.
I really don't see nirvana as serious pioneers of anything. Comparing them to a band where everything was perfectly packaged for a market that was practically screaming for something like them—like AC/DC—is just pointless. Back in the seventies, people had to grind for years playing tiny clubs, working side jobs, swapping out lineups, and slowly building momentum just to make it. In other words, you had to have genuine talent for an audience to actually notice you, rather than just relying on a wow Effect. Honestly, debating any kind of legacy for nirvana by comparing them to legitimate legends of MUSIC is just tragicomic.
The way you're trashing nirvana is the same way you could trash any band. You're trying so hard to downplay and marginalize their impact. The market was also begging for bands like the Beatles or the Stones back in the sixties, so what? Are we supposed to trash them now?
Every era of music has its own specific characteristics. You're perfectly entitled to stay stuck in the seventies and refuse to acknowledge anything after that. But if you do, you're just being a dogmatic thinker, not a music connoisseur. At that point, arguing with you would be a total waste of time.
Look, I don't care for the Beatles, the Stones, The Doors, Pink Floyd, or a lot of other musical giants myself. But if I didn't understand why those bands matter and the massive impact they made on music, I'd be an idiot.
