All Apologies is the ONLY Nirvana song I really love

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Getting back on topic...

Nirvana is probably overrated by the general music listening public. They are, however, underrated on this board. Their studio output is a total of just 37 songs, but a good handful of them are among the most recognizable of the decade. That 37-song studio output was the big bang that caused the galaxy - continuing the metaphor - of 'post-stadium rock' to form. Remember the transportation module that The Shredder and his goons would travel from the underground to the overground with, a pod-shaped vehicle with a giant drill on the end of it that would drill through the ground? Nirvana's 37-song output was that drill. It brought that sound to the overground, and it made people turn their heads and their attention to not only Nirvana but other musically superior groups of the genre like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, and more. Nirvana doesn't make the breakthrough they did, and and most of us still wouldn't know who Pearl Jam or Soundgarden or Alice In Chains are because they may have lived in the underground for their whole careers. And that's not because those bands weren't musically strong enough to succeed - indeed, I believe all three are superior to Nirvana - it's simply because they didn't quite have the poppiness that Nirvana had.

Nirvana took a sound that had been brooding for several years at the end of the 80s and applied a poppiness and catchiness to it that made it sellable, and because of that, they were able to usher in an entirely new era of rock music. Stadium Rock had been what rock music was for two decades(the 70s and 80s) and it had grown stale and diluted with imitations and a blatent lack of originality. There was a whole new genre of rock music waiting to be heard and Nirvana was the group that got people to hear it first. They were the first ones to make it mainstream. To hear Nirvana when they were new was to hear something you'd never heard before. That's why they are so distinctive in people's minds. Because they blasted into the mainstream and left a huge hole in the ground, through which Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, etc, followed. I'm greatful to Nirvana because without them it is doubtful that I would be listening to Soundgarden's 'Superunknown', Pearl Jam's 'Ten', and Alice In Chains' 'Dirt' today and marveling at their brilliance.

Ironically, that fresh new sound has been around for almost two decades now and has itself become that stale genre diluted with imitations and a blatent lack of originality. What Stadium Rock was then, Post-Stadium Rock is now. We need another Nirvana now, because there have got to be some bands in the underground pioneering a brilliant new sound in rock that is waiting to be heard, and they won't be heard until they get a drill, a big bang, etc.
 
I don't think that anyone can argue the influence and significance of Nirvana, but I also think it's fair that people separate milestone from masterpiece and judge Nirvana's output without the whole "they destroyed hair metal and ushered a whole new era of rock" baggage.
 
namkcuR said:
Getting back on topic...

Nirvana is probably overrated by the general music listening public. They are, however, underrated on this board. Their studio output is a total of just 37 songs, but a good handful of them are among the most recognizable of the decade. That 37-song studio output was the big bang that caused the galaxy - continuing the metaphor - of 'post-stadium rock' to form. Remember the transportation module that The Shredder and his goons would travel from the underground to the overground with, a pod-shaped vehicle with a giant drill on the end of it that would drill through the ground? Nirvana's 37-song output was that drill. It brought that sound to the overground, and it made people turn their heads and their attention to not only Nirvana but other musically superior groups of the genre like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, and more. Nirvana doesn't make the breakthrough they did, and and most of us still wouldn't know who Pearl Jam or Soundgarden or Alice In Chains are because they may have lived in the underground for their whole careers. And that's not because those bands weren't musically strong enough to succeed - indeed, I believe all three are superior to Nirvana - it's simply because they didn't quite have the poppiness that Nirvana had.

Nirvana took a sound that had been brooding for several years at the end of the 80s and applied a poppiness and catchiness to it that made it sellable, and because of that, they were able to usher in an entirely new era of rock music. Stadium Rock had been what rock music was for two decades(the 70s and 80s) and it had grown stale and diluted with imitations and a blatent lack of originality. There was a whole new genre of rock music waiting to be heard and Nirvana was the group that got people to hear it first. They were the first ones to make it mainstream. To hear Nirvana when they were new was to hear something you'd never heard before. That's why they are so distinctive in people's minds. Because they blasted into the mainstream and left a huge hole in the ground, through which Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, etc, followed. I'm greatful to Nirvana because without them it is doubtful that I would be listening to Soundgarden's 'Superunknown', Pearl Jam's 'Ten', and Alice In Chains' 'Dirt' today and marveling at their brilliance.

Ironically, that fresh new sound has been around for almost two decades now and has itself become that stale genre diluted with imitations and a blatent lack of originality. What Stadium Rock was then, Post-Stadium Rock is now. We need another Nirvana now, because there have got to be some bands in the underground pioneering a brilliant new sound in rock that is waiting to be heard, and they won't be heard until they get a drill, a big bang, etc.

Amen, brother.
 
Back
Top Bottom