KRSleater
02-08-2004, 05:14 PM
So, my friend and I were talking about music today and the media...all that fun stuff. We started talking about the whole "grunge" thing and the amount of bands that were apart of the same scene as Nirvana, Pearl Jam, AIC, etc., that got ignored. Which lead to the topic of how a good amount of the mainstream media and their fans looks to Nirvana as this legendary band. But why? During the grunge trend you had your fab four Seattle bands (AIC, soundgarden, pearl jam, and nirvana) and that was that. During that time Pearl Jam did get a little more attention than the rest. They were more accesible than the other three. They got on Top 40 radio.
Now, I'm not being biased about this because I enjoy Nirvana more than PJ and AIC more than all three but Nirvana wasn't that "big important band" until after Kurt died. It was all hype. I mean, of course they were big but not as big as some people say. I can list many many artists that contributed more to the Alternative scene than Nirvana did. I've seen Kurt listed on top guitarists lists on different publications but he wasn't that good of a guitarist. He had the ability to make simple chords sound better than what they were but so did Mudhoney and the Melvins. Kurt wasn't anything all that original. You also see Nirvana listed as one of the greatest bands of all time. I could list countless bands that are better and more important to music but got very little attention for it compared to what Nirvana got.
Yeah, Smells Like Teen Spirit was a hit but it did not "explode" onto the scene and changed everything in pop music like VH1 and different Nirvana books like to say. It was a gradual thing. Things were already changing. Hair bands were already on their way out before Nirvana came. And Nirvana had as much impact as the other "grunge" bands. So, yes Nirvana had mainstream success because they had a pop hit but that doesn't make them any more important.
Wow. That turned out longer than I thought so I'll cut it right here. Any thoughts, opinions, arguments?:D
Now, I'm not being biased about this because I enjoy Nirvana more than PJ and AIC more than all three but Nirvana wasn't that "big important band" until after Kurt died. It was all hype. I mean, of course they were big but not as big as some people say. I can list many many artists that contributed more to the Alternative scene than Nirvana did. I've seen Kurt listed on top guitarists lists on different publications but he wasn't that good of a guitarist. He had the ability to make simple chords sound better than what they were but so did Mudhoney and the Melvins. Kurt wasn't anything all that original. You also see Nirvana listed as one of the greatest bands of all time. I could list countless bands that are better and more important to music but got very little attention for it compared to what Nirvana got.
Yeah, Smells Like Teen Spirit was a hit but it did not "explode" onto the scene and changed everything in pop music like VH1 and different Nirvana books like to say. It was a gradual thing. Things were already changing. Hair bands were already on their way out before Nirvana came. And Nirvana had as much impact as the other "grunge" bands. So, yes Nirvana had mainstream success because they had a pop hit but that doesn't make them any more important.
Wow. That turned out longer than I thought so I'll cut it right here. Any thoughts, opinions, arguments?:D