Thread: The Greatest American Hero (Band)

https://boozeblogs.com/2018/04/05/nirvana-is-overrated/

I figured today is as good a day as any to get something off my chest that has been there for a while now. I almost hate to say it, but Nirvana is overrated, and if Kurt Cobain didn’t die in such dramatic fashion, they wouldn’t be considered the rock legends that they are

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

It felt great to finally say it out loud, but now I’m scared that an army of flannel shirt-wearing Nirvana fans will descend on my house with pitchforks and torches. Before you guys drag me through the streets Black Hawk Down style, at least hear me out for a second and let me explain what I mean

I guess let’s start with Kurt. Kurt Cobain is always talked about as this legendary musician who changed music forever, when in reality he was just an average guitar player that made a few good songs and had a bad heroin problem, and those types of people were a dime a dozen in the 90’s Seattle music scene. The only reason why Kurt Cobain is put ahead of and remembered as more of a legend than other grunge front men is that he blew his head off. If he never killed himself, Nirvana would have slowly faded away from popularity within 5-10 years. In fact, I think a part of him knew this and it’s why he killed himself.

In his suicide note, he said “It’s better to burn out than to fade away”, which is a line from Neil Young’s “My My, Hey Hey”. Kurt knew the fame wouldn’t last forever, and that it would be better for him to go out on top, Seinfeld style. So, he grabbed his gun and quite literally went out with a bang

Now I already said that I do like Nirvana, but if you can’t also critique things that you like, what’s the point?

Let’s break down 99% of Nirvana songs. Mostly basic guitar chords combined with mumbled lyrics and an overall “We should pawn the TV for heroin money” vibe. I mean for ****s sake, in the song “Heart Shaped Box”, Kurt literally says “I wish I could eat your cancer”. What dude? I know that probably made sense when you had that needle in your arm and were nodding off on a bus, but cancer doesn’t sound too appetizing to regular people.

So to sum things up here, I think Nirvana is a good band, but I also think the pedestal that a lot of people put them on is way too high. To me, Nirvana is sort of like Chipotle: It’s fine, I enjoy it, but let’s not get carried away here. You all know it’s true, so don’t burn me at the stake for saying facts. I’m sure there are plenty of people out there that feel the same way but were too nervous to admit it

I think it's the easiest argument to make. But what is the actual basis? It sounds like it is more of a hypothesis than anything else. Dude set the world on fire and became one of the biggest stars in all of music and we just presume he would have sucked later on? It's harder to believe that when not only does his new music hold up, but whenever anything else is released from back in the day it still resonates with people. That speaks to a continued quality. And let's say they only had another two or three big albums left in them. That's a safe assumption, btw. Why does that matter? So many of the bands we've referenced only had four or five that people care about. Is making more music that only the diehards care about twenty years later that big of a deal? To me it isn't. We know they were defining artists of the genre, one of the biggest acts of the 90's, we know their music ages well, we know they were a once-in-a-lifetime deal. They had the goods. And the guys who left that band and went on to do great things are still tied to Nirvana, too.

Iconic albums, legendary performances, influencing big time musical acts today. They are flat out legendary and more special than almost any band we've named in this thread. There's no formula for being truly great. And they did it.

Originally Posted by King87

I think it's the easiest argument to make. But what is the actual basis? It sounds like it is more of a hypothesis than anything else. Dude set the world on fire and became one of the biggest stars in all of music and we just presume he would have sucked later on? It's harder to believe that when not only does his new music hold up, but whenever anything else is released from back in the day it still resonates with people. That speaks to a continued quality. And let's say they only had another two or three big albums left in them. That's a safe assumption, btw. Why does that matter? So many of the bands we've referenced only had four or five that people care about. Is making more music that only the diehards care about twenty years later that big of a deal? To me it isn't. We know they were defining artists of the genre, one of the biggest acts of the 90's, we know their music ages well, we know they were a once-in-a-lifetime deal. They had the goods. And the guys who left that band and went on to do great things are still tied to Nirvana, too.

Iconic albums, legendary performances, influencing big time musical acts today. They are flat out legendary and more special than almost any band we've named in this thread. There's no formula for being truly great. And they did it.

I think the point of that guys article (something i agree with) is that just because Nirvana caught fire at the right time doesnt mean they were necessarily talented. At least from a "technical" aspect. I would go even further and say i think Taylor Swift has more talent writing music than Cobain does and i dont say that as a Swift fan at all. The only caveat i would say is that Dave Grohl was the most talented member of Nirvana but never wrote any of the songs for the band. But you can see his writing talent in Foo Fighters because it actually shows. There is a difference in my opinion between understanding what Nirvana did the for the grunge scene and then understanding that people do overrate them because of it. The reality is Cobain really wasnt that great of a song writer but his lyrics struck a cord with people and sometimes that is all you need. But does that actually make them the best ever? I dont think so.

Well. If the podcast happens, the Nirvana episode should be epic.

Originally Posted by Northman

I think the point of that guys article (something i agree with) is that just because Nirvana caught fire at the right time doesnt mean they were necessarily talented. At least from a "technical" aspect. I would go even further and say i think Taylor Swift has more talent writing music than Cobain does and i dont say that as a Swift fan at all. The only caveat i would say is that Dave Grohl was the most talented member of Nirvana but never wrote any of the songs for the band. But you can see his writing talent in Foo Fighters because it actually shows. There is a difference in my opinion between understanding what Nirvana did the for the grunge scene and then understanding that people do overrate them because of it. The reality is Cobain really wasnt that great of a song writer but his lyrics struck a cord with people and sometimes that is all you need. But does that actually make them the best ever? I dont think so.

They were obviously talented, though. Cobain was one of a kind and there were some studs in that band. As far as a songwriter goes: he struck a chord with people because he was a great writer. He hit that level of emotion from people that still exists to this day. Nirvana just hits differently than almost any band ever. And that's a mark for them, IMO. Regardless, I'll stop defending them as I'd just be repeating myself at this point. Unless I can think of something new to add or see something that I think I should respond to, like this.

Nirvana is a celebrity meme.

Nirvana is basically Grumpy Cat.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Nirvana is a celebrity meme.

Nirvana is basically Grumpy Cat.

Oh well, whatever...nevermind.

I have no understanding of the comparison because they've always been taken seriously and revered as serious artists. #nocommonground #Itried

Originally Posted by King87

They were obviously talented, though. Cobain was one of a kind and there were some studs in that band. As far as a songwriter goes: he struck a chord with people because he was a great writer. He hit that level of emotion from people that still exists to this day. Nirvana just hits differently than almost any band ever. And that's a mark for them, IMO. Regardless, I'll stop defending them as I'd just be repeating myself at this point. Unless I can think of something new to add or see something that I think I should respond to, like this.

PJ and AIC songs are so >> milquetoast Nirvana songs. In term of lyrics, emotion, and connection.

Nirvana is the perfect example of conflating inscrutability with art.

JFC Pearl Jam wrote songs about old women in quaint towns and made you feel old lady angst.

That scores higher using my rubric.

They don't all have to be so lucid...but if we are grading the poetry, it has to have meaning...somehow.

Nirvana lyrics could be the product of an AI trained to elicit the feeling of moping and elitism. Just random words mistaken for brilliance.

Cobain was basically white snow on a TV set.

Originally Posted by GEM

I already did this Abe. Nirvana was not special outside of bringing grunge to the forefront. Name any other grunge act and I'd take them over Nirvana. Alice in Chains was much more ground breaking than Nirvana. Pearl Jam, much more influential.

Korn on the other hand has rocked out hit after hit after hit, with new music stylings on each new album. Jonathan Davis just gets music and he feels it in his soul and listening to him does the exact same for the listener. You can hear blues, grunge, rock, rap and even some country in their portfolio. They put on one helluva live show and have for 30 years. The longevity is outstanding.

Kids today don't even know who nirvana is. They wear the tshirts, but can't even recall a single song and when played for them, they can't even say who it is and they're wearing their shirts like a dumbass.

What made Nirvana special was leading the Seattle grunge scene nationwide with a sound no one had ever heard before while ushering out big hair bands.

They have a place for sure, but it isn't above Korn.

Again, this isn't "the band I like the most" this is "Greatest American Band."

I like Nirvana but I never got all that into them. Nevertheless, everybody and their dog has seen the Nirvana logo. People are wearing the shirts even if they don't know who Nirvana is or can't name a Nirvana song. This speaks to a level of cultural significance that reaches that of The Beatles, Stones, Pink Floyd, etc. And that is an important component to the discussion.

Korn has been influential in the nu metal genre, yes. But they have not really been able to stretch their popularity beyond that niche group, and as such cannot be considered the Greatest American Band.

Alice in Chains is the grunge band I prefer to listen to over Nirvana, and most days even Pearl Jam. But Nirvana is on another level compared to those two.

A lot of kids do know who Nirvana is btw! At least Smells Like Teen Spirit. The 90s is back in style.

Given how much I'm agreeing with Abe, I....I kind of hate myself.

Originally Posted by King87

Given how much I'm agreeing with Abe, I....I kind of hate myself.

I kind of hate you too.

Originally Posted by aberdien

I kind of hate you too.

You'll never hate me more than I hate myself. This is my legacy!

Anyways, I don't think whether or not Cobain was as good a songwriter as others is all that important. The Greatest American Band must have:

-Cultural Significance
-Multiple radio hits
-Critical acclaim among music nerd types
-Massive popularity with normies
-Have been able to stand the test of time

Originally Posted by King87

You'll never hate me more than I hate myself. This is my legacy!

I'll die trying!

Originally Posted by aberdien

I'll die trying!

Second word is best word.