Inflated Icons
Do you think Nirvana is overrated?
0
It seems to me that a lot of people see Nirvana as much greater than they actually were. I don't mean that it was a bad band, I just think that both their music and their influence is generally overrated. I think a lot of people devote themselves to the ideal of this band without actually listening to more than just their most popular songs. I also think most of these people have never heard the Pixis.
But that's just me, what do you think?
But that's just me, what do you think?
0
Tsujoi
Social Media Manager
Dante1214 wrote...
It seems to me that a lot of people see Nirvana as much greater than they actually were. I don't mean that it was a bad band, I just think that both their music and their influence is generally overrated. I think a lot of people devote themselves to the ideal of this band without actually listening to more than just their most popular songs. I also think most of these people have never heard the Pixies. But that's just me, what do you think?
Whether they are overrated or not, they still were one of the big four in the 90's with Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, and Pearl Jam.
0
I might agree that some of the "icons" of rock history weren't actually great musicians. In fact, some of them were terrible. The Ramones, for instance, couldn't sing, play any of their instruments, or write good music. But, they were one of the most influential bands on their times.
Nirvana, likewise, was hugely influential, regardless of how good they were. They did more than any other band to move "alternative rock" into the mainstream, a trend that still lasts today.
Nirvana, likewise, was hugely influential, regardless of how good they were. They did more than any other band to move "alternative rock" into the mainstream, a trend that still lasts today.
0
I just don't feel they did as much as people credit them for in recognizing alternative rock. I think that over the years, they've just become more iconisized because of Kurt Cobain's death. So these days, the band is idealized, and people who have heard 3 Nirvana songs will act like it's blasphamy to say anything negative about them.
Also, with other bands, like you mentioned the Ramones, and also bands like Iron Maiden or Pink Floyd, a lot of folks like to wear the tshirt and all that, but wouldn't actually listen to the music.
Also, with other bands, like you mentioned the Ramones, and also bands like Iron Maiden or Pink Floyd, a lot of folks like to wear the tshirt and all that, but wouldn't actually listen to the music.
0
Personally I like to keep from getting in a major debate over music but yes, Nirvana is over rated, and over hyped. But that is me.
If you want to know who I think is a great Icon for the history of Rock it's Elvis "The King" Presley.
Think about it, back in the beginning of rock, Rock and Roll was considered Nigger Music. Without Elvis and others like him we would never have know of Nirvana, and all these other bands that people fawn over for nothing.
I listen to Nirvana occasionally I like some of there songs they are decent but too way over hyped.
I will also throw another question to you. Do you think Nirvana would be as big an Icon as they are if Kurt Cobain had not committed Suicide?
If you want to know who I think is a great Icon for the history of Rock it's Elvis "The King" Presley.
Think about it, back in the beginning of rock, Rock and Roll was considered Nigger Music. Without Elvis and others like him we would never have know of Nirvana, and all these other bands that people fawn over for nothing.
I listen to Nirvana occasionally I like some of there songs they are decent but too way over hyped.
I will also throw another question to you. Do you think Nirvana would be as big an Icon as they are if Kurt Cobain had not committed Suicide?
0
Mostly, if it's just a little bit better, or as with music, a little bit luckier and heavily promoted, it will attract so much more attention than something that is just a little worse of in all or some of those departments. As long as people realize this, it's not like it does any harm. However, if you use popularity as a quality indicator, you will propably be disappointed.
Just look at our own Code Geass thread, it's not like it's 80 times better than anything.
Also, to get back on Nirvana, yes they are overrated. I'd go as far as to say they are neither good(opinion) or creative or revolutionary. They may have had a huge impact, but if they never existed, those influences could have been found from other bands at that time.
It's just silly to give a human or a smaller group of humans such attributes as being incredibly creative. The lesser human cannot do anything to truly deserve it, as it is society, music, science, humanity itself that changes. They just lived and made that kind of music in a time where that kind of influences could be found and be successful, among many others.
Just look at our own Code Geass thread, it's not like it's 80 times better than anything.
Also, to get back on Nirvana, yes they are overrated. I'd go as far as to say they are neither good(opinion) or creative or revolutionary. They may have had a huge impact, but if they never existed, those influences could have been found from other bands at that time.
It's just silly to give a human or a smaller group of humans such attributes as being incredibly creative. The lesser human cannot do anything to truly deserve it, as it is society, music, science, humanity itself that changes. They just lived and made that kind of music in a time where that kind of influences could be found and be successful, among many others.
0
Angelus Lapsus wrote...
I will also throw another question to you. Do you think Nirvana would be as big an Icon as they are if Kurt Cobain had not committed Suicide?
No. I think they would still be seen as influencial, but they wouldn't be as idealized as they are. For one, it made him into an icon personally, so much so that people don't see him as being human anymore, which he clearly was, considering he killed himself. And secondly, it stoped them making music before they had the chance to get clean and make true shit music to turn their fans against them, like most bands that make it into their late 30s.
And I also agree with dålif; it seems a lot of it is about sounding the right way and being in the right place and the right time, regardless of how good the music might actually be. Nirvana was a band that happened to bring together the sortof alternative sound of bands like the Pixis with the hardcore-type angry sound of bands like Black Flag and the Melvins.
It's a manic-depressive sound mixed with a flat out pissed off sound; very apealling to teenagers. But that doesn't mean it was neccessarily good.
Oh, and Elvis ripped most of his shit off of black dudes. Which is how he made rock white people music. So personally, I say, fuck that guy. But I don't say it too loud, because I live in the south, and I'm not in any mood to be beat to death.
0
I think you overanalyse the whole thing. Nirvana was a "great" band (not in my taste, but anyway), there's no doubt about it, they had skills and they came up with something new. They aren't really overrated.
And is it just me, or are you very pessimistic? at least when it comes to music? -.-
And is it just me, or are you very pessimistic? at least when it comes to music? -.-
0
FrozenAngel wrote...
I think you overanalyse the whole thing. Nirvana was a "great" band (not in my taste, but anyway), there's no doubt about it, they had skills and they came up with something new. They aren't really overrated.And is it just me, or are you very pessimistic? at least when it comes to music? -.-
It's cynicism, not pessimism. It's much more respectable.
And there is plenty of music I like, I even like music made by people I don't like.
For example, I find NIN tollerable, at least the first few albums, but I think Trent Raznor is a giant duche-nozle.
My general dislike for people doesn't make me generally dislike music. I generally LIKE music.
Part of the reason I think Nirvana is overrated, as I've mentioned, is because I like the Pixis, and I feel like half of Nirvana's songs are modified Pixis songs. I don't really feel like they did come up with something remarkably new, at least not ONLY them.
0
Really, Nirvana didn't have the time to churn out very many hits, they only produced like, 3 real albums (i exclude greatest hits and EP's)
0
MidgarKonotsu wrote...
Really, Nirvana didn't have the time to churn out very many hits, they only produced like, 3 real albums (i exclude greatest hits and EP's)True, although a lot of bands only have a few good albums and are still making music. There really is no telling if they had allready made all the music they had, more or less. Except for David Grohl, it would seem, he has another widely successful band.
0
I think this sort of issue cannot be discussed well because there's always going to be the question, "Are you just saying this because they're popular?"
For whatever reason, people tend to hate something once it's become popular. A person will try to find holes in the reasoning behind liking the band or movie or novel, he'll ask others if they think the thing sucks, they'll agree because they think it's too popular, etc. This doesn't mean that some of those things aren't bad (I for one think Star Trek is overrated, and I'm not just being a hater), nor does it mean that those things aren't good. The issue is simply hard to discuss, because there will always be the thought that the person saying the band or movie or book or whatever is overrated is only angry at the immense popularity.
I will say this though: I like Nirvana. The music's good. Even if the Pixies did the same sort of thing before, who cares? That just means that if you like the Pixies, you should like Nirvana. After all, the popularity of something doesn't affect the quality of it. If people praise Kurt Cobain as a god and worship him in a hundred years, it won't make his music any better or worse than it is right now.
About Kurt Cobain, I'll admit that his popularity and everything went up after he died, but Nirvana isn't known today because Kurt Cobain died. Nirvana, and Cobain, were loved before he died, by a lot of people. Nirvana's popularity didn't increase a hundred fold when Kurt Cobain died. The band was already very popular and very well-known. I don't even think Cobain's death immortalized Nirvana, because the band had such an impact on the whole music scene.
For whatever reason, people tend to hate something once it's become popular. A person will try to find holes in the reasoning behind liking the band or movie or novel, he'll ask others if they think the thing sucks, they'll agree because they think it's too popular, etc. This doesn't mean that some of those things aren't bad (I for one think Star Trek is overrated, and I'm not just being a hater), nor does it mean that those things aren't good. The issue is simply hard to discuss, because there will always be the thought that the person saying the band or movie or book or whatever is overrated is only angry at the immense popularity.
I will say this though: I like Nirvana. The music's good. Even if the Pixies did the same sort of thing before, who cares? That just means that if you like the Pixies, you should like Nirvana. After all, the popularity of something doesn't affect the quality of it. If people praise Kurt Cobain as a god and worship him in a hundred years, it won't make his music any better or worse than it is right now.
About Kurt Cobain, I'll admit that his popularity and everything went up after he died, but Nirvana isn't known today because Kurt Cobain died. Nirvana, and Cobain, were loved before he died, by a lot of people. Nirvana's popularity didn't increase a hundred fold when Kurt Cobain died. The band was already very popular and very well-known. I don't even think Cobain's death immortalized Nirvana, because the band had such an impact on the whole music scene.
0
I really have a strong dislike for Nirvana's music and need to be reminded of who Kurt...w/e is when he comes up in conversation. The Pixies were none too great either, nor was any of the music from that time, IMO, of course.
I choose to listen to something less hyped(stupid college kids) and more good.
I choose to listen to something less hyped(stupid college kids) and more good.
0
There is a good reasoning for acting 'anti-popular'.
While kids use it to establish an identity, and thus bring disgrace to the whole useless Indie scene, we others use it as a tool for discussions.
Also, as someone who likes listening and looking for new music, I do also think that it's a wasted effort to search for things that sounds just about the same as what you have heard.
Of course, this depends on your attitude and mood, as you should be able to like one if you like the other. Maybe we are not enough in love with our music to consider it meaningful to listen to it, and thus we can't bother to listen to 'A' and 'B' when we can have 'A' and 'X'.
While kids use it to establish an identity, and thus bring disgrace to the whole useless Indie scene, we others use it as a tool for discussions.
Also, as someone who likes listening and looking for new music, I do also think that it's a wasted effort to search for things that sounds just about the same as what you have heard.
Of course, this depends on your attitude and mood, as you should be able to like one if you like the other. Maybe we are not enough in love with our music to consider it meaningful to listen to it, and thus we can't bother to listen to 'A' and 'B' when we can have 'A' and 'X'.
0
I don't dislike it because it became popular, and I do find flaw with the stigma in indie music that popular=bad. I think a lot of times they see popular music as being something altered to be popular, and don't think that you can become popular without a certain amount of compromise, which isn't always true. If the music is good enough, then a lot of people are going to like it, and through no misvirtue of the music, it will become popular.
I don't even really dislike Nirvana to begin with, and I don't refuse to listen to their music. It's just that the name has become bigger than the music. The music doesn't matter to a lot of younger people, as with a lot of other bands like we mentioned earlier; it seems that some vague ideal and wearing the tshirt is important, and they act like these people are gods without even caring about their music.
I mean, people get really pissed about it. I said something about Kurt Cobain being a junky once at a party, and some dude was ready to fight me about it.
It's just overblown, and not even about their music.
I don't even really dislike Nirvana to begin with, and I don't refuse to listen to their music. It's just that the name has become bigger than the music. The music doesn't matter to a lot of younger people, as with a lot of other bands like we mentioned earlier; it seems that some vague ideal and wearing the tshirt is important, and they act like these people are gods without even caring about their music.
I mean, people get really pissed about it. I said something about Kurt Cobain being a junky once at a party, and some dude was ready to fight me about it.
It's just overblown, and not even about their music.
0
I agree with Dante that some people have definitely gone too far in determining that anything popular must be bad. Many of the bands that are respected now as classics and legends were popular in their own times, and when we look back upon the late 90s and 2000s, people like Eminem and Brittney Spears will be seen, deservedly, as musical icons and great popular musicians. Why? Because they both have long careers filled with successful hit pieces.
There will be some lesser known bands that will eventually gain recognition, and plenty that will be forgotten. However, popularity and cultural perception has a lot to do with who becomes a musical icon. If a group is widely known and favorably perceived, it will generally have a greater influence on future culture and groups. Brittney Spears may not be a great or even good musician, but people know who she is and she has an entire sound and culture associated with her. That's what makes an icon, whether it is justice or not.
There will be some lesser known bands that will eventually gain recognition, and plenty that will be forgotten. However, popularity and cultural perception has a lot to do with who becomes a musical icon. If a group is widely known and favorably perceived, it will generally have a greater influence on future culture and groups. Brittney Spears may not be a great or even good musician, but people know who she is and she has an entire sound and culture associated with her. That's what makes an icon, whether it is justice or not.