This is interesting though...is this really true?
I think Nirvana is a better band without the label of "Voice Of A Generation" or anything like that.
If we really think about it, almost any band can be a voice of a generation if they're popular, have a fan base and those generations grew up with whatever band.
To me Nirvana was a rock band...and like most rock bands some tunes are better than others. Kurt did what he felt and did it to the best of his ability and garnered his fan base and made people happy...must have or they wouldn't have bought their cd's.
But the only exception I will give to "A Voice" of a generation would be Lennon as it wasn't about musical style...one sound....it was all in the words.
Fans sorted treated Lennon as a voice of reason or a leader...not changing or altering the style of popular music at that time...couldn't be the music as Lennon would try it all musically.
A bit of reggae,hard rock,ballads,swing,boogie,blues,pop.
It really came down to the words and his overall message regarding War,Politics and Peace....or his undying love for Yoko which can reflect in others the meaning of love un-ashamed.
For Kurt? It was really the same rock and roll message of angnst, coming of age and the confusion of growing up from your teen years and trying to find a bit of direction which can be a huge struggle.
We've heard this in Alice Cooper's I'm Eighteen and many more songs before this and after Nirvana.
It was really a change in musical style, and many thought it was killing off metal or hard rock but time has proven this to not be the case and Kurt himself , I believe had no such intentions. I don't believe Kurt Cobain was very fond of MTV's practices as the rest of the world wasn't either (or most).
IMHO I say rest in peace...he was a rocker...Nirvana was a rock band that hit it hard...it is what it is.
:
