Is Nirvana an overrated band? (and other ones)

[AboutAGirl]

I think there's two separate aspects to look at here: Nirvana's cultural impact, and Nirvana's musical output.

Nirvana's cultural impact isn't overrated much. Fact of the matter is, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, these groups were all releasing records before Nevermind, but none of them turned popular culture on its head. People often say that Nirvana was in the right place at the right time -- and that may be true, who knows how popular Nirvana would have been in the 70s or the 2000s. But what's also clear is that if they hadn't been there in 1991, another band wouldn't simply have taken their place. The other great grunge bands had their chance, and it was Nirvana that had the right mix of materials to cause the alternative explosion.

Is Nirvana's music overrated, though? I don't feel qualified to answer that, 'cause I've really moved on from where I was in my teens and can't much relate to that period anymore. As far as three-piece hard rock outfits go, Nirvana rocked harder and better than anyone else. But I doubt I'll ever be able to fully appreciate Nirvana again, too much history there and unpleasant memories that get in the way. And the one thing I need most to keep my interest in a band, is a rich catalog of material, like Neil Young or Tom Petty has with 30 albums to listen to. Nirvana had such a limited run, I had overplayed all their stuff a couple years after I started listening to them. It's a shame they didn't get a chance to continue, because I do think Kurt was moving towards even better music in the future.

As far as "grunge" being a genre, it most definitely is a genre, or at least a category (sub-genre) of music. It's something like emo and metalcore where nobody actually admits it's what they are, but that doesn't make it any less real. Nirvana, AIC, Soundgarden, these bands have a lot more in common with each other than they do with any other genre you could point them towards. AIC is more metal, Nirvana is more punk, in the same way that The Bluesbreakers are more bluesy and Led Zeppelin is more hard rock but they're both essentially blues-rock bands.

 

[Riff Raff]

I think there's two separate aspects to look at here: Nirvana's cultural impact, and Nirvana's musical output.

Nirvana's cultural impact isn't overrated much. Fact of the matter is, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, these groups were all releasing records before Nirvana, but none of them turned popular culture on its head. People often say that Nirvana was in the right place at the right time -- and that may be true, who knows how popular Nirvana would have been in the 70s or the 2000s. But what's also clear is that if they hadn't been there in 1991, another band wouldn't simply have taken their place. The other great grunge bands had their chance, and it was Nirvana that had the right mix of materials to cause the alternative explosion.

Is Nirvana's music overrated, though? I don't feel qualified to answer that, 'cause I've really moved on from where I was in my teens and can't much relate to that period anymore. As far as three-piece hard rock outfits go, Nirvana rocked harder and better than anyone else. But I doubt I'll ever be able to fully appreciate Nirvana again, too much history there and unpleasant memories that get in the way. And the one thing I need most to keep my interest in a band, is a rich catalog of material, like Neil Young or Tom Petty has with 30 albums to listen to. Nirvana had such a limited run, I had overplayed all their stuff a couple years after I started listening to them. It's a shame they didn't get a chance to continue, because I do think Kurt was moving towards even better music in the future.

As far as "grunge" being a genre, it most definitely is a genre, or at least a category (sub-genre) of music. It's something like emo and metalcore where nobody actually admits it's what they are, but that doesn't make it any less real. Nirvana, AIC, Soundgarden, these bands have a lot more in common with each other than they do with any other genre you could point them towards. AIC is more metal, Nirvana is more punk, in the same way that The Bluesbreakers are more bluesy and Led Zeppelin is more hard rock but they're both essentially blues-rock bands.

Agreed with a lot of this but particularly the bolded. People want to pretend like those don't exist but they do. lol

 

[LG]

I'm not getting into the 'genrefication' argument, it's so ridiculous these days I've given up on the classification artists/labels used to sell their product it's a marketing ploy more than anything else.

But I will say GRUNGE = the worst genre name in music history and I will always feel that way.

 

[coltrane2]

I think there's two separate aspects to look at here: Nirvana's cultural impact, and Nirvana's musical output.

Nirvana's cultural impact isn't overrated much. Fact of the matter is, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, these groups were all releasing records before Nevermind, but none of them turned popular culture on its head. People often say that Nirvana was in the right place at the right time -- and that may be true, who knows how popular Nirvana would have been in the 70s or the 2000s. But what's also clear is that if they hadn't been there in 1991, another band wouldn't simply have taken their place. The other great grunge bands had their chance, and it was Nirvana that had the right mix of materials to cause the alternative explosion.

Is Nirvana's music overrated, though? I don't feel qualified to answer that, 'cause I've really moved on from where I was in my teens and can't much relate to that period anymore. As far as three-piece hard rock outfits go, Nirvana rocked harder and better than anyone else. But I doubt I'll ever be able to fully appreciate Nirvana again, too much history there and unpleasant memories that get in the way. And the one thing I need most to keep my interest in a band, is a rich catalog of material, like Neil Young or Tom Petty has with 30 albums to listen to. Nirvana had such a limited run, I had overplayed all their stuff a couple years after I started listening to them. It's a shame they didn't get a chance to continue, because I do think Kurt was moving towards even better music in the future.

As far as "grunge" being a genre, it most definitely is a genre, or at least a category (sub-genre) of music. It's something like emo and metalcore where nobody actually admits it's what they are, but that doesn't make it any less real. Nirvana, AIC, Soundgarden, these bands have a lot more in common with each other than they do with any other genre you could point them towards. AIC is more metal, Nirvana is more punk, in the same way that The Bluesbreakers are more bluesy and Led Zeppelin is more hard rock but they're both essentially blues-rock bands.

I think you've summed it up well; cultural impact undeniable, musical legacy and catalogue arguably overrated. Maybe if they'd have been around for longer we would by now have a rich pot of recordings from which to draw. The fact is they were not and there is not.

 

[Aero]

I'm not getting into the 'genrefication' argument, it's so ridiculous these days I've given up on the classification artists/labels used to sell their product it's a marketing ploy more than anything else.

But I will say GRUNGE = the worst genre name in music history and I will always feel that way.

Nothing is worse than the "alternative" label. They've used this to represent all bands from the 80s onwards who don't fit into what's on your radio. It doesn't describe anything. It's like the "Misc" folder that you stick something into because it doesn't fit anywhere else.

 

[mrJim]

I am very positive on Nirvana and think they were great. I care less about 3 records, other grunge bands etc. etc. They were special creativity wise. I do believe most of that greatness was primarily (not completely but primarily) bundled into 1 member Cobain.

All that said; the genre has made them over rated. I always felt that culture needed its "loss" or its "John Lennon"... something to weep or suffer for. "Their Beatles" if you will. Nirvana filled it. but Cobain and Nirvana weren't really around long enough to know exactly how great they were.

as for 'genrefication'. its gotten so silly. but everybody has to be special these days and everything has to be marketed to the extreme to that special person.

Jim

 

[Big Ears]

If a band is liked by a lot of people, they are not really overrated, but neither are they necessarily everyone's cup of tea. A lot of bands are certainly underrated, having more musical talent than many of the commercial stars (imo).

Re grunge, I saw a TV documentary about the death of Kurt Cobain and it was quite sad. These days he could sidestep the record companies and perform or release material online. Grunge meant the reverse of over-produced and at least brought about a resurgence of heavy and progressive rock in the early nineties.

Bruce, the worst genre name is anything prefixed with 'proto', such as proto-metal, proto-progressive or, worse, proto-punk!

 

[Khor1255]

I think there's two separate aspects to look at here: Nirvana's cultural impact, and Nirvana's musical output.

Nirvana's cultural impact isn't overrated much. Fact of the matter is, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, these groups were all releasing records before Nevermind, but none of them turned popular culture on its head. People often say that Nirvana was in the right place at the right time -- and that may be true, who knows how popular Nirvana would have been in the 70s or the 2000s. But what's also clear is that if they hadn't been there in 1991, another band wouldn't simply have taken their place. The other great grunge bands had their chance, and it was Nirvana that had the right mix of materials to cause the alternative explosion.

Is Nirvana's music overrated, though? I don't feel qualified to answer that, 'cause I've really moved on from where I was in my teens and can't much relate to that period anymore. As far as three-piece hard rock outfits go, Nirvana rocked harder and better than anyone else. But I doubt I'll ever be able to fully appreciate Nirvana again, too much history there and unpleasant memories that get in the way. And the one thing I need most to keep my interest in a band, is a rich catalog of material, like Neil Young or Tom Petty has with 30 albums to listen to. Nirvana had such a limited run, I had overplayed all their stuff a couple years after I started listening to them. It's a shame they didn't get a chance to continue, because I do think Kurt was moving towards even better music in the future.

As far as "grunge" being a genre, it most definitely is a genre, or at least a category (sub-genre) of music. It's something like emo and metalcore where nobody actually admits it's what they are, but that doesn't make it any less real. Nirvana, AIC, Soundgarden, these bands have a lot more in common with each other than they do with any other genre you could point them towards. AIC is more metal, Nirvana is more punk, in the same way that The Bluesbreakers are more bluesy and Led Zeppelin is more hard rock but they're both essentially blues-rock bands.

OK, if that's the case then who were the metal bands in the early 90s?

 

[AboutAGirl]

OK, if that's the case then who were the metal bands in the early 90s?

I haven't read the whole thread and so I'm not sure what you're getting at. There were lots of metal bands in the early 90s, some of the main waves include the death metal explosion, the norwegian black metal scene, and the "groove metal" style headed by Pantera.

 

[Riff Raff]

I haven't read the whole thread and so I'm not sure what you're getting at. There were lots of metal bands in the early 90s, some of the main waves include the death metal explosion, the norwegian black metal scene, and the "groove metal" style headed by Pantera.

And plenty of progressive metal bands too.