[apunkjunkie]

Originally Posted by m3s0h0rn7

GnR and Nirvana? No, not by a long shot. I'd just like to say, I highly doubt Cobain would have killed himself had he not been so popular. I think he realized he was stuck musically in a genre he didn't want to ever be in (pop). I believe that speaks volumes as to the context of the work he created and why his suicide is sensationalized so heavily. But this isn't really the place to explore further.

What's with all the Nirvana hate on this board?

I agree with you on GnR....but Nirvana? You'll be hard pressed to find any rock band today that wasn't influenced by Nirvana. How ignorant of you to think that grunge was pop? It was popular, but not "pop." Nirvana basically paved the way for modern rock.

However, I do agree, that they did become more popular with Kurt's death did make them more popular, but they were already at the top when he died.

[m3s0h0rn7]

Originally Posted by apunkjunkie

What's with all the Nirvana hate on this board?

I agree with you on GnR....but Nirvana? You'll be hard pressed to find any rock band today that wasn't influenced by Nirvana. How ignorant of you to think that grunge was pop? It was popular, but not "pop." Nirvana basically paved the way for modern rock.

However, I do agree, that they did become more popular with Kurt's death did make them more popular, but they were already at the top when he died.

Grunge isn't pop, I never stated that. When a band gets as popular as Nirvana did, and the music becomes as commercialized as it did, it doesn't matter what style their playing, it's pop. When soccer moms are humming along in the car to deathly lyrics and self loathing, it's pop. The difference between pop and every other genre is that it's based soley on popularity. Nirvana influenced the industry more than the artistry behind rock and roll. Look at what "rock" is today. EMO (for god's sake!) is considered by many as ROCK, because it's become popular, when in reality, it's nothing more than a mess of riffs, power chords and recycled bass lines that have evolved from punk inspired rock bands. It's hardly rock at all! It's like comparing Nickleback to Led Zeppelin...

Nirvana did for garage bands what the Beatles did for British rock bands of their time- they made it popular. The only difference being, there was no great awakening after Nirvana ended, no Pink Floyd equivilant, nothing but watered down "grunge" that lead to this deafly hell we're sitting in now. Boys dressing as girls and screaming about their high school problems- THAT's what Nirvana inspired, not to mention the reincarnation of glam rock, which grunge was soley against. The trail of popularity lead to this, it was inevitable. I'm 99% sure Curt realized this at some point, and is the reason he shot himself. Honestly, I would have too. That's not to say I don't enjoy Nirvana's music, or Curt as a lyricist, but it's far from being influential for the right reasons, and even farther off in terms of the highest quality music assumed for this thread in the grand history of time.

Now if you'll excuse me, my Fall Out Boy CD is skipping.

[Dj.Dangles]

I dont think I would put them in my top 5 or 10, but what does everyone think of aerosmith in rock? Especially with their ability to withstand the test of time?

[Ov3rmind in 2006]

Originally Posted by apunkjunkie

You'll be hard pressed to find any rock band today that wasn't influenced by Nirvana.

You must be completely oblivious to most music today.

And I don't think Nirvana lead the the emo trend you guys like to complain about so often. There was a lot of music, often punk derived, that centered around self pity long before Nirvana was around (even the word "emo" was used to describe music before Nirvana). The fashion/culture that surrounds it looks more like glam and hair metal than grunge as well.

[apunkjunkie]

Originally Posted by m3s0h0rn7

Grunge isn't pop, I never stated that. When a band gets as popular as Nirvana did, and the music becomes as commercialized as it did, it doesn't matter what style their playing, it's pop. When soccer moms are humming along in the car to deathly lyrics and self loathing, it's pop. The difference between pop and every other genre is that it's based soley on popularity. Nirvana influenced the industry more than the artistry behind rock and roll. Look at what "rock" is today. EMO (for god's sake!) is considered by many as ROCK, because it's become popular, when in reality, it's nothing more than a mess of riffs, power chords and recycled bass lines that have evolved from punk inspired rock bands. It's hardly rock at all! It's like comparing Nickleback to Led Zeppelin...

Nirvana did for garage bands what the Beatles did for British rock bands of their time- they made it popular. The only difference being, there was no great awakening after Nirvana ended, no Pink Floyd equivilant, nothing but watered down "grunge" that lead to this deafly hell we're sitting in now. Boys dressing as girls and screaming about their high school problems- THAT's what Nirvana inspired, not to mention the reincarnation of glam rock, which grunge was soley against. The trail of popularity lead to this, it was inevitable. I'm 99% sure Curt realized this at some point, and is the reason he shot himself. Honestly, I would have too. That's not to say I don't enjoy Nirvana's music, or Curt as a lyricist, but it's far from being influential for the right reasons, and even farther off in terms of the highest quality music assumed for this thread in the grand history of time.

Now if you'll excuse me, my Fall Out Boy CD is skipping.

I still have to disagree with you. As I said in a previous thread, take anyone 12-25 in the 90's and they probably have Nevermind sitting on their CD shelf. Nirvana's music, because it was simple to play, influenced a lot of people to pick up the guitar and stick with it. I know when I used to play, I was encouraged to learn the next Nirvana, Soundgarden, Bush, etc. song and play along with the CDs (I just had no talent ). I'm sure other musicians feel the same....though Nirvana may not be at the top of their list.

However, you can't compare the Beatles to Nirvana....the Beatles are too high above anyone else (except maybe Elvis) in regards to musical influence. But using your reasoning, you could say Green Day was more influential than Nirvana since they brought kids into punk (trust me, I was there when Dookie came out and was all the rage). As for "musical revolutions," the 70's was just a special era that may not be repeated anytime soon. Too many great bands came out of the 70's to even compare it to any other era.

Originally Posted by Ov3rmind in 2006

You must be completely oblivious to most music today.

And I don't think Nirvana lead the the emo trend you guys like to complain about so often. There was a lot of music, often punk derived, that centered around self pity long before Nirvana was around (even the word "emo" was used to describe music before Nirvana). The fashion/culture that surrounds it looks more like glam and hair metal than grunge as well.

The look isn't in, but I bet you guys that a lot of the emo bands out there started out listening to grunge (if they're old enough).

Its funny how a lot of music has the beginnings of punk .

[shiboboo]

Hmm...this is kinda tough as there are some that influence with their sound, while others just influence people to start into playing an instrument.

1. The Who - Nobody else even close. #1 by miles.
2. Hendrix
3. Clapton (I include solo, cream, etc in this)
4. Elvis
5. Beach Boys (Tough since it's the last spot. Others considered were The Beatles, The Doors, Eric Burdon including his time in The Animals and War, Dylan, Stever Miller Band, The Eagles, and Bruce Springsteen.)

[Ov3rmind in 2006]

Originally Posted by apunkjunkie

The look isn't in, but I bet you guys that a lot of the emo bands out there started out listening to grunge (if they're old enough).

I don't think so. A lof of emo bands today descended from Mineral, SDRE, Reggie and the Full Effect, etc. And those bands came from a general New Jersey sound wich was a culmination of the DC sound of the mid/late 80's and the NY youth crew bands of the same era (you can hear this pretty clearly in Turning Point). Both of those eras of music came from the hardcore punk explosion of the early 80's. No where does Nirvana fit into this picture.

Yeah, Nirvana was a big deal. But music today is influenced by a pretty wide range of bands/artists. I don't think you could find a band past the 1970's which could be credited with being responsible for influencing most current music.

[Adema3412]

Originally Posted by Ov3rmind in 2006

I don't think so. A lof of emo bands today descended from Mineral, SDRE, Reggie and the Full Effect, etc. And those bands came from a general New Jersey sound wich was a culmination of the DC sound of the mid/late 80's and the NY youth crew bands of the same era (you can hear this pretty clearly in Turning Point). Both of those eras of music came from the hardcore punk explosion of the early 80's. No where does Nirvana fit into this picture.

Yeah, Nirvana was a big deal. But music today is influenced by a pretty wide range of bands/artists. I don't think you could find a band past the 1970's which could be credited with being responsible for influencing most current music.

As usual Overmind is right.

[parkrats]

Hendrix
The Rolling Stones
Led Zeppelin
AC/DC
Stevie Ray Vaughn

[apunkjunkie]

Originally Posted by Adema3412

As usual Overmind is right.

You just like disagreeing with me Adema .

[NightKreeper]

elvis presley
the beatles
the rolling stones
led zeppelin
black sabbath

[m3s0h0rn7]

Originally Posted by apunkjunkie

I still have to disagree with you. As I said in a previous thread, take anyone 12-25 in the 90's and they probably have Nevermind sitting on their CD shelf. Nirvana's music, because it was simple to play, influenced a lot of people to pick up the guitar and stick with it. I know when I used to play, I was encouraged to learn the next Nirvana, Soundgarden, Bush, etc. song and play along with the CDs (I just had no talent ). I'm sure other musicians feel the same....though Nirvana may not be at the top of their list.

However, you can't compare the Beatles to Nirvana....the Beatles are too high above anyone else (except maybe Elvis) in regards to musical influence. But using your reasoning, you could say Green Day was more influential than Nirvana since they brought kids into punk (trust me, I was there when Dookie came out and was all the rage). As for "musical revolutions," the 70's was just a special era that may not be repeated anytime soon. Too many great bands came out of the 70's to even compare it to any other era.



The look isn't in, but I bet you guys that a lot of the emo bands out there started out listening to grunge (if they're old enough).

Its funny how a lot of music has the beginnings of punk .

I can understand where you're coming from, and you're right in some sense, but our interpretations don't seem to be the same. I compare them to the Beatles because they changed music so immensely in the way the industry and artist interacted with fans and listeners, and the backlash that inevitably is created for a musician.

The simplicity of their songs as you said, did influence many. However, it is that same simplicity that becomes repetitive very quickly, and then becomes impossible to draw inspiration from for very long. Playing Nirvana is a lot of fun, and I can agree that it's good to start on as a player, but I think to truly be influential, a band's material must help propagate advancement of genre and style. I didn't really see that happen after Nirvana, what I see and hear from fellow musicians is that they love Nirvana, but because they were huge, and not necessarily because of their work. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

And why did you stop playing man? Pick up that geetar again! It's never too late to create great music!

[apunkjunkie]

Originally Posted by m3s0h0rn7

I can understand where you're coming from, and you're right in some sense, but our interpretations don't seem to be the same. I compare them to the Beatles because they changed music so immensely in the way the industry and artist interacted with fans and listeners, and the backlash that inevitably is created for a musician.

The simplicity of their songs as you said, did influence many. However, it is that same simplicity that becomes repetitive very quickly, and then becomes impossible to draw inspiration from for very long. Playing Nirvana is a lot of fun, and I can agree that it's good to start on as a player, but I think to truly be influential, a band's material must help propagate advancement of genre and style. I didn't really see that happen after Nirvana, what I see and hear from fellow musicians is that they love Nirvana, but because they were huge, and not necessarily because of their work. I guess we'll just have to disagree.

And why did you stop playing man? Pick up that geetar again! It's never too late to create great music!

Yeah, we'll agree to disagree.

The reason I stopped playing? I realized I sucked. I have smaller hands and I can't stretch my fingers out as well....not to mention when I broke my arm when I was younger, it doesn't allow my non-picking wrist to bend like it needs to most of the time.

I picked up some guitar strings and some picks and plan on trying to get back into it soon.