Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Pookie
Don't mean to be argumentative, but some of those phrases don't mean anything (bursts of sonic nirvana?).
I think there are two arguments: Nirvana's importance in the history of rock music and how good you think they are. Obviously the latter is up to the individual.
As to their importance, I think they were incredibly important. The time was right for an "underground" rock band to make it big. But that responsibility could have been handed to any number of (often better) bands who just didn't have the full package: Husker Du, Pixies, Smashing Pumpkins, Sonic Youth etc.
What Nirvana had was good tunes and more importantly, a good-looking, charasmatic, troubled (yawn) frontman. The world of music needs (or wants) this every now and then. Nirvana were a Doors for the nineties.
Anyway, lots has been written about the band. Probably can add little new.
Have I said I like them?
|
i defintely dont think how good they are is left up to the individual. that stuff can be proven even if its with some relative difficulty. Sonic Youth doesnt have the full package?! yeah, maybe not the marketing package because of Nirvana's frontman as you put it, but I am convinced that Sonic Youth can satisfy any criteria we throw at them to define the greatest band. As far as the Pixies curt cobain openly admitted nevermind was his failed attempt to write a pixies song. I think definitely their most innovative album was Bleach but hmm, I wonder where they picked up on that dirgy sound that became known as grunge. yes, it would be The Melvins. not saying curt ripped them off but he did use their pioneering into sludge as a springboard for grunge.