Why does everyone think Nirvana are overrated? Because they are mainstream...

Why does everyone think Nirvana are overrated? Because they are mainstream? And do Foo fighters have any good material or are they just dog shit?

Attached: foofightersnirvana.jpg (592x364, 77K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dMaZtZ9KwwY
youtube.com/watch?v=dNygeUi662E
youtube.com/watch?v=BOuIsGYjZGs
youtube.com/watch?v=YjqINWlKNNk
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

The Colour and the Shape is the only good material between the both of em

They are overrated because most of their songs are "le edgy punk" with endless screaming and cacophony. They only got famous because songs from Nevermind were put on heavy rotation on MTV. They are the quintessential MTV band. And that's not a good thing.

nirvana was somehow good proto-buttrock.
foo fighters are legitimate buttrock.

I actually like Nirvana's music

kurt got clout

Because they are often concidered one of the best and most influential rock band of all time along with the likes of the Beatles and Led Zeppelin dispite having significantly less claim to a title like that. They represent a cultural shift in mainstream rock towards a more alternative sound, despite how by 1991 bands like the Pixies, Sonic Youth ect. already created multiple critically acclaimed alternative rock albums with decent mainstream success. They have some quality work but it honestly pales in comparison to other bands often cited as "the best" and thier musical influence isnt as important as the mainstream thinks. Kurts death basically inflated their popularity and established their legacy.

Because they're overrated. Alice in chains is the better grunge band.

Everyone bitches about Nevermind and how Nirvana was essentially punk for the masses. Pic related is a much better album IMO. Still holds up well even to this day.

Foo fighters = dog shit

Attached: 220px-In_Utero_(Nirvana)_album_cover.jpg (220x217, 9K)

but Bleach is their best album...

Shut up, MTV was great in the late 80s and most of the 90s. Before Youtube took off it was the only way most people got to SEE a band perform and pretty much invented the music video as an artform. Most of the great bands of that era could be described as "MTV bands". Fuck off with your Huffpost "and this is why its a good thing"

This.

Attached: shitpost.jpg (1080x960, 357K)

this tbqh. they are a good, maybe even great band at times, but they wouldn't be seen as so influential if Kurt hadn't an heroed

layne staley desu

Attached: 480c5f41-8e91-407f-88de-672e49dd88cd.jpg (798x449, 47K)

they became too popular unfortunately, became fetishized by teenage girls in the 2000's, so now when anyone thinks of nirvana they associate it with teenage girls and assume they're an overrated band because of that. Its a shame because they are pretty good. If they popped up now i'm positive they would make an impact, maybe not to the same degree but certainly something.

>it was the only way most people got to SEE a band perform
Other than y'know going to see them live.

>and pretty much invented the music video as an artform

Killed radio and promoted music based on who is marketable and cooler not who makes better music.

image has always been a big part of music though, even before music videos

The standards got drastically higher with mtv and any band that wasn't marketable at all got no air time.

If you don't have the money to go to gigs, which have always been expensive, and if you don't live in a big city in Europe or North America, you wouldn't really get the chance to see them.

>Why does everyone think Nirvana are overrated?
Because people are idiots
>And do Foo fighters have any good material or are they just dog shit?
Their first two albums are fine.

>nirvana was proto-buttrock.
Are you retarded

>and pretty much invented the music video as an artform
Bands were making videos in the 60s you dummy

Which weren't broadcast because most people didn't have TVs...

20 dollars max? Unless you see the stadium rock bands

That's right because no one ever saw The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan show

THIS

No it's because music videos were rarely played on tv channels before MTV came along and nothing approaching 24/7 coverage like MTV, only appearing on Australian and British tv shows and specials

Pixies never refined the pop-rock song structure as well as Nirvana did to reach break-through success. Sonic Youth are massively overrated, completely lacked refinement, lacked a singular cohesive voice as a band (vast-discrepencies in sound between Renaldo, moore, and gordon. With renaldo and moore's songs generally being pretty good to great with kim's songs rarely, if ever, reaching beyond being pretty good). Nirvana was an absolute tour-de-force, with a terrible post-mortem fan base and was sacrificed on the altar of mainstream rock. They are, and were far better than this board would have you believe, but they are certainly not without their faults and are massively over-praised (and generally for the things they weren't even particularly good at) by the public at large.

Alice In Chains was so much better than Nirvana it’s not even funny

>Alice In Chains was so much better than Nirvana
At being boring

Nirvana wouldnt have achieved shit without their beautiful looking front man. What set them aart from everyone they copied? Kurt was handsome end of the story. These other forgettable bands like the melvins either had lardasses or guys that look like they work in an office or some shit.

>What set them aart from everyone they copied?
Who did they copy?

>nirvana ARE overrated
IS. 'IS OVERRATED' YOU MORON. YOU DO NOT SAY 'ARE' BECAUSE AS AN ACT, NIRVANA IS ONE FUCKING ENTITY. NIRVANA IS THE ARTIST NAME, IF YOU SAID 'CURT COBAIN AND FRIENDS ARE OVERRATED' IT'D BE FINE BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE, BUT AS NIRVANA BEING ONE ENTITY YOU SAY 'IS'. GOD DAMN.

This

Not really because they aren't overrated at all.

>I haven’t listened to Dirt

>Why does everyone think Nirvana are overrated?
Because the songs suck ass.

I bought it when it came out. It's not great, and lack the refined songwriting Kurt could accomplish

you mad because it's true

Not really. Butt-rock was around in the early 80s.

Nirvana's refining of the Pixies sound into a mass market pop structure just made it more drab and less unique. It's not like the Pixies are at all obtuse to beginning, watering down an already pretty streamlined sound is just unnecessary. And Sonic Youth is so stylistically different from Nirvana. At their best they where significantly better (around Evol and Sister), as they could actually write accessible songs while not abandoning their noise and No Wave origins. They both represented a push towards alternative rock in the mainstream, except one was a bit more genuine about it. Nirvana specifically cultivated a pop album with a rebellious and gritty aesthetic to attract people who wanted to be "heavy" and "alternative" while never actually straying from their comfort zone. Their success is built off a few big singles and Kurt' death. You can't dive into Nirvana's discography and point out specific innovations and artistic experimentation like you can with with other band often cited as the "best of all time". They should be remembered as a very good band, but only two successful mainstream rock albums built off an existing sound doesn't qualify them to be in the same sentence as the Beatles or Led Zeppelin for most important bands ever.

The Pixies, Kurt even said Smell's Like Teen Spirit was in a way and homage to them. I don't think it discredits the quality of the song but it does make you question just how innovative their sound was (not very). By 1991 the new alternative rock grunge sound was pretty established. Pearl Jam, Sound garden, and Alice in Chains where pretty active, Nirvana wasn't the first to do anything.

5 star post

>Kurt cobain
>refined songwriting
I don't know if you're memeing or what, down in a hole and rain when I die blow anything nirvana ever did completely away

>The Pixies,
In what way? I'm not hearing it
How so? Chart out the songs and show us.

>how so
In the melodies, harmonies, instrumentation and performances. There's no need to chart them out, the proof is on record.

>There's no need to chart them out
There is. You made the claim, you need to show us.

enjoyed the first foo fighters album more than anything in nirvana's back catalogue desu

>le moving goalposts
What exactly are you looking for buddy? A dissertation on why Jerry and layne were better songwriters?

>supporting my argument with fact? That's moving goalposts!
No wonder you think an artist with basic chorus sequences and poor voice leading is better

>Sonic Youth are massively overrated, completely lacked refinement, lacked a singular cohesive voice as a band (vast-discrepencies in sound between Renaldo, moore, and gordon. With renaldo and moore's songs generally being pretty good to great with kim's songs rarely, if ever, reaching beyond being pretty good).
I'll give you that they had creative differences but they're a superior band to nirvana

Sounds like you're describing nirvana. What facts do you need m8

Listen to the structure of the songs between nirvana and pixies and you'll hear similarities

Its not that Nirvana is bad, its just that when put on the timetables of the 80s/90s they are very bland. When looked at singularly, they are cool.

>Listen to the structure
What a verse-chorus-verse structure? That's very common for rock music since it's inception.
I already said, chart it out. Can't you read?

Quiet verses, loud chorus.

Alice in Chains were stunningly average by-the-numbers rock. Some good songs made by good musicians but nothing outstanding. They never evolved at all during their mature period and their glam metal period is disgusting:

youtube.com/watch?v=dMaZtZ9KwwY
youtube.com/watch?v=dNygeUi662E
youtube.com/watch?v=BOuIsGYjZGs

kek
youtube.com/watch?v=YjqINWlKNNk

Chart your own shit out faggot

What do you want in the chart m8

>Quiet verses, loud chorus.
What? That's been done since the 60s. Try again.
>Prove my argument for me!
Nah.

Revisionist bullshit.
For a start, Pearl Jam only became big at the end of 1992. Ten did not sell well at all throughout 1991-2. Pearl Jam were the last of the four to gain widespread recognition. But since Ten continued to sell extremely well throughout the 1990s this distorts peoples perception.
Alice in Chains had a lot of plaudits and hit the top 40 first with Facelift in 1991, but didn't sell as well as Nirvana or Soundgarden. And at first they were lumped in with Guns n Roses, Pantera, Jane's Addiction, etc.
Soundgarden really were picking up big steam regardless through 1991 but only by early 1992 were they selling huge amounts. Regardless, if Nirvana had not broke, Soundgarden would have done so a little later.
It was REM and to a lesser extent the Smashing Pumpkins that prefigured Nirvana's success.

Attached: chris_ott.jpg (1152x786, 71K)

>cherrypicking demo shit from 87
The absolute state of nirvanafags

Dat damage control

>I'll just strawman you into oblvion!
Well done dude. No one can give you what you want unless you tell us what that is. "Chart it out" is pretty fucking vague

That materials a farcry from even the stuff on facelift my dude.

Soundgarden were the first of the lot to sign to a major, they were the ones everyone expected to be huge.

How is that a strawman?

I think you're just using random words now.
Not my problem. It's yours for having an incorrect opinion.

Dude even kurt talked about the formula nirvana had which took from the pixies.

>When Cobain heard the Pixies' 1988 album Surfer Rosa after recording Bleach, he felt it had the sound he wanted to achieve but until then was too intimidated to try. The Pixies' subsequent popularity encouraged Cobain to follow his instincts as a songwriter.[98] Like the Pixies, Nirvana moved between "spare bass-and-drum grooves and shrill bursts of screaming guitar and vocals".[99] Near the end of his life, Cobain noted the band had become bored by the formula, finding it limited, but he expressed doubts that the band was skilled enough to try other dynamics.[60]

Irrelevant.

You'll have to find something else that hadn't already been exploited by rock groups for 30 years prior

Kurtfags are the worst, they never even think of conceding that there were better bands, songwriters and frontman all because their hero "died too soon". Good riddance mate.

Attached: tmp_24696-13599462281401509816817.jpg (720x528, 372K)

Nice strawman
Maybe you can also say Kurt stole G chords from Pixies as well? Or maybe playing guitar altogether?

Alice in Chains were still shitty glam rockers when Everett True hit Seattle in 1989 and started hyping the shit out of the scene in Melody Maker, back when the UK music weeklies were still incredibly influential in getting underground bands noticed. It's pretty obvious they realised they were they were missing a trick and changed their sound and image as they didn't fit the style of all the other bands that were getting recognition.

Attached: the-sub-pop-rosta-18th-march-19891[1].jpg (3876x2510, 3.04M)

>so butthurt you start flinging insults because you can't hold a decent conversation

Attached: 1520985996576.jpg (317x427, 31K)

What insults?

Yeah but all those bands were already dabbling with the Grunge sound and aesthetic. Usually when a band it's celebrated for being innovative like Nirvana is it's cause they actually innovated. Just because they weren't as big doesn't discredit what they did for building a sound Nirvana eventually went famous for utilizing. Especially when their work was at a similar level in quality to Nirvana's.

Pantera did the exact same thing

>Usually when a band it's celebrated for being innovative like Nirvana is it's cause they actually innovated.
But they did. No other Seattle band sounded exactly like them.

Your existence is insulting

>A different point of view than mine?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Stop

You Did the same thing demanding a "chart" of why I thought AiC were better. Wew lad

You're right, they utilized a much more pop oriented writing style then the other Seattle bands while still focusing on the gritty and rebellious aesthetics, which is part of the reason they blew up so much. Pop song writing isn't especially innovative either.

*blocks your path*

Attached: 4cf730cb5289489d9752e8128834f50d.jpg (770x1059, 128K)

For asking you to back up your argument?

You are not intelligent
>Pop song writing isn't especially innovative either.
It is when put into contrasting context

You have refused to quantify or qualify exactly what proof you require to soothe your autism.

40% of Nirvana success is Kurt making vagene wet
The only legit good album from uncle Dave is pic related
this is undeniable
I love everlong and my hero, but the color and the shape as an album is G.A.R.B.A.G.e

Attached: file.png (650x650, 944K)

Attached: FZxjmwp_d.jpg (200x215, 9K)

Oh I see, you don't know music theory. Why didn't you say so in the first place?

>he cant enjoy something without an autistic need to take notes and "chart it out"

Attached: 1519082026012.jpg (563x503, 21K)

Fucking hell, alright

Hole were considerably better than Nirvana desu.
They were better at being an abrasive noise rock band, they were better at being a clean-cut pop band, they were better at being a mix of the two.

Attached: 9e0663b536a049868cd76452a3118063.jpg (770x777, 115K)

How else would you demonstrate that something is better?

Stop posting any time please

*with a lot of extra help.

The proofs in the pudding sweetie. Use your ears that god gave ya and you'll see Kurt was a third rate songwriter at best. Try to keep your addled mind from clouding your judgement

foo fighters are like those fake rock bands you see in movies where kids from school are gonna go see them live and it turns out terrible, because nobody involved with the movie knew anything about music.

If that's your rubric, then yes, Nirvana is better than Alice In chains.

You'll grow out of this cobain worship phase when you pass 9th grade. Keep your chin up lad.

Are you retarded? What's going on?

You know Nirvana released an album and EPs before Nevermind right?
Pearl Jam had broken away from the grunge sound when their half of Green River left it. Ten was a product of Mother Love Bone collapsing and they started recording it when they hadn't settled even on the band name.
I agree there is a clear influence of Soundgarden on Nirvana's sound on Nevermind but I don't see the influence of the other two, aside from the residual Green River influence (afaik, Kurt was only a fan of Mudhoney though). As said, Alice in Chains were a glam metal band when Nirvana were recording Bleach.
I would never personally deny they're on a similar level of quality but there are reasons why people probably found Nirvana more immediately relatable. STLS is a clear behemoth of a song
This is dumb. I get your argument when it comes to the Melvins but all the frontmen of the top 4 were attractive. In the nineties Vedder was considered the main sex symbol out of all of them

Spot on

Attached: draper.jpg (413x395, 15K)