Admit it Sup Forums, they were fucking great

Admit it Sup Forums, they were fucking great.

Contrarian millennial hipsters who think otherwise have either never listened to any of their albums, or they are pretending to hate them to seem contrarian and edgy.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gcKizFyPLN4&list=PLCQNxPV-JejoiiMPtCfYcIfZc4NRQQiQj&index=13
rateyourmusic.com/rgenre/set?album_id=126
en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nirvana_(band)&oldid=755014166&diff=cur&diffonly=0
youtube.com/watch?v=LCtCEspGaa4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Not great in the sense that they ought to be revered as musical legends, but I like them a lot.

They're alright. Not as good as they're made out to be, but they're still rather good. I think it's a backlash more than anything else because they're placed on a level of bands like The Beatles and The Stones when near-on every band that influenced them is better than they are.

But they are rock legends...

I liked them when I was 14 and listened to all their shit then
Now I find them boring and immature
Fuck of cunt.

They're pretty fucking dope

They are more legend and myth than actual good music makers...

they were whiny pussies who though they were edgy...and their fans likewise.

if albini had produced nevermind MAYBE

otherwise no

cringe thread?

I used to LOVE The Beatles from age 10-14, then I got tired of them and thought they were "boring" like you think of Nirvana.

Then I started listening to them again about 10 years later and I gained a newfound respect for them.

Give them a listen again. Unless you're some edgy 19 year old who just started browsing Sup Forums last year.

What is Tim Heidecker doing there?!

What more could Albini even have done?

Explain why you think Albini producing Nevermind would make it better.

Saying "because In Utero was better than Nevermind" is not an answer. Actually explain why you think Albini would have made it better.

not made it a pop album

It's nowhere even close to straight up "pop" music, are you retarded?

Just because it went mainstream and had some hits doesn't mean it's fucking "pop" music.

In a broad sense, yes it technically is "pop music", but it isn't fair to lump it in with something like Britney Spears.

NEVERMIND
NEVERMIND
UUEAAEHHHH
*plays entirety of song in one chord*

Are you talking about My Bloody Valentine?

yes i am retarded

no i am not retarded

it is entirely fair to lump it in with Britney Spears

Then it's entirely fair to lump Big Black in with Britney Spears, because it a broad sense, it is also "pop music". It is not art music, nor is it folk music, therefore it is also pop music.

youtube.com/watch?v=gcKizFyPLN4&list=PLCQNxPV-JejoiiMPtCfYcIfZc4NRQQiQj&index=13

Guys this is totally pop music.

It's just like Britney Spears!

if big black had pop production techniques like nevermind does, then yes it would be pop

however it does not

That's not how you classify pop music.

Sorry bud, you're wrong.

Nirvana is great, but not as amazing as people put them out to be.

All of their albums are pretty good as well. I don't see why people hate on them as well just because they became overrated, just because of one album too. Nevermind is a good album, but In Utero is god-tier compared to that, it's better by the miles. Too bad many say Nevermind is the better pick, and anyone who says otherwise is contrarian.

Nevermind was more influential and groundbreaking at the time. That's why it's regarded higher.

To be frank, both Nevermind and In Utero are pretty much equally great.

its okay to like pop music, my old friend, after all music is objective

It's okay to be wrong my friend, after all my facts are objective.

they're good but kind of overrated

>oasis wrote better pop tunes
>alice in chains wrote better songs

In Utero is better for me, Nevermind just doesn't sound as amazing to me anymore. However, I do agree that it was influential.

Aight m8 fair enuff.

To be fair to the other poster, 'Nevermind' sounds horribly polished for a band like Nirvana. I've never enjoyed Butch Vig's approach to recording bands. The Andy Wallace mix then goes on to solidify its cold, corporate sound.

...

You're a fucking idiot. Pop isn't a narrow spectrum of sounds and that track isn't even included on the track listing. The main bulk of the record could quite easily be described as power-pop. Just because it's pop, doesn't mean it has to sound like Britney Spears. Grow the fuck up you immature cunt.

can you actually make an argument for your opinion or no

>People in this thread saying muh pop tunes

Nevermind was their only album with mostly pop music and even then it was still a solid record

In Utero and Bleach deserve a mention for being more punk oriented

...

it's an objectively correct statement. your meme image won't change it

Holy shit you're a dumb fuck. If it WAS power-pop, you'd see people actually list Power-pop as a genre that Nirvana played.

Never have I ever seen someone call Nirvana Power-pop. You are the first, and most likely the last, because it's such a stupid statement.

Power-pop is shit like Weezer's Blue album. Nirvana sound NOTHING like that.

its power-pop by todays standards

No it's not...

No one in this thread agrees with you. Except you. Face it mate, you're a complete fucking retard. I'm also guessing you're underage.

Lol...

It's actually the complete opposite. Literally nobody in the entire world agrees that Nirvana is power-pop music.

No one in this thread agreed with you either. Unless you samefagged.

>Power-pop is shit like Weezer's Blue album. Nirvana sound NOTHING like that
They sounds totally similar, what are you on about? Other than mood and the difference in voice, they're doing the same thing - big pop vocal melodies over a few fuzzy power chords.

Face the facts.

rateyourmusic.com/rgenre/set?album_id=126

is that better for you

This album is God Tier

>wikipedia

LOL

I'd rather trust RYM where HUNDREDS of people literally disagree with your opinion.

Also, lmao you literally just edited power pop in right now L O L.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nirvana_(band)&oldid=755014166&diff=cur&diffonly=0

You are one sad little boy. Think I wouldn't catch that?

how old are you

What'd you guys think of the 2013 Albini mix of In Utero?

youtube.com/watch?v=LCtCEspGaa4

You just edited in power-pop to the genre section, don't try to deflect.

en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nirvana_(band)&oldid=755014166&diff=cur&diffonly=0

It's even highlighted lol.

But it's actually an objectively incorrect statement.

>rateyourmusic.com/rgenre/set?album_id=126
Just tell us your age

Just stop samefagging and leave. You got BTFO, take a break.

The fact that you think I've been samefagging this whole time makes your insecurities so apparent, I'm starting to feel uncomfortable for you.

Friendly reminder!

Have a blessed weekend

The fact that you think changing up your typing style would trick me into thinking you're another user is sad.

But by all means, continue to deflect and attack me, rather than accepting the fact that Nirvana is not power-pop. Also don't forget how pathetic it was of you to change Nirvana's genres on Wikipedia, only to be found out and embarrassed by yours truly.

I like all 3. I'm what you call a.... Plebtrician. Plebcontrarcian?

The below posts were mine (the rest were another poster):
Is it really that unfathomable that someone else agreed with me and not you. Jeeeeez....

>Plebtrician
y'know, this legit sounds like a profession

wrong
r
o
n
g

vacuum noises aren't chords

You think having a person who resorted to changing Nirvana's genre on Wikipedia to "prove" a point on your side is a good thing?

Whether you are the same person or not doesn't change the fact that Nirvana is not power-pop.

go away courtney

What the fuck are you on about?!
this is me:
The fuck is wrong with you people?

My bad, this post was meant for I was going to reply to your post and say you were a "normal and well rounded" person because you liked all 3, but then I started to reply to the other guy and forgot I had your post quoted.

shut up

Lmao go edit more Wikipedia articles you assblasted fag.

i don't do that

Uh huh, sure buddy.

what up youtube youtube, joley oley comin at you with custom grow four-twenty!

Wait a minute, what the fuck...

If these two posts are you That means you replied to your post here with this post here The fuck...?

They weren't bad.

the beatles are far better than nirvana though

They were the worst of the big grunge bands of the 90s.

>albini
>produced

DADDY'S

But Pearl Jam is boring as fuck

LITTLE

alice in chains>>>>>>

((((thiscommentisbias)))

GIRL

it's a nice extra but i wouldn't want it to be the original

The thing is Kurt could have made much better music had he not been murdered, his talent was obvious, very consistent.

Can we all agree Bleach is the best Nirvana album?

No. It's good but it's not their best album.

Would you have "sex" with Courtney

AIN'T

Damn. Dave Grohl got fat.

>worse than Pearl Jam
nope, easily 100 times better.
>worse than Alice in Chains
nope, highly debatable
>worse than Soundgarden
nope, really depends on taste

I would like all the people in this room to know that Courtney Love, lead singer of the sensational pop group Hole, is the best fuck in the world

yup

i'd have a nice sloppy raunchy fuck with her and treat her like a cumslut whore

i'd never date/wife her (or any other woman like her) but i have a feeling she'd be a good raunchy fuck.

You mean Krist right?

The fat guy on the left is Krist Novoselic.

Not really a valid comparison desu, AiC was a borderline heavy metal band. Nirvana was noise rock.

She'd probably force heroin into you and shoot you

Nah dude. According to the pic, that's what Dave Grohl looks like now.

Hot

even better if I'm snorting Kurt's ashes out of her black abyss of a hole (no pun intended) while she pulls the trigger

Fuck no. I'd prefer to stay STD free.

Fun fact:
Nirvana was actually a power pop band two completely different bands tho

No such argument or explanation exists. You cannot "explain" or "argue", using any recognized logical criteria, why a musical piece can be made better, or even why a musical piece has any value.

People on this board do not understand that there is no actual reason why Beethoven is better than Justin Bieber or Brokencyde. In fact, there is no reason and saying the reverse is not incorrect because it is non-cognitive.

Think Beethoven was better than Brokencyde? Prove it using a completely watertight logical argument with no flaws. You can't.

>Hole

Uhh, no. If you're referring to the Nirvana from the 60's then they were psychedelic pop.

Do you enjoy living in Massachusetts?

; ^)

Dive and Aneurysm should've been released on an actual album. They're so fuckin good.