Give me one reason Nirvana is a better band than Korn aside from muh deep lyrics

Give me one reason Nirvana is a better band than Korn aside from muh deep lyrics

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=SGK00Q7xx-s
youtube.com/watch?v=sAVybZDjP8s
youtube.com/watch?v=HMDGO8RjJEg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

They're both equally shitty, but for different reasons.

one of these bands was kind enough to end themselves after a few years.

>both made good first albums
>both turned to shit after
>both are only listened to by edgy teens.
How the hell are they different?

>I agree that from a technical, theoretical standpoint, Nirvana wasn't the most "talented", nor "intellectual" rock band of their time. At times, their music was very primitive compared to other alternative rock bands of their era, let alone the legends imprinted on the fabric of music history. However, to even compare and criticize Nirvana to other musicians/artists, especially to Hendrix and Dylan, would be missing the point entirely.

>Nirvana is a PUNK band, first and foremost. Their ethos revolved around passion, spontaneity, and creativity, all jammed into simplicity. They didn't pride themselves on being the most intricate artists (though at times, their music, especially on In Utero, could rival quite a few art rock/metal bands at the time in terms of lyricism), but what they lacked in complexity, they made up for in sheer energy combined with abstract idealism. Kurt Cobain's singing was somewhat of an acquired taste, but still was original insofar he was the first real singer to actually yell melodically, without sounding like a ditz or a moron. Smells Like Teen Spirit represented the apathy and nihilism of teenagers and adults at that time, and managed to achieve what most considered unfathomable: to appeal to both social outcasts/space cadets and the typical, bravado jocks Kurt himself hated. And plus, with Nevermind, they finally managed to destroy the superficiality of the glam/hair metal era and in turn, finally gave rise to indie and alternative as the most popular form of rock, beginning a new era of creativity to music itself. If Nirvana attempted to be taken seriously as the new Beethoven or Mozart, or even to simply rival Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix or the Beatles, then they failed miserably as a band. However, if they wanted to grow their passion for music and explore their artistic side more, and reshape rock as a whole for possibly the entirety of the modern era, then they perfectly achieved so.

You might've gotten dubs, but if you can't figure out why Nirvana is better than Korn, then you never will. (Hint: Nirvana is NOT Nu-Metal)

other than edgy lyrics what's the similarity?

Nirvana mixed pop with abstract post-hardcore, sludge metal and indie. Korn mixed metal with shit.

>Nirvana
>sludge metal
>post-hardcore
This album has more in common with those genres than anything Nirvana ever did desu

>Nirvana mixed metal with shit and so did Korn
ok? Doesn't really answer OPs question.

Because instrumentally, Nirvana had much more diversity in their songs, while managing to perfectly convey the messages they wanted to achieve. Korn revelled in their generic riffs, David's whiny, uninspired vocals, and boring rhythms one would find in a Faith No More/RHCP B-side.

*Davis'

bleach is melvins worship, before he started nirvana he wanted to play guitar for buzz

>Nirvana had much more diversity in their songs
They were literally the most basic bitch alt band ever.
>dude 2 power chords in 4/4 lmao

>implying issues isn't korn's best album

I was equally interested in both when I was 12. I don't make this statement as a judgement of quality of the music of either group, but just a statement of fact.

Nirvana was covered by Herbie Hancock. Thus, Nirvana wins.

literally none of their albums sound like each other

Congratulations, you've finished Nevermind for the first time! You still have two more albums, an EP and Unplugged left, along with Kurt's other non-singles songs!

Bleach - Post-Hardcore/Hardcore Punk meets Sludge and Hard Rock
Nevermind - Alternative Rock meets pop, Post-Punk and hardcore
In Utero - Noise Rock, Alternative Metal, Experimental Rock.

>In Utero - Noise Rock meets pop
fixd that

>implying any of those but bleach are actually worth listening to

korn uses drop tuning on 7 or 8 strings and johnathans lyrics and delivery are pretty cheesy and overused. Also nu metal's image is much more dated than that of grunge. Korn's first four albums were pretty dank for the most part though

>In Utero - Noise Rock, Alternative Metal, Experimental Rock.
top kek you are like 12

youtube.com/watch?v=SGK00Q7xx-s

blind was sonically far more interesting than anything nirvana ever did

this is way more interesting than that
youtube.com/watch?v=sAVybZDjP8s

and this is heavier
youtube.com/watch?v=HMDGO8RjJEg

they aren't
korn has 12 consistently good albums
nirvana has 1 great album 1 good album and 1 shit album

It is. That doesn't mean it's a good example of those genres or that it's good, but you're being a faggot.

>old age
>trauma after being molested as a child
Which sounds more interesting to you?

i prefer old age but paper cuts is heavier than that korn song

>this is way more interesting than that
nope
>and this is heavier
not really, and korn were able to build and hold tension far better in that song

At this point I listen to Korn and Nirvana about equally, which is to say, super rarely, maybe if I see them in a Youtube recommended video I'll click on it, but I'm not going to search it out intentionally.

Didn't Nirvana use a humongous amount of chords in their songs?

Alice In Chains and melvins>both

>I agree that from a technical, theoretical standpoint, Korn wasn't the most "talented", nor "intellectual" rock band of their time. At times, their music was very primitive compared to other alternative metal bands of their era, let alone the legends imprinted on the fabric of music history. However, to even compare and criticize Korn to other musicians/artists, especially to Hendrix and Dylan, would be missing the point entirely.

>Korn is a PUNK band, first and foremost. Their ethos revolved around passion, spontaneity, and creativity, all jammed into simplicity. They didn't pride themselves on being the most intricate artists (though at times, their music, especially on Issues, could rival quite a few art rock/metal bands at the time in terms of lyricism), but what they lacked in complexity, they made up for in sheer energy combined with abstract idealism. Jonathan Davis's singing was somewhat of an acquired taste, but still was original insofar he was the first real singer to actually yell melodically, without sounding like a ditz or a moron. Blind represented the apathy and nihilism of teenagers and adults at that time, and managed to achieve what most considered unfathomable: to appeal to both social outcasts/space cadets and the typical, bravado jocks Jonathan himself hated. And plus, with Korn (1994), they finally managed to destroy the superficiality of the thrash metal era and in turn, finally gave rise to nu and alternative metal as the most popular form of rock, beginning a new era of creativity to music itself. If Korn attempted to be taken seriously as the new Beethoven or Mozart, or even to simply rival Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix or the Beatles, then they failed miserably as a band. However, if they wanted to grow their passion for music and explore their artistic side more, and reshape rock as a whole for possibly the entirety of the modern era, then they perfectly achieved so.
fixed

vocaroo yourself playing the solo on "school" faggot

Lol, nice job editing my post. But you forgot one last part.

>Judging by your comments, you strike me as a person seeking more technically advanced forms of music, which I understand. You're entitled to your opinion on Nirvana, but at least respect their influence to music history, because a band like Nirvana only comes around once in a generation.