Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and even Stone Temple Pilots blew Nirvana out of the water. In terms of musical quality, Nirvana was slightly better than Hole. Just like John Lennon and The Beatles were slightly better than Yoko Ono, which isn't saying much.
2006-09-09 04:57:00 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
Not to mention the greatest mainstream band of our time, Metallica.
2006-09-09 04:58:42 · update #1
Now this I can see why you'd ask. I think Nirvana was in the right place at the right time, just as the case is with The Sex Pistols. It's not to say they didn't contribute anything to rock, but it just means that sometimes if you are the first to be discovered in a certain genre you are labeled a genius even though bands may have been doing the same thing years before.
2006-09-09 06:31:05 · answer #1 · answered by Vinyleyes 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Maybe if you truly understood what it takes to write a GOOD song then you would get it. Nirvana's style sets them apart from all other bands of their time. And to say that John Lennon and the Beatles were slightly better than Yoko Ono means you really don't know anything about music.
2006-09-09 05:05:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Nirvana was the band that really got the mainstream to look at grunge, but after the album "Nevermind" they went soft. I agree with the fact that Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were better, but the mainstream for some reason paid more attention to Nirvana when grunge really took off.
2006-09-09 04:59:10 · answer #3 · answered by zetterburg40 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Let's put this question into a historical context. I grew up in the eighties with heavy metal and hair bands. During the later eighties, the heavy metal and hair band scene had literally fried itself into pathetic oblivion. There was really no heavy upcoming musical alternative on the scene (I had switched my tastes to british punk and indie music). When I first heard Nirvana "smells like teen spirit" (I still remember that I was driving to see a client in South Wales and it came on the car stereo) it just blew me away. It was just like a breath of fresh air. I can't explain it. I called all my friends when I got home that evening (not many cellphones around back then) and talked about what I had heard on the radio. The others came later and they were good (some, like you, would argue better), but, for me, the earth shattering moment came from Nirvana. It's like a first love...no matter who comes later, you will always remember your first love.
2006-09-09 05:14:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It's not really a matter of "What was so great about Nirvana" so much as "What sucked so much about Winger?" - you can't separate music from the time and climate in which it is written & recorded or the time & climate in which it first appears (not always the same time, but both are vitally important to its impact) - Nirvana came along at a time when MTV's influence was finally starting to be seen as a bad thing; HairMetal was the reigning format for alienated & rebellious white teenage boys but didn't address their needs in the way that Black Sabbath (or even Blue Oyster Cult) had in the past; those same teenage boys were hearing Rap and identifying with the harsh realities therein but for the most part weren't buying into the Hip-Hop culture that went with it (hey, they were suburbanites!); Guns'N'Roses had shown a grittier type of hard rock / metal, but Axl himself was such a whiny sleazeball that nobody really wanted to identify with him; and, most importantly of all,
WE WERE WAY OVERDUE FOR SOMEBODY TO COME ALONG AND SHAKE THINGS UP ! ! !
Nirvana wasn't the first (Soundgarden) or the best (Pearl Jam) or the most extreme (Alice In Chains), but they were the first one to grab everybody's attention & make them go
"WHOOOA - WHAT WAS THAT ? ! ! "
whoever does that will inevitibly be superseded and exceeded by those who inevitibly follow, but there's no substitute for that initial moment of astonishment, which leads to a new landscape post-that-moment.
...and then Kurt Cobain died young & tragic, which means you never had to see Nirvana on the oldies circuit at state fairs and zoo amphitheatres (like, say...Winger?) - tragic as his death is, going out like Elvis would've been a hell of a lot worse - Nirvana is legend for all of that.
2006-09-09 05:23:24 · answer #5 · answered by World Famous Neffer 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Nirvana was SLIGHTLY better than Hole???? The Beatles were SLIGHTLY better than Yoko Ono???? I think you're SLIGHTLY retarded, how about that?
2006-09-09 05:04:05 · answer #6 · answered by sgrjackson1 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
nirvana started the trend of the music of the bands you just mentioned which is why they're awesome.
2006-09-09 05:00:11 · answer #7 · answered by WWMD 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hi
Im not a big nirvana fan, they played some good tracks but kurt was f******d up and I think thats tradgic as he was an intelligent person. Really sad xxx
2006-09-09 05:03:08 · answer #8 · answered by amber1234 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The fact that you need to ask says it all really.
You are not worthy of an answer to that Q, if you were a true rock/grunge fan you would just know.
That's all I have to say on the matter.
2006-09-09 06:00:20 · answer #9 · answered by yumyum2chestnut 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why do you still give a ****?
2006-09-09 05:01:10 · answer #10 · answered by theblackenedphoenix 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋