2007-07-04 16:19:52 · 12 answers · asked by Spanglish 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Rock and Pop
Who really knows? For starters Kurt Cobain was one man. Nirvana when they signed the big deal they got caught up in the circumstances that surrounded them. I don't think they set out to all most single handedly alter the coarse of rock music, they where just being themselves.
Therefore I don't think they would have changed the pop explosion that occured in the late 90s into the the 2000s. And to be honest, I prefer the 90s Stone Temple Pilots and the 90s Our Lady Peace stuff better than Nirvana overall anyway.
If Nirvana was still around today, yeah they would be huge, they had a tremendous following. I still think the music industry as we know it would exist as it does today regardless. Nirvana still would have set out to make and play music. Consider that the Foo Fighters carried over a lot of Nirvana fans, yet the industry still went into a pop explosion only a few years later.
And I would say that music sucks today, instead I feel as if I'm too busy searching out and listening to the stuff that I do like from today instead (new Finger Eleven, Chris Cornell, Black Stone Cherry, Tantric, Incubus). I feel that if you look in the right places, and look hard enough that you will always find something that you like regardless of weather or not it's popular.
2007-07-04 16:49:14 · answer #1 · answered by Baltimore Birds Fan 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
All the bad music would still be around even if Nirvana was together, and Kurt was still alive. Kurt C. wouldn't of had the power to stop all these lame bands from forming, or all the lame music from entering the industry.
2007-07-04 23:25:00 · answer #2 · answered by Nerds Rule! 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably so, though there is some really good stuff out today too.
I especially like 5 for fightimg and music of that nature. Kurt, like so many artists of my era was a victim of drug abuse. Pot doesn't bother me, but when you go shooting up, there is only one thing that will eventually occur and it did with Kurt, just like Janis, Jimi, Jim and others.
Kurt and all of those I mentioned woud have probably really had even more influence if they had a longer body of work, still they have left a legacy.
Another victim to drugs (prescribed) is the man who started it all. Just about everything else others would do he did first. He too is gone but not forgotten. He wasn't my personal favorite, but I liked him and love or hate him, he did it all and started it all. Of course he did leave a tremendous body of work.
Elvis of course.
But, yeah, I think the music would still be like it is even if all of those had lived.
2007-07-04 23:50:54 · answer #3 · answered by rumbler_12 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, not all of it sucks. If you know where to look there are plenty of bands that still deserve a lot of credit.
I don't think he would have had that much pull, frankly a lot of his success appeared after his death. The band was having troubles, he couldn't stay clean, and Courtney was just dragging him down. I'm not sure, even if things had happened differently he would still be alive anyway. Even if he were, there is no way Nirvana would still be around.
There will always be bad music, as there always has been. Genres go in swings, they come in and go out every few years. People get bored and move on. The classics are still there and some bands have been going strong for decades.
Sadly, it can't rely on one man.
2007-07-04 23:26:14 · answer #4 · answered by Courtlyn 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Good question. I ALWAYS find my self asking what if about how Nirvana would have been without Kurt's death. I think they would have still been great today btu Kurt couldn't have saved the music world today. There was crap pre KC & after KC. Just fact.
2007-07-04 23:44:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You know, I use to worship Nirvana and Kurt Cobain, then I wised up to how mainstream pop they were. Don't get me wrong, I have respect for them that they paved the way for today's music, but let's be honest; musicianship wise, they sucked (excluding Dave Grohl). They were visionaries, but only in their own time. Today, music has become more intense and difficult to perform. You never heard Kurt play an arpeggio sweep, have you? Yeah, it's that intense these days; basically, if you can't pull that off, you will NOT make it in a hard rock/metal world. Simple enough, you're stuck in the past, and you need to refine your music tastes. Check out Avenged Sevenfold, Children of Bodom, Atreyu, Killswitch Engage, etc....welcome to the new world! By the way, rap is not music. It's stealing; sampling other people music and talking fast over it is still stealing! Why did Napster get busted again?
2007-07-04 23:34:21 · answer #6 · answered by youdontneedtoknowme 5 · 0⤊ 3⤋
No, Grunge was on the rise and they would have been on the cutting edge of it... What a loss losing Kurt. Almost as bad as losing Duane Alllman.
2007-07-04 23:26:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nirvana would have been without a doubt no argument the best of all time, and it's funny with as little music they had they still fit in that category.
Dam you, courtney love!
2007-07-04 23:24:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
mainstream pop, your such an idiot. saying you have to be a guitar god just to make it in todays world, thats bull **** thats what was so great about nirvana, kurt new he did't have the best vocals or guitar skills but they didn't have to have those things. they were themselves and thats all they were trying to be and they were so succesfull because of that.
2007-07-05 00:53:20 · answer #9 · answered by Atlas 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
his death ended the reign of great rock bands
2007-07-05 01:00:15 · answer #10 · answered by obladioblada 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋