Since Nirvana?

Question

Do you think Nirvana helped or hindered the current popular music landscape? Yea Nirvana did away with the 80s hair bands but was the end result worth it considering the current output of all these trendy, shallow bands that all the kids are listening to? Oh and MCR, FOB, GC lovers need not reply. I know your opinion already so don't piss me off by saying "they rule I will love them forever!!!" Gag....

Answer 1

Good question.

I think for a short time around 1991 to about '93, they DEF' *helped* the popular music landscape. But then the copycats started overloading the scene. (as it happens all the time when one band strikes gold w/ a different sound & attitude)

But some considered grunge too dark & hopeless (which, funny enough, those same MCR fans might actually like, though it's minus the 'epic' sound)

So then happy pop came back again ala boybands & "teen divas"- Nsync, Britney & Backstreet Jerks.

Today, as someone else put it, we've got the boybands carrying & playing guitars now & dishing out easy to swallow, watered down "punk". Pop punk.

I don't think Nirvana is *directly* responsible for this. I think the damn 90s boybands are more to blame b/c I clearly remember the backlash against them all.

"They can't even play their own instruments or write their own songs!" "They're so gay!" "Assembly line pop!" (which was all mostly true, actually) :)

So I'd guess the industry saw an opening for a happy (& annoying) mid-ground between pop & rock.

Enter Avril Lasagne/ Latrine/Lavoris/Listerine . The "Anti-Britney", as she was called. & FOB- one of several offspring of Green Day & Blink 182 (who're shameless offspring of the Sex Pistols & others)

So here we are. Like it or not, unfortunately...

Answer 2

This is a great question.

I think that with most things in life, Nirvana's success is a double edged sword.

I do think they've helped the industry. Because of the unbelievable mainstream success they had with "Smells Like Teen Spirit," which lead to boggling sales of "Nevermind," they paved the way for other grunge artist to become household names (which of course, prompted "old-school" fans to say they sold out. They didn't -- they got famous, which is what they set out to do!).

While they were a great band, there were artists better than Nirvana, but it's "Teen Spirit" that allowed us to hear them and enjoy them. And because we embraced the grunge culture, which was such an underground movement prior to, it made it easier for up and coming artist to become household names. THAT'S a good thing. I'm all for diversity, new sounds, new music, new artists.

Now, the downside: the industry, in its infinite wisdom, deemed that if one is good, then three hundred must be better! So when one band takes off with relative success, they're going to start signing everyone who "sounds just like them" to sell more records.

Not that there's any comparison musically, but look at the boy bands - the Backstreet Boys got popular, and within 6 months, HOW many were there?? Good lord! And none of them lasted. And how many rabid teenage girls were all "NKOTB 4EVER! They'll ALWAYS Rule! I'll ALWAYS love them!" Yeah. Where are they now?

I used boy bands because the grunge scene was a harder comparison. There were a slew of fantastic bands already there, it was just signing them - the talent pool was pretty deep.

Now, it's this emo stuff. I don't even know who started this whole movement, but one got popular and the industry is going to cram them down our throats til we puke. Then it'll be the Next Big Thing.

Ok, so I've rambled a lot. I guess at the end of the day, they DID help the industry, but like everything else, it comes with a cost.

Answer 3

Being a heavy metal/grindcore fan myself, I think mostly helped. Rock has changed so much in the last 15 years. Back then, they called Nirvana metal. Now it's alternative. Cobain would kill the critics who said that. And I think you should really lay off calling the bands today shallow. The 70's were the Renaissance of music, every band then was great. How do you find us shallow? Rhythm? Melody? Lyrics? Music has evolved to fit every persons' life styles. There isn't a music genre that fits nobody and there isn't a person that hates all music.

Answer 4

I never really got into listening to as much nirvana as I do Alice in chains. but they were all friends and came from seattle. anyways like it or not all previous music has had some influence on todays culture. lot of times bands will denounce any such influences from these bands even though you can clearly tell they sound like a cheap rip off of whatever band they say they weren't influenced by. take godsmack for example. There name even suggest they had some influences from alice in chains since "godsmack" is one of AIC songs. but Godsmack the band doesnt think so. also Aic Lead singer Layne Staley had a side project called mad season with mike Mccready from Pearl Jam. There song Long Gone Day Sound similar to Godsmacks VooDoo. so yes todays music is very influence by music of the past but it aint there fault some Musicians turn out to be Back stabing idiots. by the way Pearl Jam has a song called 04/20/02 which is a hidden track at the end of the song Bee Girl on one of the Lost Dogs Cds. Listen to that Eddie Vedder basically tells everyone he's sick of the people trying to copy Laynes style.

Answer 5

nirvana as a band did not help or hinder the current musical landscape. However nirvana was part of a movement(grunge)
which changed the popular music landscape for years to come. i am a huge nirvana fan but i cannot hold them as the single band behind the movement.
you need to list pearl jam, soundgarden, mudhoney, AIC, smashing pumpkins, jane's, etc.
todays music like emo, (white r&b) and crappy punk just plain sucks.
they sound too generic, almost like a new style of boy bands
void of any talent.
i don't understand how some people can listen to this crap.

Answer 6

Nirvana was a great band but it did end the era of totally amazing music. The quality of songs has gone down quite a bit but its still decent. You could consider Nirvana as the catalyst which started the modern age of music.

Answer 7

That fuzzy wall of sound that Nirvana and the rest of the grungers were remebered for inventing was so original when it first appeared. Now 16 years later, producers and mixers at the desk are STILL relying on it for the chorus, it seems like every band now uses the formula: verse quiet, then for chorus, press factory preset button for instant rock "Gggggggggggggggggg" and there you are instant rock by numbers chorus. I don't think you can hold Nirvana or their contemporaries responsible though. They had no idea they would be marking the end of rock (as a creative, original force in art and culture) Its lost all its relevance now, so kids can only rely on imitation and nostalgia. Jazz anyone. . . ?

Answer 8

America gets in what ill descibe as holes when i comes to music.Record compays want to make money so they copy whats popular.They took the lyrics styles of Nirvana,Alice in Chains,ect and put them in cleaned up
pop type bands like MCR and the "emo" bands.Its up to you and me to try and Salvage Music,I dont think kurt cobian or layne stayle would have liked the fact that today all the bands copy one another on the lables orders.

Crank up the distortion and jam is all we can do.

Answer 9

surprising how ties flies, Nirvana 's Nevermind, great album, with between the main iconic album covers. Wow, Pearl Jam's, Ten, became twenty to boot, purely some weeks in the past.

Answer 10

everyone's right, in five, ten years the music industry will have left shhit bands like FOB and MCR in the dust. and how can one even compare bands like that to Nirvana?! whoever said emo is emotive rock is right, but you musnt forget that today emo is something different, a harsh stereotype and a fashion trend; a fad. and to everyone who thinks that cutting yourself is emo, its actually SUICIDAL. sorry off topic. anyway, that's why i stayed in the 90's with my music taste.