Tags
I promise I won’t get myself worked up into a rant-filled fever about this (though I have before), but I feel as though I’ve had to endure as many retrospectives on the 20th anniversary of Nirvana’s Nevermind in the last month as those related to 9/11. Needless to say, I find both to be less than amusing. Because here’s the thing: Nirvana wasn’t that good. To put it simply, Cobain dedicated his life to emulating his heroes The Melvins and Sonic Youth, and found accidental success in the following formula: cool underground music + arena rock production/hooks. That’s it. It’s the same thing U2 did with New Wave on Joshua Tree and Radiohead did with Britpop on The Bends (Note: I love Radiohead, but that’s because OK Computer and Kid A were masterpieces, not The Bends). Nirvana did nothing original, nor did they intend to, so there’s no need to rewrite history as if they did.
Secondly, Nirvana didn’t influence anybody. Any musician worth half his salt claims the influence of the titans of the 80s indie underground: Dinosaur Jr, Black Flag, Sonic Youth, The Melvins, The Minutemen, Mudhoney, and Husker Du. This is where alternative rock was born, and any claim that Nirvana had a role in any way similar to the aforementioned behemoths is akin to those who say the civil war was a battle over the concept of state’s rights (i.e. yeah, it/they were there, but that’s just an ignorant smokescreen). If anything, in this scenario, Nirvana plays the role of Antonio Salieri to the indie rock titan’s Mozart, except the fact that this gives Cobain and company way too much Machiavellian credit.
Sub Specie Aeterni 
Troy said:
FYI, they’re all great, but the Husker Du clip I chose is an all-time classic.
Austin said:
hater…
Troy said:
Meta-hater
Keith said:
Plus, NIrvana wasn’t really all that much ‘Critically acclaimed’, so I don’t think they are over-rated by anyone respectable in the music industry. They are much more known for being a prominent band in a generation of people and grunge music. I would put Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Red hot chilli peppers in that same group. Although Pearl Jam HAS been critically acclaimed and they really have such a large library of work it’s hard for anyone to dispute they’re success and contribution. I think NIrvana (and their listenership) is somewhat anagulous to other bands such as ‘The Door’s’ or other psychedelic rock during that movement in the late 60s/early 70s
almahjoub said:
You might be true at a certain level but the tonality of the article is so “reactive” (by nietzschean standards) ! As if you absolutely want to prove something … Nirvana did nothing original ? Hell, “cool underground music + arena rock production/hooks” is original at a certain point.. No ? It’s so easy to make such statement after Nirvana sold milions.. But by that time nobody could even imagine what you describe as blatant mainstream monkey business.. Nirvana did nothing ? No, they made millions of people like you (and me) around the world listening and talkin about bands like The Melvins, Sonic Youth, Mudhoney, blablabla.. Ciao..
Troy said:
You’re absolutely right, a new moment in the dialectic is a new moment in the dialectic. The tag “rant” for this post should point to the fact that I’m only half-serious, though. Historically, the cannon of great albums doesn’t and shouldn’t include albums that simply “arena-ized” an already existing sound, and thats my only real qualm.
Austin said:
backtracker…
Troy said:
Clarification, yo. I made the same point, although a bit more deflationary.
Keith said:
They also DID heavily influence not only other bands, but many musicians growing up during that time. Many great artists would cite Nirvana (or one of the other grunge bands that they explored through them) as an inspiration to their singing/song writing. It’s ashame Kurt never lived longer than 27. I’m sure he had much more songs (and other good things) to share.
Keith said:
You’ve seem to omit the fact that Nirvana essentially single handily but rock back in the forefront for nearly a decade. Also I don’t think that Cobain tried to copy the artistry of the Melvins or Sonic Youth much. Yes, they’re is inspiration, but Melvins and Sonic Youth weren’t really pop and some of there stuff is un-listenable noise.
Troy said:
You’re absolutely correct that Cobain’s song-writing isn’t much like Thurston Moore’s or King Buzzo’s, but that mostly stems from the fact that he wasn’t a very good guitarist (in fact, this is what barred him from joining the Melvins in the first place, something he wanted more than anything). Nirvana’s legacy, as far as I’m concerned, consists of spawning a legion of second wave grunge trash like Stone Temple Pilots and Bush in the mid 90s, and then unwittingly creating a template for radio-friendly alternative rock that paved the way for the likes of notoriously satanic acts like Creed and Nickleback. That’s the only sense in which Cobain “put rock back on the map”, and I would as least give his own musical taste enough credit to assume that he would regret his own legacy. I’ll take the “off the map” independent rock of the 80s underground (indie, post-hardcore, grunge, etc.) any day.
JT said:
You’re completely wrong. In utero is one of the best rock records of the 1990’s. The melvins aren’t great guitar players either and the melvins are derivative of black sabbath. Nirvana isn’t responsible for creed and nickleback. Nirvana was the world’s last great punk band. They were the last “biggest band in the world.” They were the last band to be “as big as the Beatles.” And their Nirvana-mania level of fame was based on their talent and audience’s love. They weren’t a product of super-clever corporate-sponsored word-of-mouth campaigns, cross-platform brand awareness, big money ad dollars outreach or hyper-targeted youth marketing. Nirvana just fucking rocked like it meant something to them. And that was the secret to their appeal.
Unlike the pop-punk bands that followed them, there’s no reason to attach the word pop to them, even though Nirvana was the most pop and wrote some of the best pop songs of the last 20 years. Just like the Fab Four they transcended the limits of pop music and created timeless songs that remain new for every kid who hears them for the first time. It’s been 20 years since their last album was released. Yet, Nirvana doesn’t feel dated, at least, not the way the hair metal bands, or boy bands, or even West Coast gangsta rap, all sound dated. Play their track Radio Friendly Unit Shifter and ask yourself if it could be a hit today. Their music remains very much alive.
JD said:
“Secondly, Nirvana didn’t influence anybody.”
I don’t really like Nirvana that much and got here from a Google search of “Nirvana is overrated”…and even I know this is false. Ever hear of Dave Grohl?
Exaggerate much?
Troy said:
First, yes it is hyperbole. That’s kind of the mood of the post, as evidenced by comparing underground rock to the civil war and Amadeus.
Second, your quote is also slightly out of context – that paragraph continues to modify my point, which still remains: the underground rock of the 80s had a much more formative influence on the heights of alternative music in the late 90s and 2000s than Nirvana, which was mostly responsible for the likes of scatology-addicts Creed and Nickleback.
Third, Dave Grohl influenced by Nirvana? How does one influence oneself?
Kaleolani said:
I see more people hating on Nirvana and Kurt Cobain so I cant see why they are over rated.
Robbie said:
As a guitarist both lead and rhythm, Nirvana didnt offer me a single thing.
They were aweful.