ilovefuzz.com

Still sound great!!
To me this is the album that change the face of the music.

What's weird to me is that when this album came out in 1991 music from 1971 (20 years earlier) seemed in my young mind, old as fuck.
I wonder if kids these days think of Nirvana the same way I thought of classic rock from the 70's when I was a kid (pretty cool but definitely dated)?
Is Kurt Cobain viewed by kids today like Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison we're viewed by kids in the early 90's?

How many kids today still listen to rock? It’s all rap, Justin Bieber, and 3 minute songs.

MiddleEarthCrisis wrote:What's weird to me is that when this album came out in 1991 music from 1971 (20 years earlier) seemed in my young mind, old as fuck.
I wonder if kids these days think of Nirvana the same way I thought of classic rock from the 70's when I was a kid (pretty cool but definitely dated)?
Is Kurt Cobain viewed by kids today like Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison we're viewed by kids in the early 90's?

Yeah, that would be interesting...
I was 16 years old in 1991 and didn't care for Zeppelin, Hendrix, Morison and thought the Beatles where sounding so old (no interest).
But 20 years lator, I don't think (unfortunately) that the music has changed much.

it bothers me that there will never be another like Nirvana. they came from out of nowhere to become infuential in so many ways. seems to me like the record industry used the whole grunge movement spearheaded by Nirvana, to learn to market a scene, use it as a blueprint, and thats why there has been alot of shitty music since. everything in the mainstream after Nirvana music seems like it has been pre-planned and ready to serve to the public, like it has been waiting to be released. its all too calculated anymore, the record industry will never let another Nirvana happen, it is too dangerous for the industry.

hatshirt wrote:it bothers me that there will never be another like Nirvana. they came from out of nowhere to become infuential in so many ways. seems to me like the record industry used the whole grunge movement spearheaded by Nirvana, to learn to market a scene, use it as a blueprint, and thats why there has been alot of shitty music since. everything in the mainstream after Nirvana music seems like it has been pre-planned and ready to serve to the public, like it has been waiting to be released. its all too calculated anymore, the record industry will never let another Nirvana happen, it is too dangerous for the industry.

...

Methinks you need to learn a little more about the record industry. There's always been a lot of shitty music on the radio (may I present you with the 80's?)

D.o.S. wrote:

hatshirt wrote:it bothers me that there will never be another like Nirvana. they came from out of nowhere to become infuential in so many ways. seems to me like the record industry used the whole grunge movement spearheaded by Nirvana, to learn to market a scene, use it as a blueprint, and thats why there has been alot of shitty music since. everything in the mainstream after Nirvana music seems like it has been pre-planned and ready to serve to the public, like it has been waiting to be released. its all too calculated anymore, the record industry will never let another Nirvana happen, it is too dangerous for the industry.

...

Methinks you need to learn a little more about the record industry. There's always been a lot of shitty music on the radio (may I present you with the 80's?)

I agree with D.o.S. here. Also the way our culture revolves around instant gratification and digital culture anything big or revolutionary won't seem as big due to how instant we obtain the information and how fast the next big thing takes over.

Also, complaining about record companies and the music industry is so 2008. If you want your burger fast in an instant then you're going to get a shitty burger. Same goes for music.

Oh and Nevermind is cool. I like In Utero better but as some artist said in a SPIN article "anyone saying In Utero is their favorite is just trying to look cool."

I remember In Utero getting slammed by critics and everyone said Nirvana was washed up ... then Kurt blew his head off and history got rewritten.

devnulljp wrote:I remember In Utero getting slammed by critics and everyone said Nirvana was washed up ... then Kurt blew his head off and history got rewritten.

That narrative gets really complicated when you consider that Bleach was basically a Melvins tribute and Nevermind was the result of a pop-oriented band who didn't want to be considered poppy.

I'd argue In Utero is the purest expression of the band, but that comes up against so many superficial factors that the whole thing gets muddled as fuck faster than a raver chick kills a line of E.

misc1600 wrote:How many kids today still listen to rock? It’s all rap, Justin Bieber, and 3 minute songs.

you're so wise good sir. please, shower us with more nuggets of your infinite wisdom.

hatshirt wrote:it bothers me that there will never be another like Nirvana. they came from out of nowhere to become infuential in so many ways. seems to me like the record industry used the whole grunge movement spearheaded by Nirvana, to learn to market a scene, use it as a blueprint, and thats why there has been alot of shitty music since. everything in the mainstream after Nirvana music seems like it has been pre-planned and ready to serve to the public, like it has been waiting to be released. its all too calculated anymore, the record industry will never let another Nirvana happen, it is too dangerous for the industry.

i.e. NIRVANA RUINED MUSIC.

devnulljp wrote:I remember In Utero getting slammed by critics and everyone said Nirvana was washed up ... then Kurt blew his head off and history got rewritten.

That's because critics have always been, and always will be, either cynical industry insiders or grumpy old fucks. As someone who was 14 when In Utero came out, I thought it was fucking incredible. Scentless Apprentice, Milk It and Radio Friendly Unit Shifter show exactly what direction Nirvana was moving in. Nevermind sounded like the New Kids compared to In Utero.

::edit - All that being said, I don't want it to sound like I'm bashing Nevermind. Nevermind still definitely did blow my mind when it came out. I still love Lounge Act.

Nevermind changed my life at 12 years old, remains a great album, and the production still sucks. Incesticide is the best. I didn't "get" In Utero when it came out, but now I love it. Bleach is painfully underrated, School and Love Buzz are two of the greatest songs ever written.

I still miss this band. But when I do, I listen to them.

MEC wrote:Is Kurt Cobain viewed by kids today like Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison we're viewed by kids in the early 90's?

yes, at least from my experience, and it kinda disappoints me. I'm 22, and i'm one of the strange people who thinks Nirvana's instrumentals are unbelievable simple and overrated. do i respect Kurt as a songwriter? absolutely. do i think he's one of the most influential guitarists of all time? no. i think i don't like them because i don't understand the hype compared to my already overrated notion of them. then again this is just from a guitarist perspective. my friend tried telling me that Kurt's a great guitarist because of his use of feedback. now, i like me some noise, but i hardly think that makes someone a good guitarist.

madmax1012 wrote:

MEC wrote:Is Kurt Cobain viewed by kids today like Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison we're viewed by kids in the early 90's?

yes, at least from my experience, and it kinda disappoints me. I'm 22, and i'm one of the strange people who thinks Nirvana's instrumentals are unbelievable simple and overrated. do i respect Kurt as a songwriter? absolutely. do i think he's one of the most influential guitarists of all time? no. i think i don't like them because i don't understand the hype compared to my already overrated notion of them. then again this is just from a guitarist perspective. my friend tried telling me that Kurt's a great guitarist because of his use of feedback. now, i like me some noise, but i hardly think that makes someone a good guitarist.

Not like he invented that either. Isn't it a bit that there's a mainstream kind of perspective that makes him important and then a kind of "nothing new under the sun" perspective where a lot more challenging/noisy music was around way before Nirvana? I think it depends on if you're interested in who was first or who was influential in the "inside mainstream culture" kind of way.

I was born the same year Nevermind came out. So I mean it was still getting played when I was a kid, and I grew up hearing their stuff thanks to my parents having fantastic taste in music. As terrible as this may sound, I always thought The Gin Blossoms (my mom's favorite band at the time) was much better than nirvana. Granted a little more mainstream. Recently I watched a couple documentaries due to the fact that I have REALLY wanted to find out what I was missing out on.
Nirvana really only did 1 great thing for me, and that was cease to exist allowing Dave to do his work with FF. I do however understand what they did for teen culture at the time, but I don't think they "changed the face of music" If anything their have more of an influence in the world of cock rock than any other genre.

I don't know though, I'm pretty purposefully oblivious when it comes to stuff like this though. They have solid stuff but I never think to myself "Hell yea Nirvana is on the radio" when they get played.