Grandma Take Me Home

I was a bit surprised to see a few Nirvana haters popping up in the "Glycerin" thread the day before yesterday. Thinking it over, though, I'm actually glad they showed up because it inspired me to listen to some Nirvana, which is always a worthwhile experience:

In general, for a much-praised and undoubtedly influential band, Nirvana strikes me as shockingly little listened-to in practice. Perhaps that's because the band actually sucks and people don't like them, but in my experience people are almost always surprised by how good Nirvana actually is when their stuff comes on. In short, they're not just a band that people say was great -- they're actually great.

Comments

I still love Nirvana. That said, I am somewhat of a contrarian in that I like In Utero more than Nevermind. It is much rawer and after listening to it, Nevermind seems way too polished and produced.

Posted by lfv | June 19, 2008 2:29 PM

I have to agree. I was not a fan of the grunge genre, having grown up during the punk era. But having listened to some Nirvana lately on the radio, I have to admire the power and sophistication of their compositions. They were definitely ahead of their time.

Posted by Pan | June 19, 2008 2:29 PM

I have a few dozen Nirvana bootlegs. They could be a little one-dimensional live, but usually delivered the goods.

Posted by owenz | June 19, 2008 2:29 PM

I have to agree. I was not a fan of the grunge genre, having grown up during the punk era. But having listened to some Nirvana lately on the radio, I have to admire the power and sophistication of their compositions. They were definitely ahead of their time.

Posted by Pan | June 19, 2008 2:33 PM

lfv: that's because Steve Albini fucking rocks is why

Posted by whiskey | June 19, 2008 2:35 PM

When all is said and done, Cobain knew how to write some good pop songs. He had an ear for melody. Here is a song he was working on around the time he died:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9ez9CtHaHE

Posted by blah | June 19, 2008 2:36 PM

I still love Nirvana. That said, I am somewhat of a contrarian in that I like In Utero more than Nevermind. It is much rawer and after listening to it, Nevermind seems way too polished and produced.

Posted by lfv | June 19, 2008 2:37 PM

I was at one of the band's last US shows in (I think) November 1993. It was held at a venue that normally hosted minor league hockey games. About halfway through the show, people figured out that they could pull up the various layers of padding and boards to expose the ice. The ensuing 30 minute mosh pit on a skating rink was pretty cool to behold (I was too much of a wimp to participate). Kurt Noveljfsfja thought it was funny. Kurt just sat there playing and singing and looking generally stoned.

But you're right. Nirvana has held up much better than its contemporaries (Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, etc.). Not that those bands aren't great -- just their early 90s stuff sounds kind of outdated, and Nirvana's doesn't. Sort of like the Pixies (who I saw open for U2 in probably March 1992 -- they were GREAT).

Posted by Joe | June 19, 2008 2:37 PM

After singing In Bloom about a thousand times for Rock Band, I am not really a fan anymore.

Posted by Anonymous | June 19, 2008 2:38 PM

Nirvana served as my introduction to contemporary rock and roll during my adolescent years and i haven't looked back since. the band will always have a special place in my heart. of all the grunge bands though, i think alice in chains was my favorite.

Posted by codyak | June 19, 2008 2:38 PM

I think people don't listen to it as much as they would because it's a downer that Kurt Cobain killed himself, and even if he hadn't, it's still kind of a downer because he was so troubled.

It's like putting a photograph of the New York City skyline, featuring the Twin Towers, in your office. Before 9/11, some people might have done it because it's beautiful, or because they like New York. Now, because of 9/11, it's hard to look at without getting down, and someone's more likley to hang it as some kind of corny political message that we should all be Republicans or that they want to get revenge on the terrorists.

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 2:39 PM

Cobain was a fine blues singer. Unfortunately his compelling lyric nuggets were usually buried under a mountain of meaningless frou-frou. But he was a fine blues singer.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 19, 2008 2:43 PM

"Little listened to"? Really? That surprised me. Nevermind is easily one of the top five most listened to CDs in my collection during the last 17 years.

Posted by Keith M Ellis | June 19, 2008 2:45 PM

This isn't really one of my favorite bands, though. They're interesting in their way, but they get more monotonous then a lot of punk too quick, in my opinion. As far as punk and split-off genres from it go, I like a lot of stuff that never made it nearly as big as Nirvana did. I'd really rather listen to Metallica or Iron Maiden than Nirvana. Maybe I'm just low-brow, but that's what I like.

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 2:47 PM

I loved Nirvana when I was a kid, but they really haven't aged well for me. Cobain did write some great pop songs, but you have to shift through a bunch of angsty bullshit to get to it.

Posted by Travis | June 19, 2008 2:51 PM

Sorry, but Nirvana sounds as dated as hair metal. Just a buncha Buzzcocks-meets-Black-Sabbath tunes. Cobain sounded really bored on In Utero -- not surprising, given that he actually wrote about it in one of the songs. How can you be so bored on your second major label album? Ask Urge Overkill, I guess.

In short, overrated. Docked additional points for being partly responsible for emo.

Posted by nirvana hatah | June 19, 2008 2:52 PM

"They were ahead of their time."

I don't think they were ahead of their time, as much as they defined their time. I don't think anybody made or makes their style of music better than they did. There was no time where more significant, more influential bands were able to perfect what Nirvana started; Nirvana was and is the standard, even if much of their sound is aped by everyone from Bush to (shudder) Creed to Nickelback.

Posted by jhb | June 19, 2008 2:54 PM

The live cd is the best one.

I think we don't often listen to Nirvana, because we spent the entirety of the 90s listening to them on Repeat, and now know all the words to all of there songs.

Posted by bend | June 19, 2008 2:56 PM

Buzzcocks meets Black Sabbath is bad how?

Posted by Gus | June 19, 2008 2:57 PM

My mission in life now is to decorate our basement like Nirvana's practice space.

Posted by Spenc/r Ackerm/n | June 19, 2008 2:58 PM

In other news, Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" is actually a really great piece of music, but it's almost never performed because it's considered a such warhorse. Also, "Moby Dick" is a really good book despite its reputation as a "great novel." And Jackson Pollock, well, would you believe, he was a pretty good painter, despite...

Not to seem snide, Matt, but the "X is actually good despite its being burdened with the mantle of 'greatness''" article is right up there with the "Ten Best List" as an indicator of journalistic laziness.

Posted by James Gary | June 19, 2008 3:03 PM

They were a great band. My band opened for them during their pre fame 'Bleach' days. That's a great album.

Posted by Judson | June 19, 2008 3:05 PM

whiskey, i'd say that in utero is great despite albini. i think credit is due to scott litt, r.e.m.'s then-producer, for saving it. i hear him all over all apologies, pennyroyal tea, and heart-shaped box.

if you leave albini to his own devices you get something like pj harvey's rid of me--a great album buried underneath pretentious, grating, "raw" production.

Posted by ryno | June 19, 2008 3:14 PM

nirvana was, in my opinion, a magnificient band. i came late to them, nodding to, but not, convinced by the hype surrounding nevermind. in utero blew me away, and, yes whiskey, albini's production was a big part, it gave cobain's mental anguish an aural analog. albini wasn't all of it. the MTV album is miles ahead of most (every?) unplugged show; mostly, i think, becuase of cobain's singing, though the playing is also simultaneously emphatic and subtle. and then the electric live alive is much better than one has any right to expect.

so why don't people listen. part of it is that there is only so much time. that applies mainly, i would think, to those of us with hundreds of albums and thousands of songs. that group, i suspect includes many who would say nirvana is great. they mean it. they just don't mean taht's all they sit around and listen to.

part of it is that most people (and there's nothing wrong with this, so long as they don't mistake their front-running for coolness) listen to whatever is new. and part of it is that what makes nirvana great, the joining of cobain's anguish to music that realizes it, makes the experience, draining as well as exhilirating. hearing a man fall apart on in utero is not something most of us can take every day

Posted by bigbadwolf | June 19, 2008 3:15 PM

I agree with Swan - it's just depressing to listen to Nirvana in retrospect. They had the potential to be a truly great band and Kurt's murder put an end to that. I don't listen to Jeff Buckley anymore for the same reason. You'd think I'd have the same reaction to Hendrix, Joplin or the Doors, but I don't. Maybe it's because I never heard those musicians before they died, but I think it's also because I think all those three died after their creative peaks (even Hendrix). I don't think that's true of Cobain and Buckley.

Posted by vanya | June 19, 2008 3:18 PM

I never knew they released a video for "Sliver." It was always my favorite Nirvana song. Incesticide had a bunch of really good (and really poppy) songs on it.

Posted by Andrew | June 19, 2008 3:23 PM

I never knew they released a video for "Sliver." It was always my favorite Nirvana song. Incesticide had a bunch of really good (and really poppy) songs on it.

Posted by Andrew | June 19, 2008 3:23 PM

I think Nirvana is less listened to than you would expect for the same reason Michael Jackson is less listened to than you would expect. The end makes it uncomfortable to listen to in ways that have nothing to do with the music itself.

Posted by Sebastian | June 19, 2008 3:23 PM

"In short, overrated. Docked additional points for being partly responsible for emo."

Wow, they must not be that overrated if they could travel back in time and be partly responsible for a genre that began a couple of years before they even got together.

Posted by urbell | June 19, 2008 3:32 PM

They were good but not as good as Bush.

"Could have been easier by 3. Our old friend fear and you and me."

Posted by Dave | June 19, 2008 3:36 PM

"Drain You" is an awesome song.

Joe:
Was that show in Springfield, Massachusetts? I'll never forget it. The smell in the arena was overpowering(pot). Also, kids were throwing mason jars full of piss at the stage(don't ask). It caused Kurt to threaten to play for two hours facing the amps(Yeah, his back to the stage). It was enough to get the kids to stop the jar throwing.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 19, 2008 3:45 PM

"They were good but not as good as Bush."

Good lord, just don't type anymore. Please.

Posted by Angry Sam | June 19, 2008 3:48 PM

They were good but not as good as Bush.

You CANNOT be serious.

"It's better to burn out than it is to rust . . ."

Posted by rea | June 19, 2008 3:49 PM

Talking about producers is more fun than talking about Nirvana any day of the week, so without further adoo...

What the fuck are you smoking ryno? Albini has produced tons of great albums on his own, with no help from any of the whiny little schmucks that have anything to do with REM during the period in which they began to suck. Don't forget, Litt has also worked with Counting Crows, so you know he's good.

Compare that to Alibini's work, from Om through Godspeed You! Black Emperor to Palace Bros. Yeah, sure, those albums all sound the same. That's a far broader range than Litt's. His albums aren't always the best ones from their respective artists, I'll admit he didn't do The Ponys justice for example, but they're pretty damn consistent in terms of overall quality.

I don't mean to sound like a jerk, though a probably do, but Albini is the superior producer, in my opinion.

Now back to work!

Posted by hocabsurdumst | June 19, 2008 3:49 PM

"Was that show in Springfield, Massachusetts?"

Dallas, actually. So they played two shows with mosh-pits-on-ice? Good to know.

Posted by Joe | June 19, 2008 3:51 PM

Nirvana is among the very best dumbed-down Pixies tribute bands, yes.

Posted by David B. | June 19, 2008 4:03 PM

I saw Nirvana several times, including a show they did at the Pier in Seattle for MTV, and another one of their very early shows at the train station in Seattle where they opened up for the Butthole Surfers.

They were astonishing every single damn time. I always left there thinking I had just seen something truly astonishing.

(I also had the same reaction when I saw Midnight Oil in Nashville on the Diesel and Dust tour.)

That said, I agree with Swan. It is hard for me to listen to them without thinking about how it all ended. I used to drive by Cobain's last house as I lived in the Leschi neighborhood in Seattle. Everyday I thought about him.

Cobain's songs always combined beauty, power, anger, and sadness. But with the way it ended it is hard not to feel like all that is left is the anger and sadness with no joy or hope to redeem it.

The other thing going on there is that Cobain actively took steps to kill himself, unlike the accidental deaths of Hendrix and Morrison. Hard to misunderstand the "screw you" message of someone who takes enough heroin to kill a horse and then sticks a shotgun in his mouth for good measure.

Posted by Kelly | June 19, 2008 4:06 PM

if you have a radio, and listen to any modern rock station, it's hard to not hear "Smells Like..." every fucking day.

Posted by cleek | June 19, 2008 4:09 PM

Sure, Nirvana was alright and I'll give them props for being one of the best bands of the Nineties.

But, as far as grunge goes, Soundgarden and Alice in Chains totally own them.

Posted by Briar_Mackinney | June 19, 2008 4:09 PM

Every time I've talked about this with people, a lot of people mention (including me) that while they still like Nirvana, they don't really listen to them anymore because they got so burned out listening to Nevermind and In Utero too much (I second In Utero being the better overall album).

Posted by Reality Man | June 19, 2008 4:11 PM

Considering the pop sensibilities of the Foo Fighters, I have to wonder how much of Nirvana's solid pop composition was due to Dave Grohl's influence. Or, conversely, maybe Grohl learned how to write pop tunes from Cobain.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 19, 2008 4:12 PM

A "dumbed-down Pixies" etc. seems to imply that The Pixies were smart to begin with. I believe the correct construction would be "even dumber Pixies tribute band".

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 19, 2008 4:13 PM

docklands on hype machine:

http://hypem.com/list/2203

Posted by godoggo | June 19, 2008 4:18 PM

hocabsurdumst,
i'm not gonna back down on this one. albini's got a better resume, because he has the cred/reputation; i don't think it's earned. but if you want to argue that albini's worked with better artists than litt, you're not going to hear a peep from me.

but i doubt litt ever seriously ruined an album by a great artist. once again, i refer you to rid of me. yes, the sound is "interesting," but he murdered her songs, and polly jean writes great songs. you know it's bad when an album of demos with hissing tapes sounds better than your studio production.

in terms of range, i think litt has the advantage. did he preside over r.e.m.'s best years? not quite. but the albums of theirs that he did produce have an arguably greater range than their 80s stuff. the difference in sound between document, out of time, automatic, monster, and new adventures (green is a sonic holding place)is impressive. they're not all successful albums, but they're all pretty respectable. add some of the stuff on in utero, and you've got a decent producer.

Posted by ryno | June 19, 2008 4:26 PM

i think the album that ages the best is the unplugged album. i still love listening to the older songs - especially drain you and love buzz - but the unplugged album really highlights how good of a songwriter kurt really was. the strings and dave grohl's restrained quiet playing combined with kurts library-voice singing really stands the test of time.

there are a lot of influential artists that don't get listened to as much as they used too e.g. david bowie, velvet underground, etc but that doesn't diminsh their initial impact.

Posted by unplugged is the way to go | June 19, 2008 4:27 PM

I didn't like Nirvana that much when they came out when I was in college (putting me in the minority at the time) and I'm still not all that impressed all these years later.

Sure, they have some catchy tunes, and I'll give them some credit for saving us from the Glam Rock days (even though a few other bands were much better, but never got the run). But "great" ... ? I just don't get it.

(Also, the hype and idolatry of Cobain is absurd -- Grohl is ten times the musician Cobain ever was, and Cobain screwed up by not shooting Courtney first.)

Posted by Mark D | June 19, 2008 4:31 PM

The Pixies were a western/punk/surf band.

Nirvana was a blues/punk/pop band.

No doubt The Pixies influenced Nirvana, but jeez, Pixies fans (of which I am one) need to back away from the edge.

Posted by Pat | June 19, 2008 4:33 PM

Adam Villani wrote:

Considering the pop sensibilities of the Foo Fighters, I have to wonder how much of Nirvana's solid pop composition was due to Dave Grohl's influence. Or, conversely, maybe Grohl learned how to write pop tunes from Cobain.

My impression of it was that Grohl was just being a Ringo and not expressing himself during Nirvana, Cobain was basically in control, and Foo Fighters was Grohl's chance to do something that was about him and not about the music Nirvana made at all (Although I guess the bands are close enough that Nirvana is very likely at least partly an influence on Foo Fighters, especially if Nirvana was really Grohl's first period of thinking up his own music-- if that was the case, then how could Grohl's ideas not be kind of a reaction to what Cobain was doing, maybe partly riffing off of it).

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 4:41 PM

At 2:47, I'm not saying that Metallica or Iron Maiden is punk, just so all the music-nazis out there know I didn't defile the temple.

It's interesting, though, that bands like Metallica were probably partly influenced by punk, at least obliquely. And speaking of premature deaths in music-- the old bassist of Metallica wears a Misfits shirt in some phots and performance videos. Apparently he was sort of a thuggy hippy who also liked spooky stuff like Sabbath and the Misfits, whereas the other guys in the band were more heavy metal guys. Supposedly he was a very good musician. Too bad the world will never know what Metallica;s subsequent albums would have been like if he hadn't died.

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 4:52 PM

Also I think it's whitewashing things to say that any of Nirvana's songs were "pop"- as if Nirvana was American Idol or Michael Jackson or something.

Sure, they were mainstream in the sense that they sold a lot of copies of there albums and tickets, and they got a lot of exposure on the radio and in the mainstream media. But I think the public really had to acquire a taste for Nirvana (and they did it because of Nirvana's really striking attitude and novel videos). Nirvana's music was really against-the-grain of what the mainstream music audience was used to listening to by the point that they made it big in the mainstream media. Nirvana was like an extremely abrasive, discordant version of the Ramones. It was almost like old Agnostic Front being played on MTV and the radio (not that they sound like Agnostic Front, but that's about how different it is from Aerosmith or something like that).

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 5:00 PM

Supposedly he was a very good musician.

Burton was an AMAZING musician. When the bus flipped and he died, the Metallica I loved went with him. (" ... And Justice for All" is okay, but not nearly as great as their first three.)

And, FYI, a lot of the guys in Metallica actually listen to classical and country (the latter by James Hetfield) more than other metal. At least any more.

Posted by Mark D | June 19, 2008 5:02 PM

I'll never forget when radio first picked-up on "Smells Like Teen Spirit" - you knew it was a complete game-changer just 15 seconds into the song.

Posted by ronbailey | June 19, 2008 5:13 PM

Swan, I disagree. I think people overstate how "raw" and "different" Nirvana sounded with Nevermind. Teen Spirit was the first song most people heard, and it's just a great big, poppy, catchy, riffy, kick-ass rock song. Not that different from the best stuff on Metallica's black album. Cobain's vocals are way more muddled than what people were used to, and Nirvana dressed and acted differently, but the sound isn't that radically different.

I loves me some Nirvana, but I think that if Eddie Vedder had died after Vs or Vitalogy, Pearl Jam would be mythologized as every bit as great as Nirvana, maybe greater.

Posted by too many steves | June 19, 2008 5:19 PM

In short, they're not just a band that people say was great -- they're actually great.

Agreed. They were great while they lasted and their stuff still holds up.

Posted by Curt M | June 19, 2008 5:23 PM

Nirvana was a gap-bridging band. Not as good as some of the other grunge bands out there, but good enough, and appealing enough, to get exposure to those bands. Soundgarden is 10 times the band Nirvana will ever be in terms of the quality of musicianship, songwriting and inventiveness, but it's hard to know how big or exposed they ever would have become without Nirvana. In other words, it's hard to separate them from their time and rate their overall quality without a nod to the context.

Still and all, I love me some Soundgarden. If I have to thank Curt Cobain and friends for getting to hear them in the first place, then I offer this hearty, "Gracias!!!"

Posted by Duck | June 19, 2008 5:36 PM

Nope. Sorry. They just suck. Most overrated band ever. And quit with the "Kurt Cobain was a genius" crap. He wasn't. Stop embarassing yourself.

Posted by Chris | June 19, 2008 5:42 PM

Nope. Sorry. They just suck. Most overrated band ever. And quit with the "Kurt Cobain was a genius" crap. He wasn't. Stop embarassing yourself.

Posted by Chris | June 19, 2008 5:44 PM

There you go, Chris, you've convinced all of us. Thanks for your contribution!

Posted by too many steves | June 19, 2008 5:47 PM

I find Nirvana a little frustrating, to be honest. If I go awhile without hearing them, and I think about their music, I convince myself that it's pretty cool and want to listen to it... then after about 30 seconds of any one song, I'm pretty much done with it. There's something I appreciate about their music, sure, but listening to it? Eh, don't want to. And not because it's sad. It's raw, and angsty, and intense, and... damned repetitive. Sure, in 1991, it was nice for someone to come along and bust up the "verse, chorus, verse, chorus, guitar solo, chorus, chorus (fade out)" formula, but replacing it with something that's just one long equilibrium of intensity just doesn't suit my personal tastes.

Posted by TooManyDans | June 19, 2008 5:54 PM

Look, I like a wave-changing band as much as the next guy, but Nirvana made no meaningful change to the genre of rock and roll. Were they more interesting than some of their contemporaries? yes. But, for god's sake, you will not listen to those albums in twenty years.

Do yourself a favor: go to the store, buy Animals and put on "Dogs." Just do it. Then come back here and talk about capturing the angst of modern existence and idiosyncratic sound and melody. THIRTY effing years ago.

sermon over.

Posted by eric | June 19, 2008 6:02 PM

"Too many steves," I was 12 years old or thereabouts when Nevermind came out, and very tuned-in to the then-current state of mainstream rock and pop music. All I can say is to me, Nirvana including just about all their songs except maybe a couple of covers they did on the unplugged album, were a lot different than anything I'd ever heard before or expected to hear, based only on the context of the music I was familiar with growing up (everything you tended to hear on big radio stations or MTV) and irrespective of the way Curt Cobain presented himself onstage or in his videos.

It's pretty obvious, too, that all the Nevermind songs are nothing like the songs on Metallica's black album, and are a lot closer to being The Ramones or old Agnostic Front. I can't really remember what Nirvana guitar solos are like, but I'm pretty sure they were something like just a few notes and chords thrown together discordantly, with a lot of effects or distortion on them. Compare that to the solos on any Metallica song from Ride the Lightning, the Black Album, or ...And Justice For All. Besides really accomplished heavy metal guitar solos, Metallica from that late-'80s period also has slow, heavy riffs common to metal and hardcore from that period that a lot of people call breakdowns. Nirvana only has really macho stuff that kind of sounds like that in one or two songs.

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 6:05 PM

Metallica has a lot more structure / more complicated structure in their songs than Nirvana, too. Alterna-music types don't like to admit it, but there's a lot more to appreciate for a lover of musicianship in Metallica than there is in Nirvana.

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 6:08 PM

Master of Puppets... Can't forget that. You might want to skip "Battery" past the something like 1 minute or 1:30-long intro to it (unless you're like an old-school, hardcore punk fan), but if you're bored, pick up this CD and listen to some songs on it and return in tomorrow if you don't like it. There is a lot of neat stuff on that album, in my humble opinion.

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 6:13 PM

Nirvana was pretty great, but the extent to which they changed the game in 1991-1992 has always been really overstated. The game was already changing: a number of alternative bands had begun to make inroads into mainstream play, the first Lollapalooza predates the Nevermind explosion (which was not instantaneous), etc.

Posted by brandon | June 19, 2008 6:13 PM

Also I think it's whitewashing things to say that any of Nirvana's songs were "pop"

I was using the broader definition of pop, in the sense of short songs with simple verse-chorus-verse structure, strong melodies, vernacular instrumentation, etc. In America, rock and pop are often thought of as being separate things, but they're not really. Most rock music is also pop music, or, if you look at it a different way, all rock music is pop music, but some of it has stronger pop elements than others do.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 19, 2008 6:35 PM

Nirvana are great, fucking great, completely transcending the Seattle scene just as all great bands are made possible by and yet transcend some local scene.

2nd best Seattle band=Mudhoney; worst Seattle band=the rest of the scene, responsible for stupid glamless post-grunge hard rock, which almost completely fails to reach the best aspects of punk (concison, good songs, passion) and metal (excess, good chops, passion))

Posted by nick | June 19, 2008 6:35 PM

A-freaking-men Nirvana was great, is great, will always be great. Plus, you can hear their influence in so many other terrific groups that emerged in that era, but later went in different directions (Radiohead, the Eels, fir'stnace). Stewart Copeland, the first-rate drummer of the Police, made an interesting point about Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam in an interview once, saying that Pearl Jam was a damn good band, but in a traditional rock style, where Nirvana changed the music with new dynamics, a new attitude, and some weird atonalities. Still true.

Posted by Kit Stolz | June 19, 2008 6:50 PM

The thing that made Nirvana revolutionary was the fact that they synthesized "alternative" music like the Pixies and other post-punk stuff with a pretty mainstream rock sound and very catchy songs. Plus Cobain was a great vocalist.

brandon is right, the game was already changing, but I don't think "alternative" music would have exploded the way it did without Nirvana. From what I remember, the REM album that had "Losing my Religion" was actually the first "alternative" album to really hit it big. But Nirvana really opened the floodgates. Banks like the Red Hot Chili Peppers or Soundgarden, basically cult acts before 1991, were hug starts all of a sudden.

I agree with everyone else who says Nirvana never had an album half as good as "Master of Puppets" (or "Ride the Lighting" for that matter), but then, not many bands have

Posted by too many steves | June 19, 2008 6:55 PM

Part of me seems to think that some people are missing the overall point with Nirvana (especially when it comes to the oft talked about point of Metallica)...

First of all, let me just say that Master of Puppets is one of my all favorite albums... It is truly great for what they were trying to do. However, the genius of Nirvana was also the tragedy of Cobain.

I always got irritated when some folks tried to call Kurt Cobain the John Lennon of his generation. That was a ridiculous comparison. Cobain's lyrics were often as elliptical as they werenon-sensical. The reality was that often, however, what he was singing was as important as to how he was singing it.

As classically and hilariously illustrated in the Violent Femmes song 'American Music', too many of us, as youths, deeply associate ourselves with the music that we identify with. That implies that we want a sort of authenticity to the the theater of it all. It is us at that time. Kurt Cobain was the embodiment of angst and inner turmoil as well as being a good craftsman of pop music. We could all sense that urgency at the time. It should be no surprise how it ended, It was as depressing as it was inevitable.

Contrast that to Metallica... Metallica, who ended up with a #1 album in 'And Justice For All' with almost no airplay and limited exposure from MTV at the time. They did this through an underground network of people passing tapes (yes, tapes, youngins) to one another in a pre-file sharing world. And how did Metallica respond eventually? By willingly being the face of those arguing against what they were a part of creating. Their 'legitimacy' as a band was exposed at exactly the time when their music started to not be... Well... So good. Bad timing, I suppose...

I just implore folks out there to recall their inner adolescent, and what music meant to them at the time and what these hero's meant to you at the time before you cast the first stones at Nirvana. This doesn't mean that you have to like them. It doesn't. However, to question the legitimacy of Cobain is misguided. In retrospect, the music is depressing. It was also depressing and nihilistic at the time as well. It turns out, in the end, he actually meant it. Go figure...

Posted by Benniefly2 | June 19, 2008 7:00 PM

Nirvana was good, but still overrated. They had two very good albums (Bleach and Incesticide) and another pretty decent one (Nevermind). In Utero mostly sucked and Nevermind had a few really unfortunate songs (Come As You Are was just pure inanity and Smells Like Teen Spirit's goofy loud/soft dynamics corrupted mainstream rock such that it will probably never recover).

I find it hard to listen to Nirvana for very long because the underlying theme of escaping one's self-loathing through drugs and self-destruction wears on me. For example, Dive is a pretty awesome song, but listening to a song about shooting up from a guy who shot himself gets a bit weird after a while.

Posted by vg | June 19, 2008 7:07 PM

She has a moist vagina
I particularly enjoy the circumference
I've been sucking the walls of her anus
Anilingus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Pn4TQ2YIQg&feature=related

Posted by miguel | June 19, 2008 8:08 PM

Obligatory Corrs post.

2001-04 - The Corrs - Give Me a Reason (Live @ TOTP)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PbeAwRQeo0&feature=related

Corrs - So Young on The Parkinson Show in 2000
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkfJ8v3M230

The Corrs-Forgiven Not Forgotten & Joy of Life - Glastonbury Music Festival
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pu-Ng4AeQtU

In the latter, watch for Jim's mistake early on when he accidentally brushes his guitar with his hand and makes a noise - and the irritated look Andrea gives him!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 19, 2008 8:45 PM

Fer signin models the Corrs are very reminiscent er a couple er singin models. I like them better when they were standin behind Robert Palmer.

Posted by Ol One Eye | June 19, 2008 8:57 PM

Kurt Cobain was a worthless elitist who wrote songs expressing his unhappiness that rednecks liked his music, and his initial response was to do his best to make his music even more obscure. His ultimate response seems to have been to commit suicide.

in my experience people are almost always surprised by how good Nirvana actually is when their stuff comes on.

I've never heard a Nirvana song on the radio that's made me wish another Nirvana song was coming up right after it. If I hear Cobain whine, "no I haven't got a gun," one more time on the radio, I'll buy a used Nirvana album just so I can shred the damned thing.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | June 19, 2008 9:42 PM

Those arguing that Nirvana wasn't "pop" don't seem to understand popular music. Nirvana's songs were certainly pop songs - and Cobain would have been the first to admit that. He often cited The Smithereens (as pop as pop can get) as an inspiration, and if you go back and listen to Nirvana albums, you can hear some of the same Smithereens song structures going on. Doesn't make Nirvana better or worse - just is who they were: A solid pop band whose angst and emotion coincided with the rise of a new generation to achieve heightened relevance.

Posted by Polly | June 19, 2008 9:51 PM

I never got was the big deal about them when I only knew the songs on the radio (I guess the Replacements were my favorite rock band at the time - were they still together?). But I thought Nevermind when finally heard the album as a whole. It's not that the radio hits weren't good songs, it's just that for me they don't really work out of context. I need to hear the flow of songs.

They were "pop" in that they had catchy hooks, but to me they seemed like a parody of the repetitiveness of modern pop - those aren't really what I consider good melodies.

It helps to rock, of course, and they did.

Posted by godoggo | June 19, 2008 10:02 PM

Sorry about the Yglesiasisms in the previous comment.

Posted by godoggo | June 19, 2008 10:05 PM

To answer Too Many Steves' earlier comment again, and Polly:

I don't think the fact that mainstream record stores will throw just about any CD into a section labeled "pop" actually makes the genre of music "pop." They're a little less concerned with what type of music something is, and more concerned with funneling people into the general direction of stuff they might buy.

Nirvana was punk rock, which the whole country amazingly became convinced was some kind of mainstream rock, simply because almost nobody listened to punk anymore and therefore didn't know or remember what to compare it to. The Black Album also isn't just some weird, indefineable genre called "pop" music (that is defined only by the fact of some idiot's putting a sign that says "pop" over it in a record store): it was heavy metal.

I seem to remember Kurt Cobain calling his music pop, but I think Kurt Cobain was wrong. I think he perhaps called it this because he felt it was obligatory because he'd become a huge star, and he knew that this label is what everything gets sorted under when you become a huge star. Otherwise, he may have done it because he knew how anal the leftover punks were about people claiming the "punk" name then, so he didn't want to seem to be putting on pretentions that a lot of very opinionated people might have felt he couldn't live up to. Another thing is that many punk-rocker types adopt a very contrarian attitude as part of living the punk identity, and similarly Kurt may have mischieviously called his punk "pop" just to amuse himself, or to try to "be more punk" (by doing something contrarian and annoying). Whatever it was-- whether he was being egotistical, or being pushed around by people's expectations-- Kurt Cobain certainly cited bands that are indisputably punk rock bands and that he would have called punk bands as his influences, like the Butthole Surfers, the Stooges, and the Germs. I don't doubt Polly about the Smithereens, but I never myself heard that he claimed they were an inspiration, and I often heard of him claiming other bands (like the ones I just mentioned) as his inspirations.

Also I think another reason why many people became so burned out on Nirvana was because they listened to it over and over again simply because it was just about the only good music-- that is, music that fit their newly-acquired tastes-- that they knew of. Other good punk rock music was still too underground for all the straight-laced suburban types who had learned to love Nirvana to easily become exposed to or to find- and if they heard it, perhaps they dismissed it too quickly without giving it a good listen just because they didn't hear it on their radio station.

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 10:24 PM

If you pick out any Nirvana song and try to play it on the guitar yourself (or have a friend play it for you), you've got to admit it's nothing like a standard rock song, or like other genres that are closer to being standard rock (like heavy metal). "Milk It" is a great example (on that one, the structure works kind of like a hip-hop song- it kind of works against the over-all melody, while still reinforcing the beat of the song).

You will find yourself playing some very weird shit that is nothing like the '60s/'70s/'80s standards you hear on the oldies/guitar rock radio stations. Maybe it's harder to noticce when you hear it on a juke box and are drinking a beer and talking to a friend, but when you listen to the song, it's hard not to notice.

Posted by Swan | June 19, 2008 10:34 PM

Ol' One Eye: Well, now, may I point out that all four Corrs are musically trained. They all play classical piano, and each plays at least one instrument besides piano, as well as being songwriters as well as singers. The singing is the least of their talents (especially in Jim's case.) So equating them with "singing models" or "girl bands" is inappropriate.

This is Nirvana's sales figures as of an article on MTV's Web site as of 2001:

"According to SoundScan, Nirvana's career album sales break down as follows: the group's 1989 debut, Bleach, has sold 1.44 million copies to date, followed by 1991's Nevermind at 7.65 million, the 1992 B-sides/rarities collection Incesticide at 1.13 million, and the band's final studio album, 1993's In Utero, at 3.58 million. Nirvana's two posthumous live releases, 1994's MTV Unplugged in New York and 1996's From the Muddy Banks of the Wishkah (both of which were assembled by Grohl and Novoselic) have sold 4.11 million and 1.15 million copies, respectively.

With numbers like those, there can be little denying that Nirvana are one of the most popular and commercially viable rock groups of the last 20 years. All of Nirvana's records have continued to do well in catalog sales, with Nevermind selling at a clip of better than 230,000 copies annually, while MTV Unplugged in New York still averages 120,000 copies a year."

Compare that to the Corrs: an estimated forty million albums worldwide since 1995.

Granted, the Corrs were never that big in the United States - and I still can't see why given the bimbos who are big here. (Maybe that is why - the Corrs girls are not bimbos), although their albums have gone at least gold and I think one went platinum. But the Corrs are superstars everywhere else up until the last couple of years when they've been on hiatus.

The Corrs have played for Clinton, Bush, the Pope, Nelson Mandela, Prince Charles, the Queen of England, the Goodwill Games, and played to audiences of up to 110,000. Their albums came in ahead of U2 on the British all time best selling album charts. Their single, Breathless, sold a million copies in the US and was the most played single in Europe in 2000. Their albums have gone platinum in over 20 countries, sometimes going double and quadruple platinum.

They're listed as the 240th best selling band of all time on one chart I've seen.

But since they don't do drugs (aside from Andy being willing to get tipsy now and again), get naked in men's mags, burn down hotels, or kill each other, I guess they don't count.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 19, 2008 11:25 PM

Nirvana was pretty great, but the extent to which they changed the game in 1991-1992 has always been really overstated. The game was already changing: a number of alternative bands had begun to make inroads into mainstream play, the first Lollapalooza predates the Nevermind explosion (which was not instantaneous), etc.

Yeah, how about Jane's Addiction, for instance? They were popular enough even if they didn't have the breakout quality of Nirvana, and Nothing's Shocking was 1988, Ritual de lo Habitual 1990.

I feel about Nirvana sort of the same way I feel about good punk bands, or catchy 1950's stuff like Johnny B. Goode; it's great for what it is, but it's a little too simple and gut-level for me to have much desire to listen to it repeatedly (and out of their albums, I like the live album best because it has the most dreamy, contemplative feel...just a matter of what I like music to do for me I guess).

Posted by Jesse M. | June 19, 2008 11:55 PM

brandon is right, the game was already changing, but I don't think "alternative" music would have exploded the way it did without Nirvana. From what I remember, the REM album that had "Losing my Religion" was actually the first "alternative" album to really hit it big. But Nirvana really opened the floodgates. Banks like the Red Hot Chili Peppers or Soundgarden, basically cult acts before 1991, were hug starts all of a sudden.

It's my guess that, if there were no grunge, a one-two of RHCP's BloodSugarSexMagik and Smashing Pumpkins' Siamese Dream would have kicked open the floodgates – both bands had already poked through into mainstream media pre-Nevermind. (Jane's woulda been there, too, but they broke up.) It probably would have preserved the more underground bands' cred-atmosphere longer, since neither RHCP nor Smashing Pumpkins had the respect from the indier crowd that Nirvana more-or-less did. But that just cuts the timeline back maybe a couple of years.

Posted by brandon | June 20, 2008 12:10 AM

cobain was a lennon-level genius and grohl brought control and discipline to the venture. I didn't know people thought nirvana sucked, that's crazy.

Posted by mike | June 20, 2008 12:18 AM

Pearl Jam was destined to be an enormous arena-rock-band multi-platinum success. If there had been no Nirvana, though, they probably wouldn't have been shoehorned as "alternative."

Posted by too many steves | June 20, 2008 12:18 AM

hate to go all relative, but i think jesse m wins. in the end, it is what you like music to do for you. i might sometimes think it's different and i set out earlier why i think nirvana great, but reading through reminds me how subjective this is.

i have tens of thousands of songs. my wife and i keep about 6,000 on our ipods. i always play mine on shuffle at work. there are two bands that will always make me get up and walk across the room to skip their song. one is soundgarden. but, you know what, when people lay out the case for them i don't hear it myself, but i don't deny it anymore either. they make me crazy. i might be wrong. probably doesn't matter. hell, until six months ago i didn't get that bing crosby was quite a talent.

and yet, i still wonder, isn't moby dick different and less contestable?

Posted by bigbadwolf | June 20, 2008 12:19 AM

Swan (I think) mentioned their chords changes being unusual. I think they wouldn't be so unusual in hardcore, say Black Flag or early TSOL (which I haven't heard for a loooong time), but instead of just using them as a texture to shout over or sing in unison, he'd use them as a harmonic foundation for bits of Beatles-ish melody, and stick them in a pop-song structure. The problem, though, is "bits." It's a very, very (repeat til the page is full, printer) repetitive form of songwriting, which is its big limitation for me. But, again, I like it fine.

Posted by godoggo | June 20, 2008 1:20 AM

No doubt The Pixies influenced Nirvana, but jeez, Pixies fans (of which I am one) need to back away from the edge.

"I was trying to write the ultimate pop song. I was basically trying to rip off the Pixies. I have to admit it (smiles). When I heard the Pixies for the first time, I connected with that band so heavily I should have been in that band - or at least in a Pixies cover band. We used their sense of dynamics, being soft and quiet and then loud and hard." -From Kurt Cobain's '94 Rolling Stone interview, talking about "Smells Like Teen Spirit".

Posted by ben | June 20, 2008 3:43 AM

People bashing Nirvana are probably just in the tank for the big shampoo and hair conditioner companies.

Posted by Christopher Colaninno | June 20, 2008 10:19 AM

Nirvana was punk rock

Are you fucking serious?

Posted by Persia | June 20, 2008 11:24 AM

According to
http://www.last.fm/music/Nirvana
Which is rapidly becoming a much better barometer of what people REALLY listen to than blog hearsay, rock critic posturing, or myspace hype, Nirvana is not remotely lacking in genuine listeners.

Compare this to the stats for, say, Talking Heads, Joy Division, Velvet Underground, Pixies, Sonic Youth, or any other giants/forebears of "alternative rock" and it's not even close.

They are a bit behind Red Hot Chili Peppers and Radiohead, but at some point amount of recorded output and longevity of career has to come into play there. FWIW, they still barely outrank Foo Fighters by a few million listeners. :D

Posted by Todd | June 20, 2008 12:08 PM

According to
http://www.last.fm/music/Nirvana
Which is rapidly becoming a much better barometer of what people REALLY listen to than blog hearsay, rock critic posturing, or myspace hype, Nirvana is not remotely lacking in genuine listeners.

Compare this to the stats for, say, Talking Heads, Joy Division, Velvet Underground, Pixies, Sonic Youth, or any other giants/forebears of "alternative rock" and it's not even close.

They are a bit behind Red Hot Chili Peppers and Radiohead, but at some point amount of recorded output and longevity of career has to come into play there. FWIW, they still barely outrank Foo Fighters by a few million listeners. :D

Posted by Todd | June 20, 2008 12:10 PM