|
|
Post by Holland227 on Nov 4, 2006 18:42:26 GMT -5
As I am now older since the last time I have really listened to Nirvana I feel that THe songs say more than what we hear. Anyone really listen to the songs themselves not for musical merit but for lyrical merit?
|
|
|
|
Post by Holland227 on Nov 4, 2006 18:44:45 GMT -5
BTW I really love their remake of Lake of Fire
|
|
|
|
Post by Darth Turkish on Nov 4, 2006 21:38:57 GMT -5
Nirvana...meh.
But I listen to muscic for lyrical content, most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Nov 5, 2006 19:38:55 GMT -5
AMEN. It is interesting to listen to music years later and see if you have a different take on it though. |
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Nov 5, 2006 20:04:22 GMT -5
I read Spin Magazine's 20 year anniversary book, which was mostly collections of articles on certain topics over that time frame. The stuff on Nirvana and Cobain was the best of the bunch. I was never a big Nirvana fan, but I can recognize what they did for a music scene that was struggling for direction coming out of the Johnny Hates Jazz/Taylor Dayne/Was (Not Was) late '80s. It ain't hype to say they that, as far as influence goes, they were the Beatles of their day.
|
|
|
|
Post by swarm on Nov 6, 2006 11:52:32 GMT -5
As I am now older since the last time I have really listened to Nirvana I feel that THe songs say more than what we hear. Anyone really listen to the songs themselves not for musical merit but for lyrical merit? always did...Nirvana is one of the greatest bands of all time. |
|
|
|
Post by Mike M on Nov 6, 2006 11:55:50 GMT -5
IMO, Nirvana's music/sound was awesome. Their lyrics were terrible, but sounded good with the music.
To me, they were terribly overrated but did pave the way for a number of other bands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete on Nov 7, 2006 18:11:17 GMT -5
I honestly thought Grohl brought more to the group than Cobain. Like Mike said, a lot of Kurt's lyrics were awful (I like abstract lyrics but they still have to be good) and his voice was bad on top of it, but I'm a mark for awesome drumming and Nirvana had plenty of that.
"The Beatles of their time" is pouring it on a little thick, IMO. The Beatles revolutionized the idea of "singer-songwriters" as well as changing the entire process of how songs and albums were recorded in a myriad of ways. Nirvana basically took the Pixies' catalogue and sludged it up. Plus it just wasn't possible even by 1991 for a band to make the kind of cultural impact that the Beatles did in the '60s. In 2006 it's probably not possible for one to approach even Nirvana's heights.
Another real underrated part of Nirvana: they were a great cover band. 99% of cover songs are worse than the original, but almost all of Nirvana's (Love Buzz, Molly's Lips, the Meat Puppets trilogy from Unplugged) were fantastic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Bri on Nov 7, 2006 18:31:15 GMT -5
I honestly thought Grohl brought more to the group than Cobain. AMEN TO THIS. Grohl is awesome because he has made the Foo Fighters such a different band than Nirvana, and a much better one IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by Trent Lawless on Nov 7, 2006 19:11:34 GMT -5
"The Beatles of their time" is pouring it on a little thick, IMO. What I mean is that their influence on musicians that came concurrently and after was comparable to the Beatles, not that Cobain was as good a songwriter/lyricist as Lennon and/or McCartney. He wasn't. He tapped into something that was going on in the culture at the time, though, and hence was able to drive "pop" culture somewhere in the process, whether he intended to or not. Again, not a Nirvana fan per se here. I like, not love their stuff. I think after reading that Spin mag stuff about them, I gained a perspective I never had. And it wasn't even all glowing praise that Spin wrote. Just reasoned analysis both during their run and after Cobain was gone. Fans should check it out. And they have a chapter on the Pixies, too, Pete.  |
|
|
|
Post by bmurderh8s on Nov 21, 2006 9:55:36 GMT -5
Lyrically I think Nirvana was alright. A lot of their songs as far as lyrical content went were kinda abstract. I wouldn't say the lyrics were bad....not at all..Backstreet Boys lyrics are bad.
Nirvana for me has its place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bazzy on Nov 22, 2006 1:36:21 GMT -5
Alot of songs say more than what they mean (or we think they meant) . Or what some tv or radio programmes say 5-20 years later and people talk about songs . That songs wasn't actually all about . Alot of stuff I listen to has haevy meanings in the song lyrics . Still if the music tunes are crap , would you still listen to it ? . Would you listen to opera , if the lyrics were meaningful ?
|
|
|
|
Post by josharpie99 on Dec 6, 2006 1:32:37 GMT -5
I wasn't a big grunge fan. Yeah, the late 80s had all the dressings of some serious issues regarding rock-n-roll, but you know what...it was fun. Now, the fun of rock n roll appears to be dying. Is it just me? Am I getting older? I miss the big arena rock shows. I'm afraid in 20 years, when all of the possible "reunion" concerts have ended, there will be nothing.
I just feel as if grunge killed all the fun in rock. Bring back Twisted Sister!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dustin Neal on Dec 14, 2006 19:26:24 GMT -5
I loved Nirvana when I was younger, but now that I have matured with my musical taste, it's hard to listen to,
|
|
IPPON!!
