It's been nearly 24 years..........

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sorry OP, but Nirvana could never have been as big as the Beatles. If anything, they were the on a commercial downturn just before Kurt's death, they peaked too soon.

Andy_Roker1983 said:
Over rated imo maybe because I’m not into that type of music but I definitely think the fact Kurt Cobain topped himself created this legend type status he seems to hold.
When musicians die young fans idolise them even more and they become remembered as more than they actually were.
Click to expand...

The Joy Division effect.
 


I think Nirvana were a great band . I don't,however, get the "could have been the Beatles" thing. They weren't that night or that sort of band.

For example: I just Wiki'd all if Nirvana three albums. I estimate that the typical music fan would recognise two to three of the songs . I did the same with the Beatles first three albums - when they were a singles, pop band and weren't in their most musically influential prime. I counted - excluding covers - 21 songs that a typical music fan would be very familiar with.

I'm trying to piss on anybody's chips but when making comparisons to Beatles it's difficult for people who weren't old enough (and I'm only just) to fully appreciate how world-wide culturally influential and dominant they were and how prolificly high quality their output was. And how lo-tech and rushed their resources were. And how utterly unknown that level of fame was. And how much pressure they were under.

Poor Kurt caved after a 10th of what they'd gone through in their first 6 months after the first hit.
 
What A Waster said:
Best band I saw at Newcastle Uni was Supergrass. Saw some pretty big bands there when they were first starting out.
Remember seeing Muse there supported by Coldplay in maybe 1999 when Coldplay had only had "Shiver" out.
Click to expand...
I saw Muse opening for American band Live, at the Town and Country Club (now the O2 Academy I think) in Leeds when they`d just put out their 1st album. Thought they were decent but never expected them to be playing stadiums.
 
Their Unplugged album is class. Actually like their cover of The Man Who Sold The World better than Bowie's original and that's saying something as I'm a big Bowie fan.
 
Half the people who viewed Nirvana’s problies didn’t even know it was a cover! Such is the (lack of) curiosity level I find in a lot of younger people.

I used to hear a band I liked, then try to discover other bands who sounded like them, or those who influenced them and follow the trail upstream. A lot of younguns now just aren’t arsed about that. My niece was visiting and said she liked Green Day. I said his singing was a lot like the Small Faces ‘Crazy Sunday’ and their three minute power pop songs wouldn’t have been out of place on early albums by The Jam, The Clash, The Buzzcocks but she showed zero interest in tracking them down.
 
Tex said:
Half the people who viewed Nirvana’s problies didn’t even know it was a cover! Such is the (lack of) curiosity level I find in a lot of younger people.

I used to hear a band I liked, then try to discover other bands who sounded like them, or those who influenced them and follow the trail upstream. A lot of younguns now just aren’t arsed about that. My niece was visiting and said she liked Green Day. I said his singing was a lot like the Small Faces ‘Crazy Sunday’ and their three minute power pop songs wouldn’t have been out of place on early albums by The Jam, The Clash, The Buzzcocks but she showed zero interest in tracking them down.
Click to expand...
That would be the fidderence between real music fans and casual music fans.
 
look out piano said:
Yup it's fantastic, 174,432,535 views on Youtube - that's a fair few IMO :D.................compared 16,648,836 for Bowies version.
Click to expand...
A lot of Bowie fans wouldnt need to go on you tube to listen to it, they'd have a copy. They might have listened to Nirvana's version out of interest. So those viewing figures probably mean nothing other than how many people watched the clip, not who is better.
 
peachbum said:
A lot of Bowie fans wouldnt need to go on you tube to listen to it, they'd have a copy. They might have listened to Nirvana's version out of interest. So those viewing figures probably mean nothing other than how many people watched the clip, not who is better.
Click to expand...
I didn't say Kurt Cobain was better than Bowie, but I did agree with a previous poster who said Nirvana's rendition of "The man who sold the world" was better than Bowie's version.........It's all down to personal taste, I personally didn't like the weird filter on Bowie's voice on that track.
 
look out piano said:
I didn't say Kurt Cobain was better than Bowie, but I did agree with a previous poster who said Nirvana's rendition of "The man who sold the world" was better than Bowie's version.........It's all down to personal taste, I personally didn't like the weird filter on Bowie's voice on that track.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I got the impression you meant 174 million v 16 million views meant Nirvana's version was better.

Of course personal taste comes into what you like but I don't really think nirvana were world changing ( musically or culturally) but I'm older than you and by the nineties music didn't play such a big part in my life as it did when I was younger. As posted already in this thread a lot of us like bands because we were the right age when they started/ got big etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top