a bad influence?

its not like he wanted to be what he was, he was just a bloke who wrote tunes then decided to chew shotgun shells.

Hardcore wasn't considered 'wrong' by the people into the underground, and certainly not outdated, it has been strong ever since the days of Teen Idles, Minor Threat and Black Flag and is still around.

Nirvana certainly didn't do much/anything for the hardcore scene directly.

And if they thought the album was too popy from the beginning, why not change it? and if the record label didn't let them then they shouldn't have signed to that label in the first place

Nah, it was April 5th, it was only 4 years ago. 4/20/02 was the day Eddie heard the news and wrote the song. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layne_Staley.

Wrong on several levels of wrongnitude.

I fart in your general direction sir.

I agree.

[QUOTE=Numenor King]I fart in your general direction sir.[/QUOTE]

Now that's what I call solid arguments. :p

I can't respond to you with FACTS, because you've already proven yourself to be someone who is an expert at everything because you know someone or "lived it."

So instead, I'll just tell you you're wrong.

You're wrong.

Kurt Cobain sucked golfballs through 10 feet of garden hose.

I'll let you all extrapolate the rest.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Kurt Cobain sucked golfballs through 10 feet of garden hose.

I'll let you all extrapolate the rest.[/QUOTE]
That one is old.

Well it's not like he was killed by somebody, the idiot was a heroine addict and shot himself.

It's all a mater of opinion. And perspective.

I'm not saying they're the best band ever, not by far. I just happen to think that, at the time, for a popular band, they were refreshing, compared to the mainstream rock music of that time.

Sure, there are lots of bands 'better', or more refreshing than Nirvana. Had I grown up listening to those, I probably would have thought they sucked too. Makes sense to me.

thats what I though.

Glad you know everything about everything then. So then, what's the meaning of life?

everyone knows the meaning of life is death

no no no, thats what POOP IDIOT MORONS THINK

ITS [RIGHT] NAILFACE [/COLOR][/RIGHT]

That's the idea, and they also set the stage for a lot of bands in the early nineties to become more mainstream. I think that was Nirvana's biggest accomplishment.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Glad you know everything about everything then. So then, what's the meaning of life?[/QUOTE]


42

Wait a second, wasn't Judas Priest still around at that point? Nirvana is about as rocking as a lamp post compared to the Metal Gods

[QUOTE=Numenor King]42[/QUOTE]
If you're going to try and be cute and cheeky, at least do it right. That's the answer, not the meaning.

[QUOTE=Glyde Bane]Wait a second, wasn't Judas Priest still around at that point? Nirvana is about as rocking as a lamp post compared to the Metal Gods[/QUOTE]
Nirvana wasn't rock at all--it was grunge. They set the scene for punk and rock bands to take the mainstream, instead of being pushed aside for the crap that flooded the world back then. They were influential, if nothing else.

I mean like, there were more interesting things than Nirvana at the time. But yeah, I suppose they were influential to those with soft ears.

[QUOTE=Glyde Bane]I mean like, there were more interesting things than Nirvana at the time. But yeah, I suppose they were influential to those with soft ears.[/QUOTE]
1) To you, maybe they were.
2) Nirvana brought a unique sound. Maybe you hate it, maybe you love it, but the writing was good, and the music was okay. Just because it doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that it sucks. Learn this.

Never said it sucked :p

[QUOTE=Glyde Bane]Never said it sucked :p[/QUOTE]
Yet it's obvious you think so.

I don't think they suck, I think they're uninteresting.

[QUOTE=Glyde Bane]I don't think they suck, I think they're uninteresting.[/QUOTE]
Close enough.

I wouldn't say so. Uninteresting is in a gray area, suck means they well... suck.

[QUOTE=Glyde Bane]I wouldn't say so. Uninteresting is in a gray area, suck means they well... suck.[/QUOTE]
Good for you. For all intents and purposes as far as my posts go, they mean practically the same thing.

You're just making up excuses now, come on :p

Anyways, I do believe that's enough + post count for this thread... We pretty much derailed it.

[QUOTE=Glyde Bane]You're just making up excuses now, come on :p

Anyways, I do believe that's enough + post count for this thread... We pretty much derailed it.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm not. But continue thinking that if you will.

I love grunge music. Don't care what anyone else prefers.

[QUOTE=Numenor King]Don't care that much for Nirvana.

sure they did help revolutionize rock music, and his death is sad. But I don't think they deserve the amout of media they got, and still have. I don't think Cobain should rest at the same level in rock and roll history as say Elvis or John Lennon, or to a lesser extent Ozzie. I honestly don't think he would be up their if he didn't kill himself.

part of me wants to agree that it is very sad, and another part wants to ask: "why are we still making THIS big a deal about it 12 years later?"

oh well,

so no, not a big nervana fan.[/QUOTE]

But that's the thing. Look at Elvis, look at Lennon, look at Hendrix and Joplin. They all died at the height of their fame (or shortly after). If Elvis were alive today, think he'd still be making music and be a legend?

Look at Frank Sinatra, amazing singer, everyone knows him. But if he died say 40 years ago at the height of his fame, he'd be more popular. Look at Ozzie, huge star in the 80s. Had it not been for that show, he would of faded into obscurity.

The legends are the ones who die before "their time."

And I had not even heard of them until like 4 years after he died. Saw some girl in high school (I was ELEVEN at the time) and said "Oh who is that on your shirt?" When I regained consciousness, she told me.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Glad you know everything about everything then. So then, what's the meaning of life?[/QUOTE]

No one gets out alive!

I heard that quote somewhere once. No idea where.

Haha, that's pretty good.

When I looked at a picture of Kurt Cobain upside down on a Nirvana CD cover, it looked like Jesus. Too bad he's dead, he was talented.

Im sorry did you just put Nirvana and Numetal in the same sentence???


:banned: :banned: :banned: :banned: :banned:

[QUOTE=Unknown User]Im sorry did you just put Nirvana and Numetal in the same sentence???


:banned: :banned: :banned: :banned: :banned:[/QUOTE]

I'm not saying Nirvana was NuMetal, but they seem to have influenced alot of NuMetal, and today's Nirvana fans are typically NuMetal fans as well.

It is sad (for instance I once saw on a nirvana message board when I was a nirvana fan, a big thread about "why do people not like nickleback?!" and I threw up in my mouth a little bit)

yeah I guess thats true, sorry for overreacting. I think anytime a ground breaking band comes along, bands try to emulate them, but in a differentiated manner (eg Nickelback, Staind vs Nirvana...Oasis vs the Beatles,Bob segar vs Bruce Springsteen...etc..)

Not to say that these bands intentions are not good, but they rely on too heavily of influenes. You see bands such as Beatles, Nirvana, Led Zeppelin, etc. Had a few influences, but went their own way
Whereas second hand bands have TONS of influences and have music thats not as original...if that makes any sense

I'm sorry, did you just put Nirvana in the same sentence as The Beatles and Led Zeppelin?

[QUOTE=Unknown User]You see bands such as Beatles, Nirvana, Led Zeppelin, etc. Had a few influences, but went their own way
[/QUOTE]


BUZZZ WRONG.

Zeppelin and the Beatles have TONS of influences ranging from Blues to music from Asia.

no band starts off being original, they become original once they outgrow their influences.