I don't listen to grunge - not my kind of music -, but I think Nirvana IS NOT overrated. They were great group, really GOOD, not as modern so-called alternatives.

In Utero is, imo, one of the best albums I've ever heard. It's also two hundred thousand times better than Nevermind.

---

(11-13-2009 08:08 AM)Wings on the Pig Wrote:  

(11-12-2009 04:15 PM)azimuth Wrote:  Nirvana sucked. and still does. They were just angst ridden kids who couldn't play their instruments. Every chord Cobain played was as infantile and dumb as punk was in the 70's. No musical ability whatsoever. Frankly I am stunned that Pink Floyd fans would get into Nirvana. It seems to be the antithesis of the whole vibe of the Floyd.

The only good bands to come out of the 1990's were Alice in Chains and Smashing Pumpkins, IMO.

I am absolutely astounded by this point which, and I hope that the irony was intended, is quite frankly the epitome of infantility and dumbness.

In just two paragraphs you have completely denounced punk music, one of the greatest musical revolutions in history, both Nirvana and the musicians in them, including Dave Grohl, who I think you will find is a much more accomplished and creative drummer than Nick Mason ever was. You have also dismissed all music in the 90s apart from two bands, rendering the genres britpop, most of grunge, the explosion of alternative rock, and all of the other cool hip hop golden age style completely meaningless.

Words cannot explain just how generalised and melodramatic this post is, though I will try my hardest. Believe it or not, there have been bands who were as good as, and even better than, Pink Floyd. Believe it or not, there have been bands who have been just as influential as, if not more so, than Pink Floyd. The entire concept of an 'antithesis' of Floyd is absolutely ludicrous, and if there was one it would certainly not be attributed to fans of a band who were definitely influenced by Floyd, in particular of the period circa Animals, where the biting lyrics and bitter references came into play even moreso than before.

Frankly, I am stunned that a Floyd fan could be so utterly dismissive of another band and, indeed, another decade. I am constantly hearing people moan about the criticisms levelled against Floyd, yet these same people are apparently free to criticise other bands at will. What is it, exactly, which gives us this holy power to decide what is good music and what isn't? Music, after all, is entirely subjective.

So, to be quite frank, there is no way I am going to be told what Floyd fans, like myself, should like. No way.

And if I was forced, for your information, and this will probably shock you as well, I would choose all other music over Floyd. They do not exert some kind of miraculous, life-giving, music. Admittedly, they created some fantastic, top-bracket, life-changing, music. But therein lies the difference.

PFO don't do hypocrisy and ignorance, but if they did it would probably be the best hypocrisy and ignorance in the world. And no, that isn't a compliment.

Chris just totally owned this biatch.

(11-13-2009 08:08 AM)Wings on the Pig Wrote:  I am absolutely astounded by this point which, and I hope that the irony was intended, is quite frankly the epitome of infantility and dumbness.

In just two paragraphs you have completely denounced punk music, one of the greatest musical revolutions in history, both Nirvana and the musicians in them, including Dave Grohl, who I think you will find is a much more accomplished and creative drummer than Nick Mason ever was. You have also dismissed all music in the 90s apart from two bands, rendering the genres britpop, most of grunge, the explosion of alternative rock, and all of the other cool hip hop golden age style completely meaningless.

Words cannot explain just how generalised and melodramatic this post is, though I will try my hardest. Believe it or not, there have been bands who were as good as, and even better than, Pink Floyd. Believe it or not, there have been bands who have been just as influential as, if not more so, than Pink Floyd. The entire concept of an 'antithesis' of Floyd is absolutely ludicrous, and if there was one it would certainly not be attributed to fans of a band who were definitely influenced by Floyd, in particular of the period circa Animals, where the biting lyrics and bitter references came into play even moreso than before.

Frankly, I am stunned that a Floyd fan could be so utterly dismissive of another band and, indeed, another decade. I am constantly hearing people moan about the criticisms levelled against Floyd, yet these same people are apparently free to criticise other bands at will. What is it, exactly, which gives us this holy power to decide what is good music and what isn't? Music, after all, is entirely subjective.

So, to be quite frank, there is no way I am going to be told what Floyd fans, like myself, should like. No way.

And if I was forced, for your information, and this will probably shock you as well, I would choose all other music over Floyd. They do not exert some kind of miraculous, life-giving, music. Admittedly, they created some fantastic, top-bracket, life-changing, music. But therein lies the difference.

PFO don't do hypocrisy and ignorance, but if they did it would probably be the best hypocrisy and ignorance in the world. And no, that isn't a compliment.

You're the only reason I came back. Missed you babe.

I can't help it if you look like an angel,
Can't help it if I wanna kiss you in the rain, so...

I don't really know. I only know one song of theirs and it's annoying because I had to hear it about a trillion times when it was first released. And I'm not all that interested in listening to anything else of theirs either, because grunge is not nor has it ever been, my thing. All that being said, they clearly were very influential and I'm more than willing to give them their due for that.


I hope my opinion doesn't greatly vex anyone.

(11-13-2009 11:53 PM)Electrophile Wrote:  I don't really know. I only know one song of theirs and it's annoying because I had to hear it about a trillion times when it was first released. And I'm not all that interested in listening to anything else of theirs either, because grunge is not nor has it ever been, my thing. All that being said, they clearly were very influential and I'm more than willing to give them their due for that.

Suffice it to say, I am greatly vexed.


Nirvana aren't really overrated, no. Say what you will about them, but they managed to sell alot of shit to angry teenagers...

Three quarters of the world are starving
Three quarters of the world are starving
The rest are dead
The rest are dead
Overdosed on insensitivity,
All varnished to crosses

(11-13-2009 09:15 PM)n3wb0rn Wrote:  

(11-13-2009 08:08 AM)Wings on the Pig Wrote:  I am absolutely astounded by this point which, and I hope that the irony was intended, is quite frankly the epitome of infantility and dumbness.

In just two paragraphs you have completely denounced punk music, one of the greatest musical revolutions in history, both Nirvana and the musicians in them, including Dave Grohl, who I think you will find is a much more accomplished and creative drummer than Nick Mason ever was. You have also dismissed all music in the 90s apart from two bands, rendering the genres britpop, most of grunge, the explosion of alternative rock, and all of the other cool hip hop golden age style completely meaningless.

Words cannot explain just how generalised and melodramatic this post is, though I will try my hardest. Believe it or not, there have been bands who were as good as, and even better than, Pink Floyd. Believe it or not, there have been bands who have been just as influential as, if not more so, than Pink Floyd. The entire concept of an 'antithesis' of Floyd is absolutely ludicrous, and if there was one it would certainly not be attributed to fans of a band who were definitely influenced by Floyd, in particular of the period circa Animals, where the biting lyrics and bitter references came into play even moreso than before.

Frankly, I am stunned that a Floyd fan could be so utterly dismissive of another band and, indeed, another decade. I am constantly hearing people moan about the criticisms levelled against Floyd, yet these same people are apparently free to criticise other bands at will. What is it, exactly, which gives us this holy power to decide what is good music and what isn't? Music, after all, is entirely subjective.

So, to be quite frank, there is no way I am going to be told what Floyd fans, like myself, should like. No way.

And if I was forced, for your information, and this will probably shock you as well, I would choose all other music over Floyd. They do not exert some kind of miraculous, life-giving, music. Admittedly, they created some fantastic, top-bracket, life-changing, music. But therein lies the difference.

PFO don't do hypocrisy and ignorance, but if they did it would probably be the best hypocrisy and ignorance in the world. And no, that isn't a compliment.

You're the only reason I came back. Missed you babe.