Nirvana

[the game]

Would Nirvana have survived in the music scene today had Kurt Cobain not died? I really enjoy Nirvana's music.

[Lightwysh]

Has any grunge band had much success in today's music scene? If Kurt didn't off himself, the band would still have collapsed under the heavy drug use.

Their music will still be timeless and a monument to that musical era.

[eschatological]

Probably not.

I never found them all that impressive in the first place and felt like it was mostly the cultish following around Cobain that brought the band a large chunk of their success - a following which was only magnified by his very timely death. (I mean timely in terms of it happening when he was still highly visible and popular, not that I'm happy about it!)

I think they objectively changed Rock 'n' Roll and saved it from the disco/glam rock prevalent in the 70s and 80s.

I think Nirvana's song "Rape Me" would probably be ridiculously controversial today for no real reason.

[eschatological]

Well, if not "saved" at least "radically changed." The statement people usually make about Nirvana is that they were the most important band since the Beatles. Whether that's true or not, they basically turned the scene on its head and influenced every artist who came after them.

[Ebalina]

Nirvana lives with Dave in Foo Fighters.

So in a way they did survive but they actually evolved from the sad destructiveness that was Cobain .

[Deleted]

Not a single chance

[VTerpsichore]

His end would have met the same conclusion, but he would have lived to see his fears come true

[Venziir]

Well, if not "saved" at least "radically changed." The statement people usually make about Nirvana is that they were the most important band since the Beatles. Whether that's true or not, they basically turned the scene on its head and influenced every artist who came after them.

That's just not right. In any way. Grunge died out as quickly as it arrived in the first place.

- - - Updated - - -

Nirvana lives with Dave in Foo Fighters.

So in a way they did survive but they actually evolved from the sad destructiveness that was Cobain .

Not really, Foo Fighters is classic dad rock with absolutely no balls, agenda or anything. They don't want to change anything, they don't have an opinion, they just want to party and have fun. Nirvana was the exact opposite of all that.

- - - Updated - - -

I think they objectively changed Rock 'n' Roll and saved it from the disco/glam rock prevalent in the 70s and 80s.

I think Nirvana's song "Rape Me" would probably be ridiculously controversial today for no real reason.

Thrash Metal did all that, before Grunge. Grunge made it, very hard, for metal and rock bands in the 90's.

- - - Updated - - -

"Saved"

What if I liked 80's rock?

It's still around, hell, most of them are having a much better time than Nirvana is...

[jackofwind]

Nirvana lives with Dave in Foo Fighters.

So in a way they did survive but they actually evolved from the sad destructiveness that was Cobain .

Foo Fighters is nothing like Nirvana, nor do they have the agenda that Nirvana had. They just are about playing rock music, whereas Nirvana was all a statement.

Nirvana were so popular because they were the most easily accessible band in the grunge scene, and they happened to make a couple chart topping hits. Hilariously enough, they've become exactly what Cobain hated about the music industry and would never have wanted.

As a side note, bands with agendas never seem to stand the test of time. Either they burn out or people who at first liked their agenda end up getting annoyed by it over time.

Side, side note: Alice in Chains > Nirvana.

Side, side, side note: Thrash started to kill the glam rock scene far before grunge even existed, and thrash has actually stood the test of time while grunge was nothing but a fad. Grunge is about as meaningful today as nu-metal is, that is to say it's completely irrelevant.

[Revik]

Grunge is a Gen-X cult music. Unfortunately in no discussion anywhere are Gen-X'ers talked about. Millennials which are Gen-Y and beyond are the topic of all social discussions.

Gen-X is truly a forgotten generation as is their music.

[Venziir]

Foo Fighters is nothing like Nirvana, nor do they have the agenda that Nirvana had. They just are about playing rock music, whereas Nirvana was all a statement.

Nirvana were so popular because they were the most easily accessible band in the grunge scene, and they happened to make a couple chart topping hits. Hilariously enough, they've become exactly what Cobain hated about the music industry and would never have wanted.

As a side note, bands with agendas never seem to stand the test of time. Either they burn out or people who at first liked their agenda end up getting annoyed by it over time.

Side, side note: Alice in Chains > Nirvana.

Side, side, side note: Thrash started to kill the glam rock scene far before grunge even existed, and thrash has actually stood the test of time while grunge was nothing but a fad. Grunge is about as meaningful today as nu-metal is, that is to say it's completely irrelevant.

Poor AiC, they tried so hard to tell the world that they weren't Grunge, but eh, they were from Seattle and wore flannel so, alas...

[grandpab]

You just can't make music like they did back then anymore. Just using Alice in Chains as an example. I was so excited to hear they had a new singer and they'd be releasing a new album, but after it came out I hated it. It just didn't sound like AiC anymore. It sounded like regular mainstream shit they play on the radio.

I think it was the drugs that made them so great.

[Venziir]

You just can't make music like they did back then anymore. Just using Alice in Chains as an example. I was so excited to hear they had a new singer and they'd be releasing a new album, but after it came out I hated it. It just didn't sound like AiC anymore. It sounded like regular mainstream shit they play on the radio.

I think it was the drugs that made them so great.

Sounds like you are the one who never really changed honestly. Don't expect bands to keep sounding the same, or doing the same... Well unless said band is AC/DC. Granted, Jerry *was* AiC, but still.

[Damajin]

You just can't make music like they did back then anymore. Just using Alice in Chains as an example. I was so excited to hear they had a new singer and they'd be releasing a new album, but after it came out I hated it. It just didn't sound like AiC anymore. It sounded like regular mainstream shit they play on the radio.

I think it was the drugs that made them so great.

It sounds like AiC but it doesn't have the magic of AiC, which is the key distinction. I think the band really needed that intense dynamic between Layne and Jerry to make the magic. I notice glimpses of the magic in the solo work they both did away from AiC but it was alive and moving when they played together.

That new guy is alright but the new music isn't magical, it's listenable at best.

[Pull My Finger]

I was never really a fan of them. Too whiny and depressing for me. Ironically, of all the "Grunge" bands that got really big, Nirvana was one of the more one-dimensional ones, and could barely play their instruments more or less passable. The Alice In Chains and Soundgarden dudes were clearly more capable and more talented musicians. But Nirvana struck a nerve with the youth and they deserved their success.

[grandpab]

Sounds like you are the one who never really changed honestly. Don't expect bands to keep sounding the same, or doing the same... Well unless said band is AC/DC. Granted, Jerry *was* AiC, but still.

I listen to hip hop artists that change up their style and how they sound every album. I have no problem with that, unless it actually sounds bad. With AiC it's like Damajin said, no magic. Layne was like the soul of the band and without him they'll never be as great as they were. Same exact situation with Sublime too.

[Alvito]

Not a chance. You could remove the drug use completely and there is still no chance. One of the reasons Kurt shot himself was being in mainstream music and all that is. At best they would have just stopped making albums.

[frogger237]

Side, side, side note: Thrash started to kill the glam rock scene far before grunge even existed, and thrash has actually stood the test of time while grunge was nothing but a fad. Grunge is about as meaningful today as nu-metal is, that is to say it's completely irrelevant.

I don't know how you can say thrash has stood the test of time because the only groups that anyone who isn't big into it would know are basically the ones who made it or formed in the same time period which is the exact same thing for grunge.

[jackofwind]

I don't know how you can say thrash has stood the test of time because the only groups that anyone who isn't big into it would know are basically the ones who made it or formed in the same time period which is the exact same thing for grunge.

How many modern grunge bands exist? None, grunge was a fad and it's dead now.

How many modern thrash bands are there? Shitloads, including some of the founders of the genre as well as its major 2nd-wave bands.

[frogger237]

How many modern grunge bands exist? None, grunge was a fad and it's dead now.

How many modern thrash bands are there? Shitloads, including some of the founders of the genre as well as its major 2nd-wave bands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...sh_metal_bands
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...n_grunge_bands