I missed the grunge movement in its peak but I got into Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. Just couldn’t get into Nirvana beyond a few songs that I do like. Musically, I feel like both Pearl Jam and Soundgarden dwarf Nirvana.
I love Nirvana. I think a good case can be made that Nirvana were the only grunge band and that the others like you mentioned were grunge only in that they shared a fashion. They aren’t really the same genre of music, just look. IMHO.
Or that their music evolved with the times? I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t understand genres, but I feel like early Soundgarden albums sounded very close to Nirvana’s sound, but later albums became more rock?
Having read Kurt’s journals, they wanted to be mid. They were capitalizing on the success of other bands and implementing their styles. They weren’t trying to change the world, they just wanted to get paid to make decent music
Not putting any of this on their feet. Maybe they wanted to be mid but that’s not how history seems to remember them.
Nirvana is still hyped as one of the greatest bands ever. Maybe it was revisionism after Kurt’s death? But whatever it is, I feel like their music doesn’t deserve the hype it gets today.
When an artist is the first to inspire a movement, history tends to look back on them differently. There’s a related trope that covers this phenomenon - “Seinfeld is Unfunny.” From that page:
There are certain works that you can safely assume most people have enjoyed. These shows were considered fantastic when they were released. Now, however, these have a Hype Backlash curse on them. Whenever we watch them, we’ll cry, “That is so old” or “That is so overdone”.
The sad irony? It wasn’t old or overdone when they did it, because they were the first ones to do it. But the things it created were so brilliant and popular, they became woven into the fabric of that work’s niche. They ended up being taken for granted, copied, and endlessly repeated. Although they often began by saying something new, they in turn became the new status quo.
Nirvana is one of the artists mentioned under the “Music” examples on that same page. The point is, they were groundbreaking when they came out, but they changed the music scene so much and have inspired so many similar artists that their original work has become overshadowed by the successors they helped create.
Your experience is common and it’s okay not to enjoy their music, but the key to remember is that without Nirvana helping to pave the way, other grunge bands may not have risen to the popular level they reached.
Bleach and Incesticide weren’t particularly good albums. Generic rock pulp, the songs were interchangeable.
EIDT: I’d argue it’s their live shows that made them stand out. “Live and Loud” electrified me to no end.
Nirvana. The band.
I missed the grunge movement in its peak but I got into Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. Just couldn’t get into Nirvana beyond a few songs that I do like. Musically, I feel like both Pearl Jam and Soundgarden dwarf Nirvana.
I love Nirvana. I think a good case can be made that Nirvana were the only grunge band and that the others like you mentioned were grunge only in that they shared a fashion. They aren’t really the same genre of music, just look. IMHO.
Or that their music evolved with the times? I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t understand genres, but I feel like early Soundgarden albums sounded very close to Nirvana’s sound, but later albums became more rock?
Having read Kurt’s journals, they wanted to be mid. They were capitalizing on the success of other bands and implementing their styles. They weren’t trying to change the world, they just wanted to get paid to make decent music
Not putting any of this on their feet. Maybe they wanted to be mid but that’s not how history seems to remember them.
Nirvana is still hyped as one of the greatest bands ever. Maybe it was revisionism after Kurt’s death? But whatever it is, I feel like their music doesn’t deserve the hype it gets today.
Whatever their intentions, they were massively influential and changed grunge forever and that’s not something that should be understated
For sure.
When an artist is the first to inspire a movement, history tends to look back on them differently. There’s a related trope that covers this phenomenon - “Seinfeld is Unfunny.” From that page:
Nirvana is one of the artists mentioned under the “Music” examples on that same page. The point is, they were groundbreaking when they came out, but they changed the music scene so much and have inspired so many similar artists that their original work has become overshadowed by the successors they helped create.
Your experience is common and it’s okay not to enjoy their music, but the key to remember is that without Nirvana helping to pave the way, other grunge bands may not have risen to the popular level they reached.
Nirvana was ok. They are the ones credited with killing the hair metal genre.
But honestly Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, and Stone Temple Pilots…they are all 10 times better than Nirvana ever was.
I respect Nirvana tremendously for the movement they ushered in. I cannot enjoy most of their music, however.
Foo fighters is a bit better, but I admit I pick and choose.
Hard same.
Bleach and Incesticide weren’t particularly good albums. Generic rock pulp, the songs were interchangeable.
EIDT: I’d argue it’s their live shows that made them stand out. “Live and Loud” electrified me to no end.