Best compliment I've ever received :mickey: I love some songs from I, and really like II; but like I said earlier, if you mean every song has to be good, it gets more debatable. I love Live and Let Die; dislike Knockin on Heaven's Door This has been an interesting debate, sir; had it's ups and it's downs, but was always entertaining. Someday, maybe we'll have to get into Nirvana.
Let's hope not...... I'm not even a fan of Nirvana much but I hate this retrospective look many have today of them understating their impact. A similar situation today is the dubstep scene in dance music right now. I absolutely DESPISE dubstep personally but I can't deny for better/worse its changed the dance scene. Now may trance and house and the dance music I like resurge in one way or another? Most likely, but they currently do not hold the limelight of dance music. Changing of the music scenes is like an end to childhood in a way for Many I think. The youthful movement that was once 'yours' has now been replaced by something appealing to a younger generation and Many don't know what to do about it initially.
Well, I think it comes from multiple camps: 1) "Too mainstream" 2) "Everyone liked them, but no one kissed their ass this much until Cobain offed himself" 3) "Mudhoney are the real godfathers of grunge" 4) "What about all the other grunge bands?" 5) "Nirvana's the least grunge of the grunge bands" 6) "Fucking emo grandfathers" I ascribe to 2 - 5; 5 might just be me, in fact
2 is somewhat true. Some of the others are typical music snob/journalist views on the issue like stating Mudhoney are the grandfathers of grunge. I've even heard some people claim Velvet Underground were the 'grandfathers of grunge.' There is no doubt that Nirvana had a certain amount of luck in being at the right place at the right time, but they were and that's how it is.
I like journalists and critics and take that as a compliment =P But the Mudhoney has a bit more bearing because they were the first described as grunge, by a music reviewer; and came before Nirvana on the Seattle scene. Your last statement still rings true and can apply to any band mentioned in this thread; but I still don't see any reason not to argue.
Feel free to argue, this 20 year old debate (really its more like a 10 year debate) just resurfaces in like every single music thread. Its like people feel trying to rewrite history. Yes Nirvana happened, they were very popular, rang in a new era. Nevermind critically acclaimed, its like the punk album that people who dont like punk can appreciate. In Utero and Unplugged are pretty solid too. Nirvana's music brought in the 90's quite appropriately.
I mean, no one's going to take Nirvana's fame away, but I freely agree with it being an attempt to get Mudhoney some credit, and the "godfather of grunge" label placed more appropriately. (It's like moving Bibles into the fiction section at Barnes & Noble) I agree with everything but In Utero being good.
Since they have a critically acclaimed past and currently still making music, (album dropping this year) do you have any opinions about Radiohead?
Not any very strong ones; but I have respect for them standing up to the RIAA. I really like some songs, never listened to a full album; other songs I don't like *shrug*
They can be an aquired taste and an 'in the mood' type band, but Ok Computer is the only 90's album I've seen to eclipse Nevermind in some music polls/rankings.
plus one on this one, guy. I remember seeing this performed on American Bandstand and it was quite entertaining. After Wayne's World (or was Bill and Ted's Big Adventure?), the media and its sheep ruined this outstanding song with overplay, overhype and overdone. To enjoy it myself I am reduced to literally limiting it to no more than twice a year. Thirty years back they did the same to Nina's 99 Red Balloons. Kind of like all those home runs in the majors during the late '90s.