Never Gonna Give Your Teen Spirit Up

[AussieDodger]

during the bands short lifespan they accumulated 9 awards from twenty-one nominations.

Anybody can give out an award.
I can award knipples the "hungriest for sandwiches" award, and all of a sudden he's an award winning poster.

he can have it when he prys it from my cold dead hands

Sounds like we need a poll on this topic.

[jake_twothousandfive]

Just heard this on the radio while I was working out.

[Yoda]

Nirvana is awesome. They were too mainstream for some people but most of their best songs were not even released IMO.

[Inukchuk]

Personally, I don't care much about the music award system, much of it is commercial bullplop as Knapp was getting at. However, Nirvana did help usher in alternative rock into a more mainstream consciousness, but I think because they were supposedly the first to introduce grunge to an MTV crowd, reviews of their work are a bit too generous due to the general public stance that they're revolutionaries. Personally, I'd say Alice in Chains are more of my cup of tea than Nirvana.

Dead on right here. AIC and STP don't get near enough credit for the grunge revolution, imo. I like them both quite a bit more than Nirvana (and Live waaaaay more than all 3, but I digress...), and I get irked by the fact that Nirvana gets the definitive 'king of grunge' tag due more to timing than talent.

Just my opinion, of course. Music is very subjective, and I wouldn't fault someone for being a Nirvana fan, just as I wouldn't expect someone to fault me for liking My Chemical Romance...

[Metroid]

The fact that Nirvana became popular doesn't mean they made good music. The record industry has the power to create a "popular" band simply by forcing them to be played over and over on radio and MTV and marketed correctly. Milli Vanilli is one example, and in my opinion Nirvana is another.

You're right, it wasn't their popularity that made their music good, they made good music because they were good musicians. Again you don't have to care for their music...hell I don't really care for their music all that much but what they did they did well. They helped to pump life back into a stale music scene and at the epicenter of the grunge movement.

[urbanbreez]

I hate when people try to act like they don't like something just because they think it's cool to be different. Nirvana was epic.

[knapplc]

The fact that Nirvana became popular doesn't mean they made good music. The record industry has the power to create a "popular" band simply by forcing them to be played over and over on radio and MTV and marketed correctly. Milli Vanilli is one example, and in my opinion Nirvana is another.

You're right, it wasn't their popularity that made their music good, they made good music because they were good musicians. Again you don't have to care for their music...hell I don't really care for their music all that much but what they did they did well. They helped to pump life back into a stale music scene and at the epicenter of the grunge movement.

I agree with this. But as Art said, give me AIC any day over Nirvana for quality of music, and Live as well (nod to inuk).

I bought Nevermind just like every other college kid in the early 90s and I played it til the CD was so scratched it was unusable, too, so don't think I'm just randomly knocking Nirvana. Perspective through time is where I'm getting this opinion. Nirvana was the first of the grunge metal bands, but not the best.

Heck, I'm more a fan of Hole than Nirvana, and Foo Fighters over either of them.

[knapplc]

I hate when people try to act like they don't like something just because they think it's cool to be different. Nirvana was epic.

Right. Because everyone HAS TO like Nirvana. Everyone.

[urbanbreez]

You have to like either Nirvana or MJ. You simply can't dislike both, it's not humanly possible.

[knapplc]

You have to like either Nirvana or MJ. You simply can't dislike both, it's not humanly possible.

I liked both at one time or another, just not right now. Does that count?