Nirvana Nevermind baby and a crock of shit

[Ehwmatt]

This kid's in movie talks? What the fuck for? Being in the right place in the right time as an infant?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Music/1 ... index.html

The triumph blew 1980s-style "poodle-hair metal" music off the map, wrote Rolling Stone magazine, which in 2003 ranked "Nevermind" at No. 17 of the 500 greatest albums of all time.

Fuck Rolling Stone and fuck CNN right up the ass!

[bluejeangirl76]

He was a goony lookin' baby now he's a goony lookin' teenager. Next case.

[Don]

Was Nirvana's singer the coward that blew his brains out with a newborn on the way or some shit like that? I can't keep track, all those bands sounded the same to me.

[bluejeangirl76]

Was Nirvana's singer the coward that blew his brains out with a newborn on the way or some shit like that?

Yep, close. He was the one who married a drunken drugged-out skank, had a baby, and bailed out when she was still just a wee one.

[G.I.Jim]

Was Nirvana's singer the coward that blew his brains out with a newborn on the way or some shit like that? I can't keep track, all those bands sounded the same to me.

Yes he was. Although I think he was a fucking retard to commit suicide, I do feel bad for those he left behind. I feel bad for him too, that he was in that bad of a place. What a shame!

I hated this band along with all of the other shit bands that took over the 90's music scene, because they pushed all of our favorite bands into exile! I understand why it happened, but you have to wonder....Where would we be today musically if many of these "80's" bands continued their success into the 90's? That really makes me wonder.

Maybe I'm alone here, but just THINK of the albums we got shorted out of!

[Rick]

Was Nirvana's singer the coward that blew his brains out with a newborn on the way or some shit like that? I can't keep track, all those bands sounded the same to me.

Yes he was. Although I think he was a fucking retard to commit suicide, I do feel bad for those he left behind. I feel bad for him too, that he was in that bad of a place. What a shame!

I hated this band along with all of the other shit bands that took over the 90's music scene, because they pushed all of our favorite bands into exile! I understand why it happened, but you have to wonder....Where would we be today musically if many of these "80's" bands continued their success into the 90's? That really makes me wonder.

Maybe I'm alone here, but just THINK of the albums we got shorted out of!

You know Jim, we've got a thread about Nirvana, and the Black Hole thread, which makes me think of the Soundgarden song. Why doesn't Chris Cornell take over for the late Kurt Cobain and bring Nirvana back? They had some great tunes, actually.

[skinsguy]

Was Nirvana's singer the coward that blew his brains out with a newborn on the way or some shit like that? I can't keep track, all those bands sounded the same to me.

Yes he was. Although I think he was a fucking retard to commit suicide, I do feel bad for those he left behind. I feel bad for him too, that he was in that bad of a place. What a shame!

I hated this band along with all of the other shit bands that took over the 90's music scene, because they pushed all of our favorite bands into exile! I understand why it happened, but you have to wonder....Where would we be today musically if many of these "80's" bands continued their success into the 90's? That really makes me wonder.

Maybe I'm alone here, but just THINK of the albums we got shorted out of!

You know Jim, we've got a thread about Nirvana, and the Black Hole thread, which makes me think of the Soundgarden song. Why doesn't Chris Cornell take over for the late Kurt Cobain and bring Nirvana back? They had some great tunes, actually.

No! I'd rather Chris revamp Soundgarden!

[Rick]

Was Nirvana's singer the coward that blew his brains out with a newborn on the way or some shit like that? I can't keep track, all those bands sounded the same to me.

Yes he was. Although I think he was a fucking retard to commit suicide, I do feel bad for those he left behind. I feel bad for him too, that he was in that bad of a place. What a shame!

I hated this band along with all of the other shit bands that took over the 90's music scene, because they pushed all of our favorite bands into exile! I understand why it happened, but you have to wonder....Where would we be today musically if many of these "80's" bands continued their success into the 90's? That really makes me wonder.

Maybe I'm alone here, but just THINK of the albums we got shorted out of!

You know Jim, we've got a thread about Nirvana, and the Black Hole thread, which makes me think of the Soundgarden song. Why doesn't Chris Cornell take over for the late Kurt Cobain and bring Nirvana back? They had some great tunes, actually.

No! I'd rather Chris revamp Soundgarden!

Actually, I think he's got a solo record coming out in '09. Should certainly be worth checking out.

[Don]

Was Nirvana's singer the coward that blew his brains out with a newborn on the way or some shit like that? I can't keep track, all those bands sounded the same to me.

Yes he was. Although I think he was a fucking retard to commit suicide, I do feel bad for those he left behind. I feel bad for him too, that he was in that bad of a place. What a shame!

I hated this band along with all of the other shit bands that took over the 90's music scene, because they pushed all of our favorite bands into exile! I understand why it happened, but you have to wonder....Where would we be today musically if many of these "80's" bands continued their success into the 90's? That really makes me wonder.

Maybe I'm alone here, but just THINK of the albums we got shorted out of!

Retardation is the only thing I can think of to explain someone canceling out their own existence. If you are suffering physical pain with no relief in sight is one thing but mental anguish is bizarre to me. The brain is so resilient, I can only imagine that a person would have to be short circuited or retarded to perform such an act upon themself.

[G.I.Jim]

Was Nirvana's singer the coward that blew his brains out with a newborn on the way or some shit like that? I can't keep track, all those bands sounded the same to me.

Yes he was. Although I think he was a fucking retard to commit suicide, I do feel bad for those he left behind. I feel bad for him too, that he was in that bad of a place. What a shame!

I hated this band along with all of the other shit bands that took over the 90's music scene, because they pushed all of our favorite bands into exile! I understand why it happened, but you have to wonder....Where would we be today musically if many of these "80's" bands continued their success into the 90's? That really makes me wonder.

Maybe I'm alone here, but just THINK of the albums we got shorted out of!

You know Jim, we've got a thread about Nirvana, and the Black Hole thread, which makes me think of the Soundgarden song. Why doesn't Chris Cornell take over for the late Kurt Cobain and bring Nirvana back? They had some great tunes, actually.

No! I'd rather Chris revamp Soundgarden!

Actually, I think he's got a solo record coming out in '09. Should certainly be worth checking out.

Rick, Rick, Rick.....What the hell does Nirvana have to do with the great cd's we could have bought from our favorite 80's artists , had they not cursed us with their existence??? I've seriously put some thought into what could have been with those 80's bands, and I hate that we lost a LOT of bands due to the market at the time. I guess we'll never really know.

[Andrew]

Worst band EVER.

[Don]

Worst band EVER.

Amen

[Jana]

Was Nirvana's singer the coward that blew his brains out with a newborn on the way or some shit like that? I can't keep track, all those bands sounded the same to me.

Yes he was. Although I think he was a fucking retard to commit suicide, I do feel bad for those he left behind. I feel bad for him too, that he was in that bad of a place. What a shame!

I hated this band along with all of the other shit bands that took over the 90's music scene, because they pushed all of our favorite bands into exile! I understand why it happened, but you have to wonder....Where would we be today musically if many of these "80's" bands continued their success into the 90's? That really makes me wonder.

Maybe I'm alone here, but just THINK of the albums we got shorted out of!

I never cared for Nirvana. They made me want to slit my wrists listening to them. But I'm a big fan of Pearl Jam. There's some good bands from the '90s, not a lot, though.

[WalrusOct9]

I can't believe you guys still blame Nirvana for all that shit. Now I say this as someone who grew up in the 90's and was/is a massive fan of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice In Chains, but also an equal fan of Journey, Toto, Bon Jovi, etc.

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.

The last great wave of LP's was around '87-'88, with Gn'R, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, etc, at the height of their powers. There was nowhere else for the genre to go but down, unless it evolved, which it clearly didn't. I'm sure Cinderella, Warrant, Trixter, Vixen, Enuff Z'Nuff, Firehouse, Nelson, Faster Pussycat, Winger, etc etc etc were all nice people, and some of them could really fuckin' play, but after several years of that stuff, how many more generic pop/metal/hard rock bands could the world take? If all those records were as good as Hysteria , that'd be one thing, but they weren't, just like The Storm or that Ramos/Hugo thing may have been okay, but aren't ever going to be Escape.

There were a few bands who did really get screwed, especially Giant, one of the few very late 80's bands to value substance over style, and Thunder, who at least maintained enough of a following to have released nine (excellent) studio albums in the past 18 years, although like Giant, they were never a super-slick "hair" band, sounding more like their 70's classic rock influences, which ended up being their best asset.

Rock music needed to hit the reset button very, very badly, and that's what Nirvana and the other Seattle bands provided. We didn't "lose" any music because of it. Bon Jovi reinvented their image, Mr. Big kept putting out albums until 2002, Motley Crue and Guns N' Roses were splitting up anyway, and the generic copycat bands like Slaughter and Warrant and such never had enough unique material to keep them alive.

It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

[Jana]

I can't believe you guys still blame Nirvana for all that shit. Now I say this as someone who grew up in the 90's and was/is a massive fan of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice In Chains, but also an equal fan of Journey, Toto, Bon Jovi, etc.

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.

The last great wave of LP's was around '87-'88, with Gn'R, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, etc, at the height of their powers. There was nowhere else for the genre to go but down, unless it evolved, which it clearly didn't. I'm sure Cinderella, Warrant, Trixter, Vixen, Enuff Z'Nuff, Firehouse, Nelson, Faster Pussycat, Winger, etc etc etc were all nice people, and some of them could really fuckin' play, but after several years of that stuff, how many more generic pop/metal/hard rock bands could the world take? If all those records were as good as Hysteria , that'd be one thing, but they weren't, just like The Storm or that Ramos/Hugo thing may have been okay, but aren't ever going to be Escape.

There were a few bands who did really get screwed, especially Giant, one of the few very late 80's bands to value substance over style, and Thunder, who at least maintained enough of a following to have released nine (excellent) studio albums in the past 18 years, although like Giant, they were never a super-slick "hair" band, sounding more like their 70's classic rock influences, which ended up being their best asset.

Rock music needed to hit the reset button very, very badly, and that's what Nirvana and the other Seattle bands provided. We didn't "lose" any music because of it. Bon Jovi reinvented their image, Mr. Big kept putting out albums until 2002, Motley Crue and Guns N' Roses were splitting up anyway, and the generic copycat bands like Slaughter and Warrant and such never had enough unique material to keep them alive.

It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

And U2 rebounded creatively with a great album, Achtung Baby, in the early '90s.

[G.I.Jim]

I can't believe you guys still blame Nirvana for all that shit. Now I say this as someone who grew up in the 90's and was/is a massive fan of Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice In Chains, but also an equal fan of Journey, Toto, Bon Jovi, etc.

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.

The last great wave of LP's was around '87-'88, with Gn'R, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Motley Crue, etc, at the height of their powers. There was nowhere else for the genre to go but down, unless it evolved, which it clearly didn't. I'm sure Cinderella, Warrant, Trixter, Vixen, Enuff Z'Nuff, Firehouse, Nelson, Faster Pussycat, Winger, etc etc etc were all nice people, and some of them could really fuckin' play, but after several years of that stuff, how many more generic pop/metal/hard rock bands could the world take? If all those records were as good as Hysteria , that'd be one thing, but they weren't, just like The Storm or that Ramos/Hugo thing may have been okay, but aren't ever going to be Escape.

There were a few bands who did really get screwed, especially Giant, one of the few very late 80's bands to value substance over style, and Thunder, who at least maintained enough of a following to have released nine (excellent) studio albums in the past 18 years, although like Giant, they were never a super-slick "hair" band, sounding more like their 70's classic rock influences, which ended up being their best asset.

Rock music needed to hit the reset button very, very badly, and that's what Nirvana and the other Seattle bands provided. We didn't "lose" any music because of it. Bon Jovi reinvented their image, Mr. Big kept putting out albums until 2002, Motley Crue and Guns N' Roses were splitting up anyway, and the generic copycat bands like Slaughter and Warrant and such never had enough unique material to keep them alive.

It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

I really appreciate your input and opinions. I also wish that they could have co-existed, but alas...there was such a thing as "Clear Channel Radio" which determined for us what we would listen to and appreciate as new songs throughout the country! I really think that the reason we never heard any new "Escape" albums, was because the bands all knew that if they didn't change their whole fucking format and sound, that they'd never get their stuff played! The bands that we loved and grew up with all had to try to learn how to "re-invent" their styles, and they just lost the magic. JMHO!

[WalrusOct9]

And U2 rebounded creatively with a great album, Achtung Baby, in the early '90s.

Yeah, but U2 was in a different category, I think. They were a quintessential 80's band, yet incorporated very few of the things that made 80's music seem dated and trite, even by 1992 (bad synths, drum machines, clothing styles, etc). The great thing about U2 or REM is I think you could play their 80's records for a kid today and they wouldn't be able to tell you when it was recorded, whereas even the great 80's records we love on this board can be dated almost to the specific year just based on their production style. That is why U2 survived while bands like INXS floundered a bit (although INXS did put out a few solid 90's albums that I actually almost prefer to their 'famous' LP's)

[Jana]

And U2 rebounded creatively with a great album, Achtung Baby, in the early '90s.

Yeah, but U2 was in a different category, I think. They were a quintessential 80's band, yet incorporated very few of the things that made 80's music seem dated and trite, even by 1992 (bad synths, drum machines, clothing styles, etc). The great thing about U2 or REM is I think you could play their 80's records for a kid today and they wouldn't be able to tell you when it was recorded, whereas even the great 80's records we love on this board can be dated almost to the specific year just based on their production style. That is why U2 survived while bands like INXS floundered a bit (although INXS did put out a few solid 90's albums that I actually almost prefer to their 'famous' LP's)

No, you're right. They have a little more of an alternative rock mix in there. I didn't mean to compare them to classic rock. I just meant that they've survived and are still selling albums. Of, course, they're one of the few bands to still be intact with its original members.

[Saint John]

Curt had the right idea, but the gun should have went in his wife's mouth. I'd have bought the album had he done that.

[Ehwmatt]

And U2 rebounded creatively with a great album, Achtung Baby, in the early '90s.

Yeah, but U2 was in a different category, I think. They were a quintessential 80's band, yet incorporated very few of the things that made 80's music seem dated and trite, even by 1992 (bad synths, drum machines, clothing styles, etc). The great thing about U2 or REM is I think you could play their 80's records for a kid today and they wouldn't be able to tell you when it was recorded, whereas even the great 80's records we love on this board can be dated almost to the specific year just based on their production style. That is why U2 survived while bands like INXS floundered a bit (although INXS did put out a few solid 90's albums that I actually almost prefer to their 'famous' LP's)

A good point, for sure. I'm somewhere in the middle of you and some of the others in this thread. I too grew up in the 90s and hold a lot of the mainstream music to come out of it to be pretty good - Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, The Gin Blossoms, Vertical Horizon, Hootie & The Blowfish, Toad The Wet Sprocket, Goo Goo Dolls etc. etc. Contrary to popular belief, the guitar solo wasn't dead in the 90s - most of those bands will have guitar solos of some sort in about 90-100% of their songs and indeed some very talented guitarists came out of that era. They also had many vocal harmonies, a mainstay of pop music that is always attractive to me.

I think the downfall of the '80s sound can be linked mostly to the appearance of the era - I mean sure, Houston '81 has some rockers, but how can you, as a casual observer, take it seriously when you see the crazy shit they're running around performing in? I think an average, relatively close-minded schmo finds it very hard to move past that aspect of it. And yes, some of the more "80s-ized" records with drum machines/cheesy synth tones don't help matters.

The 90s was just like every other decade, a shift in popularity to a certain style of music. The 60s was the time of the British invasion - blues-based rock/power pop was born in acts like The Beatles, The Stones, Zeppelin, Hendrix, Cream, Byrds etc. 70s was interesting, as the styles popularized in the 60s began getting expanded on by guys like Tom Scholz, The Raspberries, Santana, Steely Dan, Todd Rundgren, etc and there was such a smattering of styles- metal/hard rock ws in its infancy, soul/motown music continued to thrive with acts like the Four Tops, arena rock was being birthed with revolutionary bands like Boston, funk rock was coming into its own, etc. But, disco was it at the end of the day as far as popular music. It's what you heard in the clubs, bars etc. The 80s obviously brought the era of big hair/big harmonies/big hooks/big guitar solos into play and, for the most part, annihilated disco. The 90s killed the big hair era just because young music consumers no longer had the taste for the mainstays of that genre. Rap was also beginning to make serious waves. The current decade has even marginalized the kind of rock music we got in the 90s, thanks to the ridiculous popularity of hip hop. There are not too many new mainstream rock acts worth remembering since 2000, in my opinion.

I think at the end of the day, as a new generation comes of age in a fresh decade, there is always going to be a stylistic paradigm shift in what's popular in the mainstream, for better or worse. It's a natural cycle. What frightens me isn't the paradigm shift. What frightens me is the fact that no longer do we have a wonderfully fragmented music scene in which several different styles are all performed with talent. Before the advent of the current crop of shit, whatever style of music you listened to was performed with skill, talent, and taste. What linked Sly and the Family Stone with Black Sabbath in the '70s? They were both good at what they did. The common link wasn't style in the decades preceding this one, good was just good. I think the '70s will stand historically as the best decade to allow all these fragmented styles to co-exist on the same airwaves, at the same concerts, in the same record collections, what have you. That's why overall, it's my favorite decade of music, my attachment to bands like Journey and Toto notwithstanding.

[Jana]

And U2 rebounded creatively with a great album, Achtung Baby, in the early '90s.

Yeah, but U2 was in a different category, I think. They were a quintessential 80's band, yet incorporated very few of the things that made 80's music seem dated and trite, even by 1992 (bad synths, drum machines, clothing styles, etc). The great thing about U2 or REM is I think you could play their 80's records for a kid today and they wouldn't be able to tell you when it was recorded, whereas even the great 80's records we love on this board can be dated almost to the specific year just based on their production style. That is why U2 survived while bands like INXS floundered a bit (although INXS did put out a few solid 90's albums that I actually almost prefer to their 'famous' LP's)

A good point, for sure. I'm somewhere in the middle of you and some of the others in this thread. I too grew up in the 90s and hold a lot of the mainstream music to come out of it to be pretty good - Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, The Gin Blossoms, Vertical Horizon, Hootie & The Blowfish, Toad The Wet Sprocket, Goo Goo Dolls etc. etc. Contrary to popular belief, the guitar solo wasn't dead in the 90s - most of those bands will have guitar solos of some sort in about 90-100% of their songs and indeed some very talented guitarists came out of that era. They also had many vocal harmonies, a mainstay of pop music that is always attractive to me.

I think the downfall of the '80s sound can be linked mostly to the appearance of the era - I mean sure, Houston '81 has some rockers, but how can you, as a casual observer, take it seriously when you see the crazy shit they're running around performing in? I think an average, relatively close-minded schmo finds it very hard to move past that aspect of it. And yes, some of the more "80s-ized" records with drum machines/cheesy synth tones don't help matters.

The 90s was just like every other decade, a shift in popularity to a certain style of music. The 60s was the time of the British invasion - blues-based rock/power pop was born in acts like The Beatles, The Stones, Zeppelin, Hendrix, Cream, Byrds etc. 70s was interesting, as the styles popularized in the 60s began getting expanded on by guys like Tom Scholz, The Raspberries, Santana, Steely Dan, Todd Rundgren, etc and there was such a smattering of styles- metal/hard rock ws in its infancy, soul/motown music continued to thrive with acts like the Four Tops, arena rock was being birthed with revolutionary bands like Boston, funk rock was coming into its own, etc. But, disco was it at the end of the day as far as popular music. It's what you heard in the clubs, bars etc. The 80s obviously brought the era of big hair/big harmonies/big hooks/big guitar solos into play and, for the most part, annihilated disco. The 90s killed the big hair era just because young music consumers no longer had the taste for the mainstays of that genre. Rap was also beginning to make serious waves. The current decade has even marginalized the kind of rock music we got in the 90s, thanks to the ridiculous popularity of hip hop. There are not too many new mainstream rock acts worth remembering since 2000, in my opinion.

I think at the end of the day, as a new generation comes of age in a fresh decade, there is always going to be a stylistic paradigm shift in what's popular in the mainstream, for better or worse. It's a natural cycle. What frightens me isn't the paradigm shift. What frightens me is the fact that no longer do we have a wonderfully fragmented music scene in which several different styles are all performed with talent. Before the advent of the current crop of shit, whatever style of music you listened to was performed with skill, talent, and taste. What linked Sly and the Family Stone with Black Sabbath in the '70s? They were both good at what they did. The common link wasn't style in the decades preceding this one, good was just good. I think the '70s will stand historically as the best decade to allow all these fragmented styles to co-exist on the same airwaves, at the same concerts, in the same record collections, what have you. That's why overall, it's my favorite decade of music, my attachment to bands like Journey and Toto notwithstanding.

Great post..

[ProgRocker53]

While I don't hold resentment on grunge for "eradicating" melodic rock in the early 90s, I DO maintain that Nirvana is one of the shittiest and most overrated bands of all time. Can't listen to more than three songs of theirs in a row without wanting to Kurt myself short.

[Andrew]

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.
It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

Perhaps, but there were plenty of great bands around in 1992 and plenty of great albums. Media turned their back on one and all in a heartbeat and in turn, many of these magazines fucked themselves up and disappeared.

Plenty of name artists and newcomers would have gone on with substaining careers, but Nirvana and Co. robbed many of a decade of work.

And look about today....how many of these shitty grunge bands still exist and how many classic rock bands are out there packing out shows.

[Jana]

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.
It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

Perhaps, but there were plenty of great bands around in 1992 and plenty of great albums. Media turned their back on one and all in a heartbeat and in turn, many of these magazines fucked themselves up and disappeared.

Plenty of name artists and newcomers would have gone on with substaining careers, but Nirvana and Co. robbed many of a decade of work.

And look about today....how many of these shitty grunge bands still exist and how many classic rock bands are out there packing out shows.

Classic rock is back. My sister-in-law teaches high school seniors, and she said the students are really into all the '70s and '80s bands, and have an eclectic taste regarding music. Maybe that's because of exposure from their parents.

[Don]

And U2 rebounded creatively with a great album, Achtung Baby, in the early '90s.

Yeah, but U2 was in a different category, I think. They were a quintessential 80's band, yet incorporated very few of the things that made 80's music seem dated and trite, even by 1992 (bad synths, drum machines, clothing styles, etc). The great thing about U2 or REM is I think you could play their 80's records for a kid today and they wouldn't be able to tell you when it was recorded, whereas even the great 80's records we love on this board can be dated almost to the specific year just based on their production style. That is why U2 survived while bands like INXS floundered a bit (although INXS did put out a few solid 90's albums that I actually almost prefer to their 'famous' LP's)

You could take the first three U2 albums and think they came from different bands. New Wave, Prog, and then their signature sound. They adapted quickly and used their exposure on MTV wisely.

[X factor]

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.
It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

Perhaps, but there were plenty of great bands around in 1992 and plenty of great albums. Media turned their back on one and all in a heartbeat and in turn, many of these magazines fucked themselves up and disappeared.

Plenty of name artists and newcomers would have gone on with substaining careers, but Nirvana and Co. robbed many of a decade of work.And look about today....how many of these shitty grunge bands still exist and how many classic rock bands are out there packing out shows.

So what, Drew, Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder didn't have the right to create the art they saw fit? What, they should've teased their hair and sang bad Diane Warren ballads as well, just so more people might buy the GIANT album? I don't buy that they are to blame - assigning blame indicates that they did something wrong, and they didn't. None of these guys set out to kill anything- they were just doing their thing and the nation picked up on it. It was TIME for a change- end of story.
And anyway, without the Seattle scene, those aging rockers wouldn't be out there right now! The backlash works both ways...

[ProgRocker53]

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.
It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

Perhaps, but there were plenty of great bands around in 1992 and plenty of great albums. Media turned their back on one and all in a heartbeat and in turn, many of these magazines fucked themselves up and disappeared.

Plenty of name artists and newcomers would have gone on with substaining careers, but Nirvana and Co. robbed many of a decade of work.And look about today....how many of these shitty grunge bands still exist and how many classic rock bands are out there packing out shows.

So what, Drew, Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder didn't have the right to create the art they saw fit? What, they should've teased their hair and sang bad Diane Warren ballads as well, just so more people might buy the GIANT album? I don't buy that they are to blame - assigning blame indicates that they did something wrong, and they didn't. None of these guys set out to kill anything- they were just doing their thing and the nation picked up on it. It was TIME for a change- end of story.
And anyway, without the Seattle scene, those aging rockers wouldn't be out there right now! The backlash works both ways...

Good post, even though Nirvana sucks.

[Saint John]

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.
It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

Perhaps, but there were plenty of great bands around in 1992 and plenty of great albums. Media turned their back on one and all in a heartbeat and in turn, many of these magazines fucked themselves up and disappeared.

Plenty of name artists and newcomers would have gone on with substaining careers, but Nirvana and Co. robbed many of a decade of work.And look about today....how many of these shitty grunge bands still exist and how many classic rock bands are out there packing out shows.

So what, Drew, Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder didn't have the right to create the art they saw fit? What, they should've teased their hair and sang bad Diane Warren ballads as well, just so more people might buy the GIANT album? I don't buy that they are to blame - assigning blame indicates that they did something wrong, and they didn't. None of these guys set out to kill anything- they were just doing their thing and the nation picked up on it. It was TIME for a change- end of story.
And anyway, without the Seattle scene, those aging rockers wouldn't be out there right now! The backlash works both ways...

Agree 100%. Rock fucked itself by making every faggy band that could sing a decent ballad a household name. Take Mr. Big for example. Slaughter, White Lion, etc. Shit bands.

[Since 78]

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.
It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

Perhaps, but there were plenty of great bands around in 1992 and plenty of great albums. Media turned their back on one and all in a heartbeat and in turn, many of these magazines fucked themselves up and disappeared.

Plenty of name artists and newcomers would have gone on with substaining careers, but Nirvana and Co. robbed many of a decade of work.

And look about today....how many of these shitty grunge bands still exist and how many classic rock bands are out there packing out shows.

PEARL JAM!!

[Don]

Nirvana didn't kill the 80's rock scene. It died on its own accord around the turn of the decade. Def Leppard and Bon Jovi spawned dozens upon dozens of virtually identical second-rate imitators (Just as Nirvana would in the mid-90's), while Bad English, Heart and Chicago were having a competition to see who could suck the most by singing awful Diane Warren ballads.
It would have been nice if both scenes could have peacefully coexisted, but with or without Seattle, "pop metal" or "hair metal" or whatever you want to call it was rapidly running out of gas by 1991, and definitely earned it's exile for a few years.

Perhaps, but there were plenty of great bands around in 1992 and plenty of great albums. Media turned their back on one and all in a heartbeat and in turn, many of these magazines fucked themselves up and disappeared.

Plenty of name artists and newcomers would have gone on with substaining careers, but Nirvana and Co. robbed many of a decade of work.

And look about today....how many of these shitty grunge bands still exist and how many classic rock bands are out there packing out shows.

PEARL JAM!!

PEARL NECKLACE!!!