Nirvana

Rock & Roll Hall of Famer

Category: Performer

Inducted in: 2014

Inducted by: Michael Stipe

Nominated in: 2014

First Eligible: 2014 Ceremony

Inducted Members: Kurt Cobain, Krist Novoselic, Dave Grohl


Inducted into Rock Hall Projected in 2014 (ranked #20) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Bleach (1989)
Nevermind (1991)
In Utero (1993)
MTV Unplugged In New York (1994)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
About a Girl (1989)
Come As You Are (1991)
In Bloom (1991)
Lithium (1991)
Smells Like Teen Spirit (1991)
All Apologies (1993)
Heart Shaped Box (1993)
Rape Me (1993)
You Know You're Right (2002)

Nirvana @ Wikipedia

Nirvana Videos

Comments

728 comments so far (post your own)

i don't see why they can't be voted into the hall of fame. most of their singles were number 1.

Posted by conrad on Monday, 07.24.06 @ 10:49am


Well, at least they are a better candidate than Eminem. I still don't like them, I tend to like my music scream-free, creative, you know.... music.

*Braces for flaming*

Posted by Ian on Sunday, 07.30.06 @ 00:19am


The Greatest Band Ever and the greatest Rockstar (Kurt).

Posted by Andrew on Thursday, 08.3.06 @ 11:03am


I agree, greatest band and greatest rockstar ever!

Posted by marie on Thursday, 08.10.06 @ 18:23pm


It's not about whether you like them or not: it's about how much they contibuted to music. Nirvana will definitely get in.

Posted by PCC on Friday, 08.18.06 @ 16:19pm


Yeah Nirvana should definitely be in the hall of fame earlier than when they're supposed to be. They should get inducted this year or next year.

Posted by Jason on Sunday, 08.20.06 @ 12:23pm


It's so darn obvious that this band will eventually be in the Hall of Fame. This is the last highly influential rock band there has been and Kurt is allready one of the top Rock n Roll gods. Very few other bands have kicked more ass than these guys.

Posted by Jose on Thursday, 10.5.06 @ 21:39pm


Even though I hate Nirvana, I can still admit objectively that they will and probably should be in the Hall.

But if they get in before Pixies do, I'll...well...I guess I'll be mad and stuff.

Posted by Kit on Thursday, 10.5.06 @ 22:19pm


Agreeing with most comments (except for teh Pixies, not sure how they sound, but they are Altervative), Nirvana does deserve HOF status. Helping grunge become mainstream. Do I smell vote?

Posted by MIke on Tuesday, 10.10.06 @ 19:02pm


Alternative is still rock.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 10.10.06 @ 20:12pm


Oh yeah, they should be voted in! They definitely changed the world of music when they hit the scene. They are one of the greatest! I love you Kurt Cobain!!!!!!!

Posted by Yaz on Friday, 10.20.06 @ 09:23am


Kurt(R.I.P), Dave and Krist.

Individually may not have been the best musicians in the world, but together they had a musical fusion which created phenomenal charismatic band who will live on in the hearts of all true Nirvana fans for ever

Posted by Michael on Monday, 10.23.06 @ 07:19am


NIRVANA.... passion, feelings, heart.... what else?

Posted by pixie_alice on Thursday, 10.26.06 @ 14:38pm


Nirvana influenced rock more than any band i know and will definetly be in the Hall as soon as possible. I don't like the 25 year thing. They have been done since 1994 with new records and shouldn't have to wait that long.

Posted by moose b on Monday, 11.6.06 @ 20:55pm


As much as I don't like Nirvana, I have to admit they were highly influential and probably will get in on their first nomination.

Posted by Tim on Thursday, 11.16.06 @ 17:42pm


Let Nirvana in the RNRHOF in honour of the l8 Kurt Cobain, god rest his soul.

Posted by Frodijr on Thursday, 11.23.06 @ 11:29am


Nirvana,s time may have been brief but with Kurt Cobain they defintely left a legacy.

Posted by DL on Thursday, 12.7.06 @ 14:21pm


Yes nirvana should be in the hall of fame...they are original and they influenced many bands and changed a whole music scene. They are the first band that ever got my attention...when i first heard this stuff it blew me away...i never knew music could be so original and heart felt. The only other band that i listen to that is this influential is KoRn.

Posted by sutherbust on Saturday, 12.16.06 @ 14:13pm


The band that is credited with spearheading both a musical and cultural revolution. They made one of the most revered albums of any subgenre of rock, they opened the door for other bands from Seattle (as well as elsewhere) that the major labels might have stayed away from otherwise, and they had a leader that was considered the spokesman for not only the movement but his generation well. All that may have been enough to ensure legendary status. A tragic suicide ensured that Kurt Cobain will always be an icon. Nirvana is a no-brainer for 2014.

Posted by TJWood59 on Wednesday, 12.20.06 @ 23:54pm


In terms of influence, they have few peers. In terms of originality, they leave much to be desired. God bless Kurt for plugging his under-recognized influences every chance he got, but his band essentially rode the grunge wave long and hard enough that people mistakenly believed they'd invented it, rather that just popularized it.

Posted by William on Monday, 01.8.07 @ 18:47pm


We Don't even need a poll for these guys

Posted by Edwrad on Thursday, 01.11.07 @ 20:38pm


I also believe that the fact that it takes 25 years to become eligible seems absurd when speaking of Nirvana. They were definetely influential and also innovative, if we come to think of the Unplugged album, that showed a different face of grundge music and also huge talent (anyone saying they lacked the "creative" side should listen to it). Kurt Cobain will remain a legendary, charismatic icon, and he can definetely be put at the same place with Jim Morrison and John Lennon. So, vote for Nirvana. that is..vote for music that is true and speaks so beautifully about the very essence of what rock should all be about.

Posted by Gina on Saturday, 01.13.07 @ 08:31am


People who are quick to call Nirvana "innovative" never seem to be able to qualify it. What did they innovate? They basically mashed the sound of bands like the Wipers, the Pixies, and the Melvins into the mold of boring alternative pop/rock, and were by far the tamest of the Seattle grunge bands.

Posted by William on Saturday, 01.13.07 @ 16:37pm


Subtle:)we can go on for ages about being innovative, wether something that seems fresh is nothing more that having something old reformulated (nothing is really new under the sun bla bla).Boring?explain.Tamest?so what??True genius in music is related to wether the sound is recognizable at any level.And you must admit that finding new expression for the sound of the Pixies and the Melvins (in what is "boring") was still something that hadn't been tried out before (and achieved!),thus innovative. As someone else posted, they made grunge mainstream, by remaining true to their roots.Their very attempt showed innovation. At least that's how I see things

Posted by Gina on Sunday, 01.14.07 @ 02:52am


Let me make it clear: They sounded almost exactly like their influences, whereas most decent bands have at least a hint of a unique sound about them. They brought nothing new to the table at all. They were lucky enough to be there at the right time to make the breakthrough, but in their absence, Soundgarden or Pearl Jam would have been the ones to do it.

Listen, Bleach is a wonderful pop album (mostly thanks to Jack Endino), and Incesticide is a pretty good alternative album (mostly thanks to Steve Albini), but Nevermind, the thing they're most famous for, is the low point of their creative efforts.

Posted by William on Sunday, 01.14.07 @ 17:26pm


You know, I really don't care either way about this band.

Posted by Al on Wednesday, 01.24.07 @ 08:53am


It is a no-brainer that Nirvana will be inducted into The Rock N Roll Hall of Fame in 2014. Their the last band like GNR that actually expanded rock history, unlike all the other bands today that just sit on their Asses and expect to become something popular. However Nirvana and GNR redefined Rock/ Hard Rock in their own decative image. So I close my response with that fact that NIRVANA WILL get inducted in The Rock N Roll Hall of Fame.

Posted by Frank Commisso on Saturday, 01.27.07 @ 14:41pm


Nirvana is one of the few mortal locks to be inducted. Anyone who doesn't believe that is, a)obviously not a member of Gen X; or b)in a coma between 1991 and 1994.

Posted by c.w. on Wednesday, 01.31.07 @ 19:42pm


This is retarded. I've heard the Pixies and the Melvins before, and there's no way you can claim that Nirvana sounds "exactly" like them. That is quite obviously false--the Pixies and the Melvins don't even sound that much like each other, so how can Nirvana sound exactly like both of them? The statement "They sounded almost exactly like their influences, whereas most decent bands have at least a hint of a unique sound about them." is vacuous and subjective, you could really say that about any band if you wanted to.

Posted by Mitch on Monday, 02.12.07 @ 12:45pm


How can this group not get in. You want to talk about influence and innovation Nirvana was responible for ushering in a whole new era of music not to mention all the other bands that copied there look and sound.

Posted by D on Monday, 03.12.07 @ 16:20pm


no doubt they will be inducted.

Posted by ian on Monday, 03.12.07 @ 20:18pm


Can't wait for 2014

Posted by PRL18 on Monday, 03.12.07 @ 22:44pm


Kurt Cobain is the most OVERRATED person in music history. If he didn't kill himself, then he wouldn't be as big as he is today.

Posted by Nirvana Sucks on Tuesday, 03.13.07 @ 16:31pm


r.i.p. curt

they are the best bands of all time they deseve it

Posted by chris on Thursday, 03.15.07 @ 15:31pm


Nirvana has Highly influenced the rock culture and will NEVER be forgotten, so I have no doubt that they will be in the Hall of Fame.

Posted by Anna on Thursday, 03.15.07 @ 16:29pm


I truley cannot wait till 2014. Nirvana is my favorite group of all time by far and in my mind the greatest.

Posted by Justin on Friday, 03.16.07 @ 20:03pm


2014 WILL BE A GOOD YEAR. I HAVE BEEN AN AVID FAN OF NIRVANA FOR SO MANY YEARS. THEIR MUSIC ALONE SAVED MY LIFE. I OWE SO MUCH TO THIS BAND, AND KURT.....BEAUTIFUL SOUL, POET, SINGER, GUITARIST. R.I.P. IF ANY BAND DESERVES TO HAVE THIS HONOR IT'S NIRVANA. THEY CHANGED THE FACE MUSIC IN THE EARLY 90'S. IF IT WASN'T FOR THIS BAND MUSIC WOULD'VE CONSISTED OF BANDS LIKE MOTLEY CRUE, POISON, AND ALL THE OTHER HORRIBLE GLAM BANDS OF THE 80'S. SO THANKS TO YOU KRIS, DAVE, AND KURT FOR SAVING MUSIC AND ME! HATS OF TO NIRVANA!!!!

Posted by CAYCE on Friday, 03.23.07 @ 08:51am


No question...they're in. Name one band from the '90s who's had an impact on music like they did...the only one that probably--and I say probably--comes close is Pearl Jam.

Posted by Eric on Saturday, 03.24.07 @ 09:55am


I think Nirvana should definitely be in the HOF. Whether you like it or not Nirvana popularized grunge and changed the course of music forever. They made hair-metal a thing of the past and made songs that actually have some meaning to them. But think of this. But think of it this way. Kurt Cobain killed himself because of all the attention he was getting. Or maybe he was killed i dont know. But if he was still alive i dont really think he would want more attention by having his band put in the HOF.

Posted by jlw on Sunday, 03.25.07 @ 16:54pm


i still think they should be in the HOF though.....just saying

Posted by jlw on Sunday, 03.25.07 @ 16:56pm


They'll make it in, make no mistake, and they deserve it to some degree, but let me dispel some misconceptions: Aside from the obvious (they were not the first or even most influential grunge band), there's this common belief that they "killed" hair metal when that's simply not true.

The following is copy/pasted from someone more knowledgeable than I:

"To make a statement such as that is to be ignorant of the seismic shifts going on in popular music during this period, particularly 1990 and 1991. Pop-metal (or "hair metal") by this time was a dying scene with it's best days behind it, and although certain bands were still generating popular songs, the appeal of the style as a whole was being usurped by the mainstream emergence of thrash metal (especially Metallica), rap music, and the first wave of alternative rock (REM, Jane's Addiction, Faith No More, The Red Hot Chili Peppers).

Ultimately, hair metal eventually died out as a commercially viable style because it had become so absorbed in parody that music became a distant secondary (as opposed to it's earlier days, when bands of this ilk had actually released strong, worthwhile albums such as Ratt's 'Out of the Cellar' and Motley Crue's 'Shout at the Devil', both of which are widely considered to be classic albums). In this sense, it was an implosion, and due to the significant dip in quality, more and more music listeners were moving on and digging into other stuff. This was occuring before the release of 'Nevermind'.

One should understand, first of all, the utter divisiveness in the 80s and early 90s between fans of hair metal and fans of thrash metal. Hair metal fans generally viewed thrash as too harsh and negative, while thrash fans viewed the hair bands as "posers" and mocked the sexually androgynous image associated with it. Few bands has cross appeal (indeed, it wasn't entirely out of the ordinary to see a kid who liked Poison wearing a Metallica shirt), but the scenario is best summed up by Paul Baloff (the now-deceased vocalist of Exodus) when he noted on Metallica's VH1 "Behind the Music" episode that a guy would be verbally berated by fans of "real metal" for wearing a Motley Crue shirt. The point of this is that as thrash metal (especially the "big four of thrash" - Metallica, Megadeth, Anthrax and Slayer) became more and more mainstream, hair metal fell further and further by the wayside, and was all but dead by the time Metallica released their self-titled "black album". The tastes of metalheads in this era had become "heavier = better", which was reflected in the musical direction of former hair bands Pantera and Skid Row (which led to the significant popularity of Pantera, as well as Skid Row's tenacity to more or less weather the anti-hairband trend until Sebastian Bach's exit), and driven home by the brief mainstream acceptance of extreme metal bands (Morbid Angel, Napalm Death, Sepultura, Obituary, Cannibal Corpse) in 1993-1994. If any music movement actually "killed" hair metal, it was thrash, not grunge.

Nirvana is generally seen as "saviors of rock" because they were the first band of their ilk to have a blockbuster album, thus why they are often inappropriately credited with single-handedly bringing alternative rock to the mainstream (a claim made especially by ridiculous hack magazines such as the appropriatedly-titled Spin, who are making similarly overblown statements about The Killers right now). The fact is that alternative rock was already a mainstream factor. Had REM not existed, it is much less likely that 'Nevermind' would have found the audience that it did. Had Faith No More and Jane's Addiction not made alternative rock "cool" for metal fans, Nirvana would not have appealed to that audience either (especially considering that the video for "Smells Like Teen Spirit" recieved heavy rotation on "Headbanger's Ball", MTV's menial outlet for metal videos). REM, Faith No More and Jane's Addiction all had hit songs before 'Nevermind' (and in some cases, platinum albums), as did The Red Hot Chili Peppers, and as did Alice in Chains ("Man in the Box"), who were then marketed as a metal band (alongside Soundgarden, who were also making strides into the mainstream, though less significantly).

Incidentally, I don't remember a single magazine, MTV vee-jay, or radio disc jockey claiming that Nirvana "saved rock" until after Kurt Cobain's death, nor did it ever factor into any peer conversations I had regarding music. Between 1991 and 1994, Nirvana was just another big Seattle band, and one who was much less edgy than many of their Seattle counterparts. Nobody was talking about Nirvana "killing" the hair bands (especially since the hair band sound was being kept alive for a while by Jackyl and Ugly Kid Joe), and since not every "Gen-X'er" was a flannel-wearing grunge fan, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" did not become everybody's anthem. Largely, fans of rap, extreme metal, or dance-pop didn't really care about Nirvana's faux-"revolution", nor the fashionably angsty, self-obsessed attitude that became associated with it. It is a custom of rock music (and rap music, for that matter) to deify its dead, thus a single shotgun blast elevated Kurt Cobain from popular rock guy to rock 'n roll martyr.

And for all the claims of 'Nevermind' being the absolute antithesis to the hair band scene, it is an album comprised of the same huge, overblown production and sing-song anthemic choruses attributed to Motley Crue's 'Dr. Feelgood'..."

Posted by William on Sunday, 03.25.07 @ 22:34pm


I have three Questions:
1. If Nirvana will be inducted who will induct them??
and
2. Will Chad Channing and/or Pat Smear will be part of the induction??
and
3. If Kurt was alive will he go to the induction dinner or like the Sex Pistols bash the R&R HoF??

Posted by PRL18 on Tuesday, 03.27.07 @ 17:24pm


To answer your questions....

1) Certainly they'll be inducted on their first ballot, with the highest percentage of any of the nominees. The "inducter" could be a number of individuals, possibly someone from a big act in the near future. If I had to gamble, I'd say Eddie Vedder. He gives great speeches, is from Seattle, has a sort of acrimonious history with the man, etc...or maybe even Chris Cornell as he was a contemporary that I believe knew Kurt.

2) Doubtful that Pat or Chad would be included in the Nirvana induction. Very doubtful. I think they'll go with the "classic" lineup and ignore Channing and Smear's place in history. A shame as Bleach is probably their most cohesive album.

3) Kurt would most definitely attend the ceremony if he were alive. The man was a big fan of rock legends and even wrote "About A Girl" after listening to Meet The Beatles on repeat (from what I've heard)...plus, he was no stranger to attending awards shows on MTV, and I would like to think the Rock Hall is more prestigious, but I'm sure some KISS dicks would disagree?

Posted by Casper on Tuesday, 03.27.07 @ 20:20pm


I will continue with the questions:
(Also please answer the first 3 questions.)
4. What band will you think will play if Nirvana will be inducted and what song is fitting to be played in the Hall???
5. Will Nirvana be inducted in the first Ballot or liks Sabbath 3 or more??

Posted by PRL18 on Tuesday, 03.27.07 @ 21:06pm


1) I would probably choose Eddie Vedder. The man gives great speeches and seems to appreciate every band's place in music history.

2) I think only the Nevermind lineup would be inducted.

3) He would go, without a doubt.

4)This is a tough question, not only because we don't know who will still be around but you simply can't predict what a set will be. If you had bet me that R.E.M's set would be Gardening at Night, Begin the Beginning and Man on the Moon you'd be ten bucks richer. I think it would be appropriate for The Foo Fighetrs to have a hand in the ceremony for obvious reasons. I don't think Pearl Jam would be part of it as Kurt and Mike McCready were not on each other's christmas cards list.

5) First ballot, no question. They just have too big of an aura around them to be anything else, and it's an aura that critics help to fuel.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 03.27.07 @ 22:20pm


The most overrated, overhyped band of alltime. They were good but not the great all-time band that people lead you to believe. They came along in the nineties when the music scene was horrible. If they came along in a previous era they would never had reached the level that they did. Of the albums they did before Cobain died only two were decent. Nevermind and the live acoustic one. Bleach sucked so did In Utero. The latter was mindless noise that sounded like a garage band. Some people act like it was their best album ever. What a joke. Anyone who heard Nevermind then In Utero was dissapointed. None of their fans go for it before Nevermind. There's a reason, it sucked. Nevermind was not the classic rock album people lead you to believe it was either. Yes it had some good songs. But half the album is very weak. For every Lithium there was a Lounge Act or Something In The Way. They were good but not great. UNBELIEVABLY OVERHYPED! Never would have made it when rock was good. So smoke that Rolling Stone.

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, 04.4.07 @ 20:21pm


In case I did not belittle this band enough I will do so again. Everyone acts like grunge killed the eighties metal scene led by Nirvana. False. Like the guy above said it was already dying. Yes there was some bad music in the eighties. But there was alot of good music to. That's the same of every decade up until the ninties. I'm tired of people acting like it was the worst era in rock history. Wrong! It was actully one of the best eras. Don't go by what the artist looked like. Every era has bad fashion in retrospect. Don't use that to rate the music. From 1990 until now rock has sucked. But the critics act like it has been great. So the eighties artists didn't piss and wine about how bad life was. They weren't serious. Does that mean they couldn't play because they weren't serious? That seems to be the criteria for putting down the eighties and putting the last decade and a half on a pedestal. So a great band that sings non-serious material is not as good as a mediocre one, that is angst ridden. Sorry this scene (1990-present) is a joke. Singing worldly lyrics and moaning does not a good band make. Classic eighties bands no matter what they looked like blow this crap out of the water. Does anybody in Pearl Jam or Nirvana need a new guitarist. If you do Motley Crue has a roadie that I'm sure is better than the current undertalented, 90's grunge winer you have is.

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, 04.4.07 @ 20:35pm


I love when people say all music past a certain date is terrible. Seriously, it's a laugh riot.

So I take it you missed the '90s math rock and stoner metal scenes, then. As well as the flourishing of countless indie and experimental acts. Then of course you have your '80s holdovers: Mudhoney, the Melvins, Mike Patton, Scott Weinrich, Steve Albini.

If you can't find something you like in music today, you don't like music.

I'm also going to say that you completely avoided all the best aspects of the '80s in trying to defend it. What about the rise of alternative bands? What about new wave? What about the D.C. hardcore scene, or the early grunge movement? What about thrash metal?

Posted by William on Wednesday, 04.4.07 @ 21:35pm


i'm a huge hair metal fan, & i think nirvana is one of the best bands ever. grunge wasn't always great, but nirvana was. who can say they didn't make an impact on music history. i think more people need to judge artist on impact, rather than their on taste. hair metal was much better than it's given credit for. motley crue, poison, bon jovi, tesla, cinderella, skid row, guns n roses(not really a hair band), def leppard, whitesnake, all deserve more credit than is given. a few of these band will definitely make it to the hof. some may take 10 to 20 years to see their impact clearly. even if you hate these bands, you can agree with me on one thing, the hof needs to get their heads out of the early 60's. how many pop artist from that time can they put in? they skipped most of the seventies for Christ sake. a hof is suppose to be about history, not snobbery.

Posted by thomas johnson on Monday, 04.9.07 @ 04:39am


Do you thimk if Kurt was alive and Nirvana was inducted, do you think will they play together and also finish it in their own fashion by breaking the equipments???

Posted by PRL18 on Monday, 04.9.07 @ 16:13pm


You unfortunately thought you could read my mind. I did not mean all music post 80s sucks. But I meant that I am tired of hearing the 80s music scene put down based on what people looked like. To hype the 90s and put down the 80s music scene based on fashion is ridiculous. MTV likes to stereotype the 80s by playing the lamest videos from the era when they go retro. I was there and I know that there was a lot of bad music at the time. It's that way in every generation. But unfortunately some people love to believe that the 60s and 90s were this great utopia for music. The 60s had a handful of great bands and a lot of lame hippie music. The 90s had a handful of good bands and a lot of successful female solo artists. I love music and I am hard pressed to find any new bands I like. I do not think that everything has to be some great big guitar production. But the majority of the bands that come out today can play no better than bar bands in major clubs. The rise of the alternative bands and the early grunge scene were not the best aspects of 80s music. I figured out what alternative means. An alternative to good music.

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, 04.10.07 @ 05:58am


Nirvna should totally get in.
I mean, come on!
Their songs actually mean something.
They came out in a time where most songs were about sex.
And people still love them!

Posted by hannnnah on Saturday, 04.14.07 @ 12:08pm


Would you mind explaining the deeper meaning behind Smells Like Teen Spirit?

As for the "they didn't write about sex" claim, Polly?

Posted by William on Saturday, 04.14.07 @ 12:33pm


The song Polly is about a girl who was raped and tortured but she was able to escape by treating the rapist like a human being..find the real meaning of the song Polly and not justify it as a song that about sex.

Posted by PRL18 on Monday, 04.16.07 @ 21:08pm


Yeah, I know. It's still "about" sex.

Posted by William on Monday, 04.16.07 @ 22:17pm


You know, I'm very proud of those saying, that although they don't like Nirvana, they can agree that they deserve this.
Not saying they do, I won't really know, still thinking about.
But to be able to think out of your own tastes is something.

Posted by TopHat on Monday, 04.23.07 @ 07:26am


I personally like Nirvana, but if they do get inducted, I think it will only be because of popularity, and Nevermind beat Soundgarden's Badmotorfinger in sales only because nobody really knew Soundgarden as well as Nirvana, so they went and blew their money on Nevermind, when Badmotorfinger was a way better album all around.

Kim Thayil is a guitar god!

Posted by Robert on Wednesday, 05.2.07 @ 21:58pm


dude Nirvana fucken rocked thay should have bean in there all ready Kurt, Dave, & krist were the best

Posted by taylor on Wednesday, 05.16.07 @ 12:30pm


^^^What part of "Eligible in 2014" did you miss?

Posted by William on Wednesday, 05.16.07 @ 14:22pm


This question shouldn't be "if" but when. Similar to the question of other monumentous bands like Metallica, The Flaming Lips, Radiohead, The Arctic Monkeys et. al.
but i think the Pixies should get in first. And the Cure.

Posted by Ryan Gibbs on Saturday, 05.19.07 @ 13:55pm


These guys deserve it.

Posted by Geoffrey on Wednesday, 05.23.07 @ 12:29pm


yes 1 of the best 90s bands eveeeerr!!!!!!

Posted by rockrockandroll on Friday, 05.25.07 @ 19:04pm


"The Greatest Band Ever and the greatest Rockstar (Kurt)."

If that were in fact true, why did you have to put "Kurt" in parentheses?? Duh...

Posted by Anonymous on Friday, 05.25.07 @ 22:03pm


nirvana sucks

Posted by asdf on Saturday, 05.26.07 @ 13:04pm


Even if you don't like Nirvana's music you can not deny they had a HUGE influence. Huge. HUGE!

Posted by Starr on Sunday, 06.24.07 @ 13:17pm


NIRVANA is the best how could Metallica beat them
from 82% to 90%

Posted by KAT on Tuesday, 06.26.07 @ 21:30pm


hahaha i want to know who the 8% of people who think they won't get in and the reason why.

Posted by john on Wednesday, 06.27.07 @ 15:23pm


Amen, Mike. Finally someone who gets it.

Posted by Creepozoid on Saturday, 06.30.07 @ 00:45am


Oh, you and Mike get it, do you, creepozoid, you fucking elitist sons of bitches? I honestly don't give a shit about whether or not hair metal was killed by Nirvana, or whether or not Nirvana was the real first champion of grunge or any of that stupid bullshit. All I care about is that Nevermind is a classic album and Nirvana deserves to be in the hall based on its merits alone.

Posted by Ethan Hart on Sunday, 07.22.07 @ 00:07am


william smells like teen spirit was about kurts turbulent relationship with tobi vail of bikini kill and also the phrase smells like teen spirit was made because a friend of kurts spray painted kurts wall with kurt smells like teen spirit because tobi vail used the deoderant "teen spirit" and he was sleeping with her but he wasnt aware of the meaning of the phrase

Posted by bryan on Tuesday, 07.24.07 @ 18:03pm


They should be inducted just for being darn popular, but as a musical group, not really. Their music is all scream, no beauty nor fun, just blah.

Posted by Canuck21 on Wednesday, 07.25.07 @ 22:19pm


I agree about them not only being inducted, but it should be sooner. If you dwell on the simplicity of their music you will miss so much about a tormented soul. When angels are denied love on earth, they go back to God. I think we'll all be surpised when then masks come off in the end. Pain is one of the greatest sourses for creativity. To suffer is to know pain, the experience's of life are priceless. If anyone will ever compare to Kurt's music I would say watchout for Erick Duft. Goodnite.

Posted by Jacob96 on Friday, 08.10.07 @ 04:19am


The temptation to wax poetic often interferes with objectivity.

Posted by William on Friday, 08.10.07 @ 04:25am


Nirvana is my favourite band...they should definitely be inducted WAY before 2027!

Posted by RockandGrohl on Thursday, 08.23.07 @ 10:40am


oops its 2014...i got mixed up with my chemical romance :D
who should be inducted too they rock!

Posted by RockandGrohl on Thursday, 08.23.07 @ 10:42am


To those who are saying Nirvana won't/shouldn't be inducted- prepare to be sadly mistaken and disappointed. They are going in without question, and we can only be left to wonder how much more they could have accomplished...

Posted by Dave on Monday, 08.27.07 @ 04:51am


and the first wave of alternative rock (REM, Jane's Addiction, Faith No More, The Red Hot Chili Peppers).

1990/1991. Are-you-fucking-joking? REM in 1990 1991? Think you'll find they had a good DECADE under their belts when that happened. Also, you forgot to mention the huge rise of Brit Alt (or Britpop) bands rising about now which conquered Grunge in the UK and a bit in the US (well Oasis did anyway), aswell as the creation of Big Beat ELectronic, by The Prodigy and The Chemical Brothers.

Grunge was very short lived but Nirvana will probably get in (household name, most played song on radio)

Posted by liam on Thursday, 08.30.07 @ 15:18pm


Grunge was not short-lived at all. On the contrary, it had been going on since 1980 (the formation of Malfunkshun) and two of the earliest grunge bands (Mudhoney and the Melvins) are still around today.

Posted by William on Thursday, 08.30.07 @ 19:28pm


No one denies Andy Wood's glam rock persona, but that's a particular facet of that band and Mother Love Bone (his other band) that the rest of the movement didn't share. So just in case, don't go trying to give Kiss credit for grunge.

Posted by William on Thursday, 08.30.07 @ 22:23pm


I'm always amazed how different people think certain sounds originate from various sources.


I happen to think many elements of the grunge sound can be traced all the way back to Seattle native Jimi Hendrix and his disciples.

To me, most Nirvana sounds like the last 2 minutes of Robin Trower's "Day of the Eagle" with a little more echo and more prevalent bass.....

Posted by SG on Friday, 08.31.07 @ 00:13am


People who try to love or hate an entire genre are wasting oxygen. You act like simply being HONEST is somehow traitorous to music itself. God forbid let's talk about our musicians like they were fellow human beings with flaws and shortcomings. Let's put them on a bigass pedestal and be willfully ignorant of any negativity. After all, unless you love a band blindly and fervently, you are not "teh troo fan."

Come back when you manage to form your own opinions.

Posted by William on Sunday, 09.2.07 @ 18:40pm


william do you fuckin live on this website? i went here to see whose elgible now you are just trying to make me kick your fat computer geek ass so you think you make us sound stupid by looking up the band on wikipedia and just fuck readin the shit out of it? well i have something for you music is a pure form of your expression and what you feel like, not your influences or guitar playing ability ive said this before your just some bitch who wants to start a fight cause you dont got the balls to fight against anyone else except people who dont even know you so i say this for everyone fuck off

Posted by bryan on Saturday, 09.8.07 @ 00:33am


"william do you fuckin live on this website? i went here to see whose elgible now you are just trying to make me kick your fat computer geek ass so you think you make us sound stupid by looking up the band on wikipedia and just fuck readin the shit out of it?"-bryan

Of course, everyone who uses a computer or the internet is fat and lazy except the person who points that out, right? And of course it's inconceivable that someone might just actually know what he's talking about.

"your just some bitch who wants to start a fight cause you dont got the balls to fight against anyone else except people who dont even know you so i say this for everyone fuck off"-bryan

More inane BS theorizing from yet another illiterate.

Posted by William on Saturday, 09.8.07 @ 07:24am


NIRVANA deserves this! HEZ YEAH! Long Live KURT COBAIN!

Posted by SaveTHEanimals on Sunday, 09.16.07 @ 12:29pm


Were they the original grunge band? No
Were they the most talented? No
Were they the best song writers? Maybe, they certainly wrote the most popular music
Were they influential? As a seattle native, everyone I run into trying to learn to play guitar look up to Kurt and try to learn his stuff.

If I were in Nirvana I wouldn't mention the bands that list me as a major influence with too much enthusiasm.

After Kurt's death though they becaume a major cultural influence. They were a good band, but Kurt's death blew everything out of proportion.

Other Seattle bands like Alice In Chains were more talented, original, influential (to musicians) and have just become over shadowed by the death of Kurt.

Layne was probably the best vocalist of the 90s and combined with Cantrell... well you can hear their influence everywhere.

Then Layne's death was so sad. The way he was completly alone and isolated after being an icon of grunge. Then his death got like no attention, I hadn't heard about it till months after the fact.


I'm not sure if Nirvana would make it if Kurt didn't die in the way he did with all the attention it created. I'm not saying they dont deserve to be in there, they certainly are more deserving then say Def Leppard, but they are far from most deserving, even from within their own genre.

Posted by Justin on Monday, 10.29.07 @ 14:13pm


The monster record sales of "Nevermind" alone will get them in the Hall. Very influential.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Monday, 10.29.07 @ 14:16pm


You all are complete morons if you don't think Nirvana will be inducted. In fact, I propose that if a guy is dead, and under normal circumstances will not be returning to launch a reunion tour, what is with the waiting period? Induct them already! We still can't seem to get away from the tortured rock-star image of Kurt or his song about a deodorant. You wouldn't have all this shitty imitation if you didn't have Kurt. 15 years after he took his life . . . . I hate to think the direction music would have gone if Nirvana had not ruled the world for the few years it did. Do you remember where you were when Kennedy was shot?

Who will play? I don't know, but Grohl will be there. Cornell will be there. And, Eddie will be there. We may have the performance of a lifetime, and there is no reason to delay it.

Humbly yours,
P. Martini

Posted by P. Martini on Saturday, 11.10.07 @ 21:15pm


NIRVANA RULES. THE WORLD OF ROCK OWES NIRVANA FOR SAVING IT WHEN ROCK WAS FADING. COBAIN IS THE GREATEST GUITARIST AND VOCALIST OF ALL TIME. GROHL IS ONE HELL OF A DRUMMER( HAVEN'T HEARD THE FOO FIGHTERS YET) AND KRIST IS THE BEST BASSIST.BUT DESPITE HIS GREATNESS, KRIST IS LARGELY OVERLOOKED, SO AS NIRVANA FANS WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. NIRVANA RULES. AND ABOUT THE QUESTION, OF COURSE NIRVANA HAS TO BE INDUCTED

Posted by Pragyan Ghimire on Saturday, 11.10.07 @ 21:52pm


YOU ARE A COMPLETE IDIOT JUSTIN. AIC IS GREAT BUT NIRVANA IS THE BEST

Posted by Pragyan Ghimire on Saturday, 11.10.07 @ 21:56pm


"Do you remember where you were when Kennedy was shot?"

Yeah, compare a president to a dead rocker...

Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, 11.10.07 @ 22:04pm


"THE WORLD OF ROCK OWES NIRVANA FOR SAVING IT WHEN ROCK WAS FADING."-Pagyan Ghimire

Typical revisionist bull from people who don't have even the slightest grasp of rock history. At not point EVER has the entirety of rock music been in danger of "fading."

Posted by William on Saturday, 11.10.07 @ 23:17pm


Thank you...when I read that I could not stop laughing at how stupid that was....to me Nirvana was okay as a band elevated to this god like quality following the "tragic" death of their lead singer.

Posted by Anonymous on Sunday, 11.11.07 @ 04:34am


"In fact, I propose that if a guy is dead, and under normal circumstances will not be returning to launch a reunion tour, what is with the waiting period?"

So why should dead guys get priority? And of all dead people, you chose Cobain. Why?

Posted by liam on Sunday, 11.11.07 @ 08:17am


No doubt they will enter the Hall. Nevermind is amazing, but I prefer the other "Big 3" from Seattle.

Posted by Tom on Sunday, 11.11.07 @ 11:04am


Liam:

"In fact, I propose that if a guy is dead, and under normal circumstances will not be returning to launch a reunion tour, what is with the waiting period?"

"So why should dead guys get priority? And of all dead people, you chose Cobain. Why?"

Well, it probably has been long enough to say that Nirvana's legacy will not change so drastically that we will regret inducting them into the Hall at some point in the future.

As for your second question, we're talking about Nirvana here, so it's obviously appropriate to make my comment with reference to Nirvana's frontman.

P. Martini

Posted by P. Martini on Monday, 11.12.07 @ 16:12pm


Anonymous:

"Yeah, compare a president to a dead rocker . . . "

I guess yours is the most truthful pseudonym here. To answer your comment, I can only give you my personal experience, but I think you would probably agree, if you are objective at all, that my experience is likely an experience which my generation shares.

I do remember where I was when I learned Cobain killed himself. In fact, the school day was interrupted by the administration. It certainly was a significant event for my generation, albeit a tragic event. The only point being made by my comment (which was "Do you remember where you were when Kennedy was shot?") was that Cobain's death, and the reaction it caused among all kinds of people (whether fans of Nirvana or not), is representative of his and Nirvana's influence on a generation. I don't think the Hall would be so incompetent as to fail to realize that.

I do take your point, however, that the suicide of a popular musician is in no way comparable in significance to the assassination of a sitting President of the United States. You were right to question that.

P. Martini

Posted by P. Martini on Monday, 11.12.07 @ 16:23pm


"As for your second question, we're talking about Nirvana here, so it's obviously appropriate to make my comment with reference to Nirvana's frontman."

When you could have commented elsewhere about another (probably more desrving: innovation and influence) dead frontman.

The only one taht springs to mind is Ian Curtis, and yet Joy Division isn't inducted yet, despite being eligible. I'm sure there's a few more (not many), but William or someone knows more than I do.

Posted by liam on Monday, 11.12.07 @ 16:36pm


"It certainly was a significant event for my generation, albeit a tragic event."

Why? People only began to 'worship' Cobain after his death, and not nearly as many did whilst he was alive.

I'm sure if, say, Brandon Flowers was killed in a car crash, he would be hailed as the saviour of indie rock, when he infact isn't even close.

Posted by liam on Monday, 11.12.07 @ 16:39pm


That is the problem...though. He was worshiped and placed on a pedestal. For what? He did not do much of anything. He was a depressive heroin addict that killed himself. And, in fact part of the problem was that he was so famous and elevated to this god like quality, which he obviously could not handle and did not like.

If ____________ (insert any fairly famous musician) kills him or herself of course it will "shock" a nation, particularly the fans. But, what did Cobain really do. As William pointed out, they did not "invent" grunge. Sure they popularized it with the constant playing of that video on MTV. So, what. Try to find more + role models. And, if you don't get it now, when you get older you will...

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, 11.12.07 @ 17:35pm


Liam:

In response to your first question: I definitely agree with you that there are other dead musicians who were in bands that are as worthy or more worthy than Nirvana of induction. That doesn't mean Nirvana is not worthy, though.

In response to your second question: There is something to your point that people worshipped Cobain more after he was dead, but why did Nirvana become the unwilling spokesmen for a generation? I don't know for certain. But, 100 people will probably have different explanations, but most will probably tell you that he was a very significant figure in music in the last 20 years.

I don't think they invented grunge or that, musically, they made a greater contribution than their far less popular predecessors in the grunge movement. They were innovative, but musically, you're right, they were not revolutionary. What makes Nirvana worthy of induction, in my increasingly insignificant opinion, is that they were innovative enough musically and lucky enough with "Nevermind" (not to mention the records that followed which, you will recall, were not complete disappointments) that they became very influential both in music since Cobain's death and certainly in the popular culture of the time. In my opinion, that is enough to be inducted, especially given some other recent inductees.

Anonymous:
I'm not a Cobain worshipper. I still listen to Nirvana occasionally. I didn't cry when he died. I certainly cared, and I certainly thought it was tragic. And, I was objective enough about the world I lived in to realize that it was a very significant event for my generation.

Also, if he killed himself in part because of his discomfort with his "god-like" status, a point on which I don't disagree with you, then maybe there actually is something to the argument that Nirvana is significant enough to be inducted.

And, one final point: "Try to find more + role models. And, if you don't get it now, when you get older you will . . ."

I really enjoy talking about music, and I hope you won't prove by subsequent posts that you really are more interested in other things.

Humbly yours,
P. Martini

Posted by P. Martini on Monday, 11.12.07 @ 18:57pm


"I really enjoy talking about music, and I hope you won't prove by subsequent posts that you really are more interested in other things."

You brought up how big of a deal it was when he died, comparing it to a president, etc.

"it was a very significant event for my generation."

WHY?

You have not explained why, although I would suspect it is for some fantasy based, mass projection that has no basis in reality in which Cobain is elevated and morphed into something he is not. But, that does not surprise me in our celebrity obsessed culture...

Posted by Anonymous on Monday, 11.12.07 @ 19:16pm


Anonymous:

You didn't ask this question before. But, Liam did, and here is how I responded. I will only add that it is not a scientific proof. It's just an opinion. Get one of your own and articulate it instead of simply asking me to explain mine in painstaking detail.

Here is what I wrote to Liam:

"Why did Nirvana become the unwilling spokesmen for a generation? I don't know for certain. 100 people will probably have different explanations, but most will probably tell you that he was a very significant figure in music in the last 20 years.

I don't think they invented grunge or that, musically, they made a greater contribution than their far less popular predecessors in the grunge movement. They were innovative, but musically, you're right, they were not revolutionary. What makes Nirvana worthy of induction, in my increasingly insignificant opinion, is that they were innovative enough musically and lucky enough with "Nevermind" (not to mention the records that followed which, you will recall, were not complete disappointments) that they became very influential both in music since Cobain's death and certainly in the popular culture of the time. In my opinion, that is enough to be inducted, especially given some other recent inductees.

Humbly yours,
P. Martini

Posted by P. Martini on Monday, 11.12.07 @ 19:40pm


"I don't think they invented grunge or that, musically, they made a greater contribution than their far less popular predecessors in the grunge movement"

Two of the most important criteria, denied right there. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Nirvana got inducted, since he is a house hold name and alot of people bought their records. However, had this been a HoF unaffected by th need to sell tickets, i'm sure that Nirvana would be put behind SOundgarden etc in terms of grunge

"lucky enough with "Nevermind" (not to mention the records that followed which, you will recall, were not complete disappointments)"

I don't think that 'lucky' is the word most people would use for a pop sounding album being...pop.

"It certainly was a significant event for my generation"

Your generation? I'll remind you that over in the UK Britpop had already estabilished itself almost everywhere but the US, and it most popular act was about to release its debut single. Aswell as this, thrash metal was still big, and so was hiphop/dance/rave.

Posted by liam on Tuesday, 11.13.07 @ 13:30pm


Oh boy . . . . We agree that they probably will be inducted, which is all I set out to comment on (i.e., instead of "should Nirvana be inducted"). I'm happy enough with that and the explanations I have offered why most likely you will see Nirvana inducted, whether they are worthy of it or not. I'm not going to start arguing about the semantics of the word "lucky" or attempt to define the geographical limitations of "my generation", or talk about the institutional integrity of the Hall.

P. Martini

Posted by P. Martini on Tuesday, 11.13.07 @ 15:35pm


"I'm not going to start arguing about the semantics of the word "lucky" or attempt to define the geographical limitations of "my generation", or talk about the institutional integrity of the Hall."

Well, of course not - that might require critical thinking and an embarkment into the "gray." I guess its a "generational thing." If that is all you set out to do, then you should have not posted at all and just clicked "Yes" at the top of the Nirvana page...that is for the black and white folks

Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, 11.13.07 @ 16:34pm


"attempt to define the geographical limitations of "my generation"," - P. Martini

What I meant to show you was how Cobain would have most likely faded into anonymity had he not commited suicide.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 11.14.07 @ 11:11am


Yeah, I would have liked to have seen where Nirvana would have gone if they had made more records.

P. Martini

Posted by P. Martini on Wednesday, 11.14.07 @ 12:20pm


"What I meant to show you was how Cobain would have most likely faded into anonymity had he not commited suicide."

Exactly Liam, like most "grunge" bands have. Ironically, his "mysterious" suicide has elevated him into something he never was....

Posted by Anon on Wednesday, 11.14.07 @ 15:29pm


A terrribly overrated band.
Thats not to say I don't like them, I do. They were a great band, just not nearly as great as people make them out to be (i'm sorry Rolling Stone, Kurt Cobain was NOT the 12th best guitarist of all time). They will get in for sure and deservedly so; their music set the stage for the 90s. That is not to say they were the best band of the 90s; either the Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumkins or Green Day get that call. Think about it, if Anthony Kiedis blew off his head... well I think you know where I'm going (thank god he didn't)
RIP Kurt Cobain

Posted by owen on Monday, 12.10.07 @ 11:21am


"That is not to say they were the best band of the 90s; either the Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumkins or Green Day get that call"

Your inclusion of Green Day and the Chilis in that list immediately suggest that you r grasp of 90s music is wank.

My list of best 90's artists =

Radiohead
Blur
Soundgarden
My Bloody Valentine (Made bucket fulls of EPs. Made 'Isn't Anything' and got their own sound. Had their own sound stolen by almost everyone)
Oasis (I know they'd never get to the top, but you know me by now)
Suede (no, I'm not gay, by the way)
Pearl Jam
Primal Scream (admitted, 3 great albums and not much else)
Happy Mondays (Avoid 'Yes, Please' and everything after, but do get everything before that)
Supergrass (great guitar band, although they innovated near to nothing, and won't be seeing induction this side of the next few decades, if ever)

I tried to stick to bands who started in the late 80s and early 90s.

Posted by liam on Monday, 12.10.07 @ 11:35am


As per Dave Grohl - We thought that "Teen Spirit" had too much of the Pixies in it.

Beside that, Nirvana certainly should be considered since their recording did help move the scene in another direction. I don't think they were as good as AIC or Soundgarden, but Nirvana seemed to reach a whole generation in a way the other bands did not. And something has to be said about that.

Although it has nothing to do with the Hall, but people, please, Cobain's suicide was not tragic, it was pathetic. He was a man who suffered through the hell of depression but he certainly is not the only one in this world who suffers. He chose his way out; it may be sad, but it wasn't tragic. And in doing this, he got everything he never supposedly never wanted, FAME of the iconic kind.

Liam - I agree with much of what you said on this board, but why do you think that your opinions of music and bands should be treated as Gospel and everyone else's is "wank"? Supergrass and Happy Mondays may be the best of the 90's to you,and I respect that opinion. You certainly know music, but I think many people would disagree with you and what is to say that they are wrong?

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 12.23.07 @ 18:56pm


"but why do you think that your opinions of music and bands should be treated as Gospel and everyone else's is "wank"?"

I don't. I made it perfectly clear that that list was only my opinion, and I'm actually HAPPY (yes, happy) if someone chooses to disagree with me about any artist on that list.

I enjoy Nirvana, but I never thought they were that great, and they certainly aren't the greatest grunge band. For me, with my admittedly quite small knowledge of grunge, I'd say Soundgarden is.

"but I think many people would disagree with you and what is to say that they are wrong?"

Nothing, so long as they're not a member of the "WTF who the hlel are Supergrass i've never evne herd of thm they must b shit XXXX LOL" club.

Posted by l i a m on Monday, 12.24.07 @ 08:27am


Yes, I know you said that the list was your opinion; but your response to the Peppers and Green Day seemed more of a statement. But that doesn't matter - I do respect your opinion on music.

Since you have been on this site awhile, I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. When I was going through the "Complete List of Artists", I noticed that the 80's New Wave band "Missing Persons" is not even listed. I am not saying that they belong by any stretch, although Dale Bozzio would get my personal vote anytime. I just found in interesting that they are not even listed. Perhaps you have an opinion on this. Have a good holiday.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 12.24.07 @ 08:34am


There's a link somewhere on this site which lets you inform the admins of any missing artists.

Posted by l i a m on Monday, 12.24.07 @ 08:42am


What do you see in Green Day and Red Hot Chilli Peppers that puts them among the greatest artists of the 90s?

Posted by l i a m on Monday, 12.24.07 @ 08:43am


The worst part about Nirvana's eventual induction is that we will all be reminded of what might have been.

Posted by Joe on Monday, 12.24.07 @ 09:03am


What do you see in Green Day and Red Hot Chilli Peppers that puts them among the greatest artists of the 90s?

I don't know that I would count Green Day as one of the greatest 90's artists! They wrote well crafted punk-pop songs and I can see where some people might think that they were the true children of the Ramones (I don't know that I do). As for the Peppers, I can see why some people would feel that they belong on that list. I like them, but I did not go crazy over them. I will admit that Flea can slap that bass pretty good. Besides, I tend to stop using the term greatest after I get past The Beatles, The Who, Yardbirds, Zappa, and Dylan.

I certainly agree with you regarding Radiohead, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. But I must admit that AIC is my favorite band of the 90's. I do enjoy Oasis and Blur as well. I have to admit that after 96 or 97, although I kept up with the music scene, I started not caring as much and the new century is disappointing to me so far, but that may be because I am getting f'n old.

I always thought music was at its best when bands competed with each other, friendly or not: Beatles vs Stones, Queen vs Aerosmith, Clash vs Pistols, etc. If I am not mistaken, even Blur and Oasis had a bit of a thing between them. And I always thought that The Alarm were a bit of a friendly rival with U2 and kind of spurred them on a bit. I just don't feel that in the music lately, but you probably know better than me.

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 12.24.07 @ 10:10am


wow why are you all arguing over nirvana just get it straight no matter what you say or do they will get in they contributed to rock history with "teen spirit" and had a brilliant vocalist and guitarist to carry them through their short lived career. you may think they suck but every member of nirvana had talent whether you like it or not regardless of the suicide of its most popular member just keep in mind that "teen spirit" is the 9th greatest song of all time surpassing "a day in the life" and "purple haze" if your smart enough to know either song

Posted by bryan on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 19:01pm


"just keep in mind that "teen spirit" is the 9th greatest song of all time"-bryan

Says a bunch of people whose opinions most likely do not matter.

Posted by W on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 19:21pm


While I certainly can understand the importance of "Teen Spirit", and I have no problem with it being ranked high on the list. Musically it is not better than either song you mentioned. Kurt - not a brilliant guitar player.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 19:22pm


Anybody else notice a curious phenomenon? Why is it so often the "other" bands - the ones that didn't quite enjoy the success of the "lesser" ones that are the "real" talents.
You know, as in
Soundgarden vs Nirvana,
Mudhoney or Fishbone vs Red Hot Chili Peppers,
Mother Love Bone vs Pearl Jam?

Could it be that it makes some feel good about being "in the know" amd hip iconoclasts?

Just a thought.

Posted by shawn on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 20:34pm


With the exception of Eddie Vedder, Mother Love Bone and Pearl Jam were the same band. There's also the matter of Andy Wood's premature death giving it an extra kick. Some people just don't like Vedder's vocal style, which is easy to understand when you stop to think how many times you've heard it in various singers for the past 15 years.

Soundgarden is much easier to explain. They'd hung around and paid their dues before Nirvana was even in the public conscious. They already had a strong following and had just broken into the mainstream when Nevermind hit. They had committed fans and a deeper influence on other musicians that accounts for the respect they still receive today.

Never heard anyone compare Mudhoney to RHCP, and I wouldn't.

Posted by W on Sunday, 12.30.07 @ 22:27pm


Ok first W is a twat because he just wants to ruin someones day and dameon its kinda hard not to be a good guitar player if your in a three piece band i mean come on kurt's guitar playing ability was as important as his vocal talent or dave's drumming and i will admit that the rolling stone list was bullshit but "teen spirit" changed pop culture and musical history as we know it im not saying its my favorite nirvana song but everyone knows it was the turning point of he 90's and a turning point in rock history

Posted by bryan on Tuesday, 01.1.08 @ 00:15am


"its kinda hard not to be a good guitar player if your in a three piece band"-bryan

Wanna explain this one?

"but "teen spirit" changed pop culture and musical history as we know it im not saying its my favorite nirvana song but everyone knows it was the turning point of he 90's and a turning point in rock history"-bryan

Changing pop culture and changing music are two different things, and musically it did relatively little. Just saying it was a "turning point" isn't enough. Explain it in detail. What exactly did it change besides the amount of Nirvana records sold?

Posted by William on Tuesday, 01.1.08 @ 08:09am


dameon its kinda hard not to be a good guitar player if your in a three piece band i mean come on kurt's guitar playing ability was as important

Bryan - you misunderstand. And just for the record, after Nevermind broke, when they toured, Nirvana always had a second guitarist on stage with them. I am certainly not saying that his playing was inadequate, He played what was in the structure of the song. Much like Towmsend did with the Who except that Townsend had more new things to fiddle with. Cobain will never be considered a slasher. He is not Hendrix, Beck or Page. But this doesn't take anything away from him. If I had to make a comparrison, it would be to Lennon. Trust me, it wasn't Lennons guitar playing that got him in. Trust me, Kirk was a good rythem guitarist.

If he wasn't such a pathetic fool, who knows what me may have seen from him.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 01.1.08 @ 22:14pm


Ok so i was gone for a few days now im back. And your wrong about after nevermind broke out they didnt have a second guitarist until after "In Utero" which was future foo fighter Pat Smear. They also had a guitar player before nevermind named jason everman i think but they fired him and he paid no contribution to "bleach" or nevermind".But you are right about your comparison to Lennon as a guitar player he was great but wasnt a God. And i dont agree with the fact you called him a pathetic fool yeah he commited suicide but wouldnt you be messed up if you had a massive heroin addiction and people were trying to take your kid away?

Ok william "teen spirit" AND nevermind changed pop culture and music history because no artist at that time was writing lyrics and singing about the teenage angst and alienation that teenagers were feeling and some how got them through the dark age. On a personal note nevermind saved my life along with "houses of holy" when i was first diagnosed with depression. So just this idea of someone knowing how we feeling and knowing how pissed we were was and still is amazing.

Posted by bryan on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 22:52pm


"no artist at that time was writing lyrics and singing about the teenage angst and alienation that teenagers were feeling"

como que whaaaaa?

Posted by Kit on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 02:47am


And i dont agree with the fact you called him a pathetic fool yeah he commited suicide but wouldnt you be messed up if you had a massive heroin addiction and people were trying to take your kid away?

Sorry Bryan, but Cobain was a pathetic fool. I had my addictions just like him and did not have the resources that he had. Yet, I still figured it out. And I understand depression as well as anyone and suicide is not the answer. And I won't even go into my knowledge of that issue.

Cobain could have ruled the world but he was too lazy to figure it out. So like many before him, he ended it. Pathetic!!!! My heart goes out to anyone who suffers from depression, but this is not 1960 and although there may be a stigma still attached to it, the resources and help is out there for anyone who wants it.

As for Cobain's writing, I agree he was an execellent lyricist, but he certainly was not the only one writing such things. It was just that his melodies along with the lyrics produced one amazing album. I still think that Alice in Chains blows Nirvana away. Teenage angst has been around as long as teenagers have existed. What made teenage angst any worse in the 90's than it was in the 70's? I think the 70's were a hell of a lot worse. And you have to admit that Townsend said it just as well in the 60's.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 07:23am


And your wrong about after nevermind broke out they didnt have a second guitarist until after "In Utero" which was future foo fighter Pat Smear. They also had a guitar player before nevermind named jason everman i think but they fired him and he paid no contribution to "bleach" or nevermind"

The point I was trying to make is that Cobain's guitar work was not that of a master. My apologies for my facts being a bit off. One thing is for sure, he was no Brian May or any of the other acknowledged greats. He was a good, functional guitar player.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 07:28am


It’s too bad Kurt C pulled the trigger but no one can change that now this was a band with passion, outstanding songs and helped create a new buzz for 90s music. The band was short lived like the Doors but they were just as important during their time.

First Ballot for sure.

Posted by zepfan on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 16:54pm


I’ve read through many of the comments and a few of the vibrant debates, it’s great to know many people care about the music industry and have a zest for their favorites. All though some of us won’t agree on who is or was the best of his or her time or someone else's time the important thing about the music is: does it make you a better or worse person? That’s the ultimate question all music played in the proper setting at the right time and place can leave a person with feelings of elation however short lived. The greatest Bands of all-time are the bands each person loves to listen to the most.

Posted by zepfan on Saturday, 01.5.08 @ 18:50pm


nirvana rocks and it would be very wrong not to include them in the hall of fame. they have so much passion in their music. as for kurt, may he rest in peace. he is a living proof(or at least used to be) that no matter what a screw up life you have, you can still make it through. grunge rules. on behalf of all the people of lebanon, i say thy rock

Posted by reem on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 11:20am


"he is a living proof(or at least used to be) that no matter what a screw up life you have, you can still make it through." - R.E.E.M.

You are aware that he commited suicide, aren't you?

Posted by liam on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 11:22am


"he is a living proof(or at least used to be) that no matter what a screw up life you have, you can still make it through." - R.E.E.M.

"You are aware that he commited suicide, aren't you?" - Liam

HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!!!!!!!!
Classic.

Posted by shawn on Monday, 01.7.08 @ 11:39am


I like what John Lyndon said about Kurt Cobain..."If you don't want to be a rock star simply quit being one." Pretty profound for Johnny Rotten!!

Posted by Terry on Sunday, 01.27.08 @ 11:10am


I guess it all depends how far you go back as to what impact Nirvana had on Rock music. Personally, I could take or leave them, didn't think they were particularly brilliant (my opinion). Popular music recycles itself, every 10 years or so it hits rock bottom and someone comes along and gives it a shot in the arm. I think thats what Nirvana did, made people say "Wow, thats different!!!" I will give them credit for that. I'm just waiting for someone to do it now...not a lot of pioneering going on out there.

Posted by Terry on Sunday, 01.27.08 @ 11:21am


yea they will get in

it was different from some stuff

mumbling dosent really count as singing though

kurt was only in it to piss people off thats why he liked it

Posted by AndreW on Wednesday, 01.30.08 @ 00:30am


wow andrew you are so retarded he wasnt only in nirvana to piss people off. Before he died he loved making music and his fans except the ones who wanted to be a junkie like him,that made him sad for himself.He only mumbled in teen spirit which once you read the lyrics you can understand and they are not his best work i suggest you listen to pennyroyal tea or serve the lithium

Posted by bryan on Sunday, 02.17.08 @ 20:11pm


lol "serve the lithium" uh i meant serve the servants or lithium

Posted by bryan on Sunday, 02.17.08 @ 20:13pm


thay sholud be inducted this year.they pioneered music

Posted by d on Tuesday, 02.19.08 @ 17:36pm


Unless I totally missed something, I just don't see where they made that huge of an impact. They certainly weren't pioneers. What exactly did they do that hadn't been done before? I think Kurt Cobain's personal dilemna kind of rose up above the band and in this day and age of "instant media" and "sensationalism", thats what became important. Then the suicide kind of made him some sort of martyr...for what cause I don't know. Unfortunately, thats just another tragic Rock & Roll story...

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, 02.19.08 @ 18:25pm


I think Nirvana changed the landscape of music at the time, but it had nothing to do with musical influence or innovation. Their arrival spelled the death for the rock of the time (Hair Bands). Although, I am not so sure that it wasn't more of that kind of music having turned into processed pablum more than anything else. I thought Mother Love Bone was more important and Alice in Chains were better musically. Either way, I will give Nirvana their do. Nevermind was an excellent album.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 02.19.08 @ 19:16pm


I agree, Dameon. They weren't bad but there's other bands I simply liked better. The way the hall is voted on...who knows!! They give Britney Spears a 56% chance, according to the "criteria"...something wrong there!

Posted by Terry on Tuesday, 02.19.08 @ 19:28pm


Alice in chains is certainly an amazing band either with or without layne, but when the third album came out it was just a little to depressing for me and i had no doubt that layne would be where kurt was in a few years and looked what happened. But any way at least nirvana didnt get so much depression fill lyric i will admit that lithium is one of them and the song that was unreleased "i hate myself and i want to die" which was supposed to be a joke. Musically Cobain was a genuis, his pure sense of melody, poppy big muff riffs. and the rest od the band shared his talent i mean look at Dave Grohl today, hes a commercial superstar but still makes records nirvana fans love. In my opinion there will never be another band that broke musical boundries down like nirvana but i think if there is a band that could save us from this commercial hell were in we sure need them

Posted by bryan on Sunday, 02.24.08 @ 12:29pm


"i hate myself and i want to die"

Not all that different than Townsend's "hope I die before I get old". In an interview at the time, when asked if he was serious with that line, he said "yes".

I agree that Cobain had an excellent understanding of the concept of song structure. He knew how to blend melody with lyrics and personal angst. He was definitely a student of what came before him, especially The Pixies. Whether he was a genius or not, I am not sure. What is genius anyway? To me, Lennon, Syd Barrett, Townsend, Dylan and Bowie were genius. Joey and Johnny Ramone also :-)

I agree that AIC was more depressing in their lyrics, but I thought their melodies were far more intricate and haunting. Better musicians were AIC, at least in my opinion. I think Dave and the FF are everything that Nirvana weren't. I don't believe the FF's take themselves as seriously. No pressure, just fun and debauchery which is my favorite part of Rock.

I think Kurt put too much responsibility on his shoulders with his writing and I thought it showed on In Utero. I didn't hear the cohesiveness in his music on that recording that I did on Nevermind. Perhaps he was feeling too much pressure; I don't know. It was a decent album, but not spectacular. I wish he had not killed himself; I would have been interested to see where his music would have gone. In my mind, Nevermind has cemented Kurt and the band in the heart of Rock and Roll. I don't think it matters whether you are a fan or not when it comes to this band. They will certainly be inducted as soon as they are eligible.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 02.24.08 @ 13:20pm


Wow, I'd never listened to the Pixies much, but they were definitely a forerunner to grunge. "Where Is My Mind?"...the rhythm section sounds a lot like "Smells Like Teen Spirit"!

Posted by Terry on Sunday, 02.24.08 @ 13:37pm


Here is the scary part about Cobain and the Pixies. I know that many knowledgable and hardcore music fans expect the Pixies to be inducted in 2012 when they are eligible, and I would certainly hope that they are recognized, but I have a feeling that Wenner and company will bypass them. I don't trust Wenner and the Hall.

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 02.24.08 @ 15:15pm


That'll probably be the year they induct Paul Shaffer for his great contributions to TV band directing (which I think is also a sub-genre...if not, they'll make it one!!!)

No sarcasm here!!!

Posted by Terry on Sunday, 02.24.08 @ 15:35pm


They should bypass the rules and induct them now.
This is a no-brainer. Kurt Cobain STILL makes the cover of Rolling Stone Magazine. Enough Said!!!

Posted by JasonsMusicPage on Sunday, 02.24.08 @ 15:36pm


Point well made Jasons_____. He is a darling of Wenner, therefore Nirvana fans have nothing to worry about. As for getting in sooner - hell no. 25 years maybe a stupid rule, but it is what it is!

Posted by Dameon on Sunday, 02.24.08 @ 15:59pm


Who are the idiots that voted NO for NIRVANA?

Posted by SSR on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 21:58pm


"Who are the idiots that voted NO for NIRVANA?"-SSR

People with perspective.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 02.26.08 @ 23:50pm


Kurt helped a lot of kids (including myself) get through some tough times. He was and will remain a great storyteller through and through. Nirvana's music inspired. It rejuvinated music culture when no one else could...or would. They will be a sure fire 1st ballot Hall of Fame entry.

Posted by Brandon on Friday, 02.29.08 @ 14:33pm


NIRVANA HAS HAD THE BIGGEST IMPACT IN MUSIC HISTORY SINCE THE BEATLES. BY FAR, NIRVANA IS THE GREATEST BAND THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE PAST 60 YEARS.
A 3 PIECE BAND THAT PUTS OUT THAT MUCH SOUND, THAT MUCH ENERGY, THAT HUGE OF A KNIFE IN THE BACKS OF ALL THE HORRIBLE HAIR BANDS, THAT MANY HITS, AND CHAGED THE MUSIC INDUSTRY FOREVER... WITHOUT A DOUBT IS THE GREATEST BAND EVER, AND NEEDS TO BE IN THE ROCK HALL OF FAME.
KURT COBAIN, A GENIUS SONG WRITER, AN AMAZING MUSICIAN PAVED THE WAY. ANYONE WHO DOESN NOT ADMIT AT LEAST HALF OF THESE FACTS, KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT MUSIC.

Posted by WOZ on Monday, 03.10.08 @ 10:31am


ALICE IN CHAINS, SOUNDGARDEN, AND OTHER SEATTLE 90'S BAND ALL ADMIT THAT NIRVANA WAS ON A LEVEL THEY COULD ONLY DREAM OF REACHING. IF THE OTHER SEATTLE BANDS WERE EVEN CLOSE TO BEING AN EQUAL TO NIRVANA, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN. BOTTOM LINE IS... THE RECORD SALES, NUMBER OF HITS, NUMBER OF FANS, SIZE OF IMPACT ON MUSIC AND CULTURE, NONE POINT TO ALICE IN CHAINS OR HIS VOCALS. YOU MAY LIKE ALICE IN CHAINS BETTER, BUT THE FATCS ARE THE FACTS. TEENS TODAY KNOW WHO NIRVANA IS, AND KURT COBAIN, A FEW HEARD ABOUT ALICE IN CHAINS OR THE LEAD SINGER, WHAT'S HIS NAME??? PEOPLE STILL HAVE A SPOT FOR NIRVANA AND WHAT KURT DID FOR THE INDUSTRY, NOBODY GIVES A CRAP ABOUT ALICE IN CHAINS, TRUST ME. I BET 1 IN 10 KNOWS THAT ALICE IN CHAINS FRONT MAN EVEN DIED. ASK THE SAME QUESTION ABOUT KURT COBAIN, PEOPLE ARE STILL HURT OVER HIS DEATH. HE WAS AND IS A LEGEND...BIGGER THAN THOSE OTHER GUYS.

Posted by BUSTER on Monday, 03.10.08 @ 10:45am


Hey guys i guess some of you are ignorant and some of arent but you have no right to judge the lives of my friend and a beautiful person. Layne and Kurt werent pathetic they were powerful.They had so much intensity on stage but off they were like the passive guys that dont want to get things started. They both had their addictions and as much as is hurts me to day it,drugs overcame them. The guy above me shouldnt even being talking about layne and if people know him.He was my and many other's friend and i miss him and I am STILL shocked and hurt by his passing.Remember what i say before you become the critic

Posted by Jerry Cantrell on Wednesday, 03.12.08 @ 15:37pm


Buster, I am not quite sure why you would make the comment that you did. AIC was as good as it gets. Forgetable is the one word that cannot be used when describing the music of AIC. Nirvana somehow made it to the forefront, but they certainly were not the first. I believe that in the end, AIC will stand the test of time much better than Nirvana. Although you are probably correct about remembering Cobain. People tend to remember suicide. And "Teen Spirit" did hit the bullseye in the music world.

Jerry, I am not quite sure why someone would post in this name, so I will play along. They may have been powerful, but Cobain was pathetic in that he gave up. He had a child! You never give up when you have that responsibility and the resources that he had! Why he did what he did, I doubt anyone will ever really know. Sad, but not tragic. But he took the easy way out and left people seriously wounded (and I am not talking about his fans - they can get over it). As for Layne, very sad indeed. I wish he would have won the battle. My prayers for him. I loved his voice.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 03.12.08 @ 18:45pm


I remember what John Lyndon said about Curt Cobain in the "History Of Rock & Roll"..."If you don't want to be a rock star, simply quit being one!"

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 03.12.08 @ 18:50pm


If i have to prove to you that it is really me than i will tell you this: right now layne's cat is on my couch as i am writing this and every time i look at her it reminds me of layne.Not that a cat reminds me of my bestfriend but i still get that feeling of sadness when i think of him.Kurt wasnt pathetic though. I had my addictions to heroin and its the worst drug you get into. I still have the scars to remind me. After aic broke up i stopped cause i saw what it did to layne and there was no way of getting through to him but you are what you are addicted to.Heroin makes your mind warped beyond belief but in Kurt's mind every shoot up must be huge like an OD huge but how such a small person could take this i dont know.Just please just stop dameon i dont need keep lecturing you about the lives of others

Posted by Jerry on Wednesday, 03.12.08 @ 20:43pm


What famous singer's daughter just released an EP that "you" just performed on? What's the thickness of "your" high "E" string? When was your last, say, Denver performance and what was the venue?

Posted by Terry on Wednesday, 03.12.08 @ 20:58pm


Just please just stop dameon i dont need keep lecturing you about the lives of others

Cobain was pathetic man who orphaned his own child. Make sure you tell his little girl all that as she travels through life. And I don't care who you are; don't pontificate to me about the horrors of heroin. You can't tell me anything that I haven't experienced.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 03.13.08 @ 02:07am


Yelling at a groupie to call the ambulance cause layne was having an OD in the tour bus. Having to hit laynes chest on countless occasions to try to make him breathe.Sitting on the side while layne was having seisures on the floor and he keeps managing to say dont call 911.Feeling useless after layne died and feeling like it should have been me.

Posted by Jerry on Friday, 03.14.08 @ 13:06pm


How about those Dameon have you experienced those?No one should see what i have in my career and terry you dont have the right to ask me questions.I get asked all the same questions every day and i get sick of them about layne,about aic, about my gear! Im here to make me music that I love and respect my fellow musicians if they or alive or dead and you or Dameon cant tell me otherwise because you both have NO respect for Kurt Cobain's life and Layne's life which hurts me the most you should be ashamed.

Posted by Jerry on Friday, 03.14.08 @ 20:38pm


I can ask you anything I want...Jerry Cantrell would probably answer because he'd know it off the top of his head...

Posted by Terry on Friday, 03.14.08 @ 20:42pm


Their first single "Love Buzz" came out in 1988, so they should already be eligible in 2013 (2014 ceremony), just to clarify. There should be absolutely no doubt they will get in then.

Posted by denyo on Sunday, 03.16.08 @ 16:05pm


Im here to make me music that I love and respect my fellow musicians if they or alive or dead and you or Dameon cant tell me otherwise because you both have NO respect for Kurt Cobain's life and Layne's life which hurts me the most you should be ashamed.

Posted by Jerry on Friday, 03.14.08 @ 20:38pm

You won't see any comments from me bad-mouthing Layne. He lost the same battle that took many before him and I am not just talking about musicians. Rock stars are not the only ones who lose loved ones to the horror of drugs.

You can scream all you want about Cobain; I respect him as a musican, but I cannot respect a man who orphaned his own child like he did. I am sorry he lost the battle. But then I doubt he could give a sh*t what I think.

As for this piece of crap known as the HoF; I am sure Nirvana will get in and I hope AIC gets in.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 03.22.08 @ 10:08am


Layne Staley died of a confirmed drug overdose. Cobain died of a self-inflicted shotgun wound. The big difference is that one was definitely intentional.

Posted by William on Saturday, 03.22.08 @ 11:58am


Nirvana will definatly have to be inducted, even if you are one of the few who hate them you have to admit their impact on music today.

Posted by Chris on Saturday, 03.22.08 @ 21:53pm


Wow when I was gone some poser tried to be the great Jerry Cantrell!What has this world come to? First the music business goes to shit and then someone tries to pose as one of the last good musicians. Well im gonna try to end this fight over Nirvanas impact.

Nirvana should get in becayse of their great impact to alternative music. William you could name any underground band that has influence on alternative but they dont rise to the impact of Nirvana. I was lucky enough to see Nirvana when I was 19(July 23, 1993 Roseland) and they so full of energy and power that to this day I havent seen in any of the live concerts Ive been to in my life.

The way that they made music is gone today and we can only dwell on Bleach, Nevermind, and In Utero because music today is not the same and it never will be.Nirvana has a musical impact and an emotinal impact on music that cannot be argued with.

Posted by bryan on Tuesday, 03.25.08 @ 11:58am


"William you could name any underground band that has influence on alternative but they dont rise to the impact of Nirvana."-bryan

I can and they do: The Pixies. Sonic Youth. Dinosaur Jr. R.E.M. Any and all had a significantly larger impact on alternative music, particularly because many of them influenced Nirvana. Even Pearl Jam made a bigger impact, and most of that is derived from one album (Ten) that bands have been shamelessly ripping off to the present day. Ironically, Pearl Jam themselves have long since moved beyond Ten.

"The way that they made music is gone today"-bryan

And how exactly is that? I'm pretty sure there's no meat to this statement.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 03.25.08 @ 17:15pm


Just buffing up that list, William:

Cocteau Twins
The Cure
The Fall
Gang of Four
Husker Du (alt + ???? = umlaut?)
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Joy Division
My Bloody Valentine
New Order (I think so, anyway)
Pere Ubu
Public Image Limited
The Replacements
The Smiths
Talking Heads
Wire

F*ck it; they could all be counted as "underground" up against Nirvana (except for maybe The Cure, who's influential work (Pornography etc.) was given pretty little regard by the mainstream).

Some of them do appear before what popular consensus believes to be "the first alternative album eveeer", Murmur (I disagree with this, and would nominate Joy Division's Unknown Pleasures as being the first 'real' alternative album), but since alternative evolved from post-punk, I don't see my inclusions of the like of Go4 and PiL as being wrong.

I could even trace it back further, to artists such as the Velvet Underground and The Kinks, but I choose not to.

And no, in case you were wondering, there are others: I'm just not exactly a memory-box right now.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 11:09am


Ok I can make a comment cause it apparently "Looks like spam".

Posted by Bryan on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 12:12pm


Not really "spam" so much as 'illiterate bullcrap.'

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 12:16pm


Ok you named all those alternative artist but most of them did not break alternative into mainstream.Thats why people look at nirvana as an alternative artist because they broke in mainstream unlike: Cocteau Twins

The Cure

The Fall
Gang of Four
Husker Du (alt + ???? = umlaut?)
The Jesus and Mary Chain
Joy Division
My Bloody Valentine
New Order (I think so, anyway)
Pere Ubu
Public Image Limited
The Replacements
The Smiths
Talking Heads
Wire
Now music is dry, emotionless, commercial crap written for the artist just like the 80s predictable "I wanna bang you but im just gonna put it in metaphors" music. You thank nirvana for stabbing that beast in the heart before it got to huge and thats what we need now.

We need to be saved from fall out boy and those s@#$%y undeserving bands but people like you dont agree cause you just want an arguement

Posted by Bryan on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 12:24pm


Well I'd appreciate it if you would bother to at least use grammar properly

"Ok you named all those alternative artist but most of them did not break alternative into mainstream."

All the artists I listed (and plenty more, kiddo) have/had a much larger impact on alternative's developement, and despite the 'fact' that Nirvana "broke it into the mainstream"* does not mean they had as much impact as them.

Somehow, I don't even think you're aware of who The Cocteau Twins and Gang of Four are.

"Now music is dry, emotionless, commercial crap written for the artist just like the 80s predictable "I wanna bang you but im just gonna put it in metaphors" music. You thank nirvana for stabbing that beast in the heart before it got to huge and thats what we need now."

This doesn't even make sense.

"We need to be saved from fall out boy and those s@#$%y undeserving bands but people like you dont agree cause you just want an arguement"

Neither does this. I can decipher a few phrases, and each one is completely irrelevant.

You're a teenager, right?

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 12:31pm


* And actually, LOADS of alternative groups were making their way into the mainstream (most notably The Cure, R.E.M. and Pixies); Nirvana just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

I'd really prefer if people rephrased it as "Nirvana broke into the mainstream WITH alternative," but a massive does of public-ignorance ensures that this won't ever happen.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 12:34pm


How bout this liam? you can get off the website stop having your little PMS music fits and appreciate a good artist when there is one instead of starting an argument like those f@#$s on youtube. And Im not a teenager, Im 34 and I have seen nirvana once as i have said in a previous comment. Now are you just one of the teens going on wikipedia and searching through alternative?Trying out-smart the the veterans?Being a p#$%^y? And yeah i know who Gang of Four is and Entertainment! is one of my favorite albums.

I never really liked The Cocteau Twins besides the fact that they could make hard-to-interpret lyrics emotionally gripping.

Posted by bryan on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 13:21pm


Thank you for admitting that and could we end this or something cause i get tired of this stuff

Posted by bryan on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 13:32pm


What, you mean debates?

Because you'll be absolutely exhausted by the end of the week.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 13:35pm


Now shut the f#$%k you little ignorant b#$%^h i just get annoyed with this stuff because everyone knows nirvana is getting in to the Hall yet people try to disagree even though they know this.

Posted by Bryan on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 15:21pm


Liam - you sure do know how to make friends :-)

And would someone please tell me what is wrong with songs that have to do with having fun with hot chicks?

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 17:59pm


"Now music is dry, emotionless, commercial crap written for the artist just like the 80s predictable "I wanna bang you but im just gonna put it in metaphors" music. You thank nirvana for stabbing that beast in the heart before it got to huge and thats what we need now."-bryan

You mean the same '80s from which most of the bands named above came? That '80s?

I'd like to know exactly what it was that Nirvana did to end music with thinly veiled sexual metaphors, because they didn't do a very good job of it. One of the bands they and Pearl Jam influenced, Stone Temple Pilots, had a little hit song called "Sex Type Thing" the very next year after Nevermind and Ten. So great job. They accomplished exactly jack toward that imaginary goal of yours.

Which is more likely you think: That every single musician born after a certain arbitrary date has no meaningful creative impulses or that you just aren't able or willing to really find it? I think a lot of people put too much stock in their preconceived notions. It's easier to say "music today sucks" and then force yourself to believe it than challenge that notion. That way you get to be an elitist without doing any of the work involved with actually knowing a lot about your chosen field.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 03.26.08 @ 19:16pm


Yeah you know "Sex Type Thing" was an anti-rape statement right? Im actually being serious so you just made a fool of yourself again you little f%^k

Posted by bryan on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 13:04pm


Yeah and dameon songs that have to do with "having fun with hot chicks" are giving lots of teens the wrong idea. Like lets see pretty half-naked girls with big jugs dont jump over the hood over you car and start giving you a blowjob but apparently becuase of this kind music people think so. Songs like this give people the wrong impression and are actually sexist

Posted by Bryan on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 13:08pm


Maybe if you'd turn your radio off for five seconds, or if you'd please switch to an independent radio station, you'd be amazed at the amount of (good) music that has absolutely jack all to do with Nickelback et al.

You know, music that doesn't incorporate women in low-cut tops leaning over car bonnets while washing cars in its videos.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 13:21pm


Are you William's "lover" liam or do you just like protecting a-holes that like to start fights? Guess what almost all of the mainstream acts for the exception of some rockers that have been around use sexual devices to make people like their music for ex. look at the video for "bat country" by avenged sevenfold. Look how sucessful they but theres only one problem they suck and their posers i bet you like them to.

Posted by bryan on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 14:58pm


"Are you William's "lover" liam"

Isn't it obvious?

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 15:19pm


Jokes aside....

"do you just like protecting a-holes that like to start fights?"

No, I'm just attempting to dispell your stupid, stupid, STUPID notion that every "rocker" in the 21st century uses sexism in their videos and/or lyrics.

Because in actual fact it isn't at all true.

"Guess what almost all of the mainstream acts[,] for the exception of some rockers that have been around[,] use sexual devices to make people like their music for [s?]ex."

No, not "almost all" at all. IMO, 90+% would only fairly constitute "almost all," and yet I'm pretty damn certain that the number of mainstream artists incorporating sexual imagery fails to exceed about 30%.

"look at the video for "bat country" by avenged sevenfold."

No, because they're a completely mediocre band.

If you don't like what they do, stop looking/listening. The indie community has LOADS to offer at the moment, and some of it is reaching into the mainstream (Arcade Fire, Yeah Yeah Yeahs etc.)

"but theres only one problem they suck and their posers i bet you like them to."

Yes, they do. No, I don't.

Random assumptions and attacks really make my day.

Posted by Liam on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 15:30pm


Yeah and dameon songs that have to do with "having fun with hot chicks" are giving lots of teens the wrong idea. Like lets see pretty half-naked girls with big jugs dont jump over the hood over you car and start giving you a blowjob but apparently becuase of this kind music people think so. Songs like this give people the wrong impression and are actually sexist - Bryan

I am staying out of this arguement, but since you referred a comment to something I said, let me ask you something. What the hell are you talking about? Sex in music is good, sex in music is bad - which is it? I am not going to go back and read all your previous comments.

But if you are saying that singing about making love to a pretty thing is bad, then I feel sorry for you.



Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 18:54pm


"Are you William's "lover" liam or do you just like protecting a-holes that like to start fights?"-bryan

Gay jokes: Because you're never too old to be a stupid kid.

Posted by William on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 20:18pm


Ok as ive said bands that have been around a long time dont do that and dont need to but mediocre bands like sevenfold apparently wanna have an audience of really raunchy men. Like i mean you dont see a FF video with girls jumping all over the place and you certainly dont see an REM video with this either. What im saying is that most bands that just got big try to make the mediocre soft-core woman video so that people are attracted to the band which is total BS.

And Dameon its not a bad thing unless your saying "i wanna stick it in her" or "suck my b$%^s".

Posted by Bryan on Thursday, 03.27.08 @ 22:17pm


"Like i mean you dont see a FF video with girls jumping all over the place"

I've always had an immense dislike of jumping girls aswell, Bryan.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 03.28.08 @ 11:23am


hahahaha im amused now why dont you say something smart so i can be so aware of your "musical history genius"

Posted by bryan on Friday, 03.28.08 @ 11:27am


"Gay jokes: Because you're never too old to be a stupid kid."

Hey, I really don't understand the logic of being pro-feminist and anti-gay at the same time.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 03.28.08 @ 11:28am


"hahahaha im amused now why dont you say something smart so i can be so aware of your "musical history genius""

Never Mind Nirvana, Here's The Sex Pistols.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 03.28.08 @ 11:46am


I am glad I don't hang out with you boys. Give me scantily clad chicks jumping up and down anyday of the week.

Clearly watching a band lip sync while be filmed is a far more enjoyable form of entertainment.

And can someone explain what hot chicks have to do with the HoF unless we are talking about young versions of the Runaways, Nancy Wilson, Debbie Harry, etc.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 03.28.08 @ 17:13pm


Im done i cant take this dont bother commenting me back cause im not going on this effin website again.William and liam you are both sad effin a-holes because you know nirvana is going to get in as soon as they are eligible but for some reason you wanna critise them and make their fans start an argument.

I dont care how much underground or unpopular bands influenced alternative now why dont you look at the truth that nirvana is as influential as any of the bands you like. Now shut the f up and appreciate music

Posted by Bryan on Friday, 03.28.08 @ 18:49pm


Bryan - don't let Liam and William get to you. They are very passionate about the music they love, just like you are. I don't always agree with William and I rarely agree with Liam, but that is what this site is for. The exchange of differing thoughts. Don't take it so personal, I am sure the boys in the bands don't.

You love Nirvana and I am sure they will be inducted. Liam will preach the importance of Joy Division even though it is unlikely that they will ever receive this supposed honor. But it is something he feels strongly about.

The bigger issue is the purpose of this schlock Hall to begin with. What started out as a good idea has turned ugly in a relatively short period of time. Let's all that Jann Wenner for that.

Do yourself a favor, watch a couple of "Hair Band" videos with hot chicks dancing. They will make you smile. Don't take it all too seriously dude.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 03.29.08 @ 01:53am


If I had a pound for every time I've seen someone bait-and-switch after they've made an argument that they clearly have no way of supporting, I'd be incredibly rich.

"nirvana is as influential as any of the bands you like."

I like The Fall, and they're both a 'cult' band and much, much more influential than Nirvana. Mark E. Smith is also a much greater song writer, but that's beside the point

Simply being the first to gain wide-spread popularity doesn't mean you'll be as influential as those who came before you and influenced you. In fact, you simply CAN'T be as influential as those who influenced you, because all your followers will be (at least) indirectly influenced by those who influenced you.

Posted by Liam on Saturday, 03.29.08 @ 14:53pm


Nirvana in the HOF what a joke. Yes they "influenced" music so much. The best thing that ever happens to an artist is death. They always become much bigger and thought of ten times bigger than they ever were. Yes Nirvana's music ushered the death of the hair bands (funny how most of them have been back for a while by POPULAR demand). And yes Nirvana wrote great music about how life sucks and everything dark. Nothing positive what so ever. And Mr. Cobains life sucked so bad and he couldn't handle his sucess so he blew his freaking brains out and then was annonted a spokesmen for a generation. In my opinion Winger has more street cred than Nirvana.

Posted by dano on Sunday, 03.30.08 @ 04:09am


Very nicely put, dano.

Posted by Metalsmith on Sunday, 03.30.08 @ 15:11pm


"Yes they "influenced" music so much."

So why would their induction be "a joke"?

Posted by Liam on Monday, 03.31.08 @ 01:58am


I would say it's a joke....because again once an artist has passed away their significance is ten times bigger then they were in life. I was in my late teens and early twentys when the grunge period came. It just really torks me that every countdown from the 90's for albums or songs and Nirvana is #1. I couldn't stand any of the music when it first came out and now I will actually listen to it. But I just don't believe that Nirvana was the greatest band ever and I don't believe that they deserve HOF merit. The made what four albums? Is that enough to warrnat the HOF? Because they wavered from the hair band idea that was popular at the time? When the cool thing to so was listen to a band that nobody else liked?

Posted by dano on Monday, 03.31.08 @ 04:38am


"It just really torks me that every countdown from the 90's for albums or songs and Nirvana is #1."

Not every, but I see what you mean.....

"I don't believe that they deserve HOF merit."

Why?

"The[y] made what[,] four albums? Is that enough to warrnat [sic] the HOF?"

Four albums is more than enough. Even one album is enough, so long as it meets the innovation and influence necessary.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 03.31.08 @ 04:45am


So they influenced dark angry my life sucks music?? And that means they should be in the HOF?
Wow moterfly smacked you on the Def Leppard site. I don't think he likes you! If it makes you feel better I like your (but not nessasarily your opinion on Nirvana ;)

Posted by dano on Monday, 03.31.08 @ 04:58am


If you could please start using English properly, I'd start talking with you. Until then, I guess I'll just fling insults at you.

Dork.

Posted by Liam on Monday, 03.31.08 @ 05:52am


Sorry that I don't sit and the computer 24-7 and have perfect spelling.It seems that it is okay that your big bad Nirvana came out and how many band tried to follow their lead is being innovative and influencial. But as you say and the DL site that Van Halen was there first (your opinion) but the dozens of hair bands after (I assume they were influenced by DL) meant nothing. Your arguement is weak. And for your rudness motefly is right your an idiot. Go back to your hate music! I'm so influenced now!!!!

Posted by dano on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 04:52am


"But as you say and the DL site that Van Halen was there first (your opinion)"-dano

We're not going to get anywhere with this discussion until you learn the difference between statements of opinion and statements of fact.

"but the dozens of hair bands after (I assume they were influenced by DL) meant nothing"-dano

Let's pick another hair band. How about Poison? Would you assume that 100% of the other hair bands who came after Poison were directly inspired by them? Why not? Oh, because Poison brought nothing new to the rock table that earlier bands hadn't, so no one needed to look to them for inspiration. Def Leppard's no better off. It would be like someone going to Wolfmother for inspiration on how to sound like Led Zeppelin: completely unnecessary.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:21am


...I actually stopped caring about yours and moterflys comments when you started making them, Dano. I'm just gonna ignore you until you make yet another factually incorrect comment, at which point I'll just oint you out as the idiot you don't think you are.

Thanks for the spelling-apology but if you can't be bothered typing properly when asked, I can't be bothered with you at all.

You do realise that I'm not actually a big Nirvana fan at all, don't you?

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:22am


Jeez, since when was the fact that 1978 was earlier than 1980 an "opinion", Dano? Are you THAT stupid?

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:28am


Willim

Again I do not agree with you that Van Halen was the first "hair" band. Yes I know their first album was what 1977? Def Leppard was 1980. To me they do not sound alike. So how a band sounds can not inspire someone? That sound can not make you go wow that is the music and style I like and want to play like that?

Posted by dano on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:30am


The opinion is Van Halen is not a "hair " band.

Posted by dano on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:35am


You're absolutely incredible, Dano, you know that? Your comments absolutely amaze me more every time they appear.

I'll let William do this....

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:37am


So since I have a different opinion than YOU I am wrong? Is that how this goes? You are the know all tell all rock god? What anyone else thinks is garbage except you and William? You two (Liam/William) must be in the Hall of Fame yourselves with such high opinions.

Posted by dano on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:41am


Wow.

Actually, you said that it was "our opinion" that Van Halen was there first. See what I mean?

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:44am


I believe that I said it was your opinion that Van Halen was the first "hair" band. I am disagreeing with that. If a band has to be catagorized I would say that Def Leppard was the first "hair" band. Again meaning that Van Halen was not a hair band (my opinion).

Posted by dano on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:47am


"I believe that I said it was your opinion that Van Halen was the first "hair" band." - dano

No, you didn't: "But as you say and the DL site that Van Halen was there first (your opinion)"

"If a band has to be catagorized I would say that Def Leppard was the first "hair" band."

Seriously, do you just choose to be ignorant? Van Halen is THE group that crossed heavy metal with New Wave, and were copied therefore.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 06:57am


Liam

Whatever you piece of sh*t music critic. Van Halen was a hard rock act...lord knows there were no hard rock acts before them. Oh no they were the first. Get off your freaking high horse. Opinion-opinion-opinion

Van Halen does not equal Def Leppard MY OPINION got it now f*uck *ff

Posted by dano on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 07:21am


"Van Halen was a hard rock act...lord knows there were no hard rock acts before them. Oh no they were the first."-dano

Straw man. I don't think you understand the point that's being made since you've chosen to argue against something else entirely. However, I think it's odd that you're implying it couldn't have been Halen since they were just another hard rock band like others before them, but somehow Def Leppard wasn't because they got slapped with the "hair metal" title. Pick an argument and stick with it.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 07:28am


William

Oaky nice and slow here. It's been said many a time that Def Leppard was the first "hair" band. I agree. THis is saying that I don't believe Van halen was a "hair" band. A wee bit harder or edgyer. Okay that is all I am saying!

Posted by dano on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 07:32am


To the idiots William and Liam

Why don't you two brainchilds look up Van Halen and Def Leppards history. Van Halen's first album came out in 1978. Def Leppard first pressed also came out in 1978. Look it up you dungweeds! So please quit with the Van Halen was first to come over. Joe Elliots dad gave him money for their first recording in 1978 a six song ecord. Eat it!

Posted by dano on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 22:29pm


Except whoops, Van Halen had already been around for 3 years before Def Leppard even formed. And I should study their history? Physician, heal thyself.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 03:20am


William

First record for both bands in the same year. Two different countries with thousands of miles aprt. Again Van Halen and Def Leppard not the same. Your theory, Def Leppard as tenagers were watching Van Halen in their club scene the Atlantic Ocean away. You are indeed a f0cking idiot.

Posted by dano on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 04:55am


Lets all just bow down to the great Liam and William. They are, as you know, in the HOF themselves. They both wish they were part of bands that they hate. So everyone just have a little chuckle each time one of them posts their great all knowing facts (er opinions)! No one question what they say because they are great amazing HOF musicians that no one has or ever will hear of. Please go on and listen to your dark hatefull grunge. Hopefully you won't follow Mr. Cobains action, since he is the man you both put up on a pedistal!!

Posted by dano on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 05:22am


"Your theory, Def Leppard as tenagers were watching Van Halen in their club scene the Atlantic Ocean away."-dano

More of that lovely straw man. I shouldn't even bother making arguments since you seem more than happy to make them for me. We're not talking about one of the two influencing the other: We're talking about who did what first. The influence part concerns other bands. Well I shouldn't say "we," I guess. I don't think we've managed to have the same discussion even once so far.

And why exactly are you so desperate to pretend I'm some big Nirvana fanboy? Anyone who felt like it could just scroll up the page and see that that isn't true.

Posted by William on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 05:59am


The Yankees Win - The Yankees Win
I will miss Yankee Stadium

Just thought I would try and lighten things up.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 06:38am


William

No you keep saying how Van Halen influenced everybody and Def Leppard infuenced nobody, My arguement is that they both influenced future bands. And it's funny you call anyone who doesn't agree with your spew a strawman, So Dameon how do you put up with the two schmuckboys of Liam and William? (our hof artists you know!!)

Posted by dano on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 11:39am


"No you keep saying how Van Halen influenced everybody and Def Leppard infuenced nobody,"

No, he doesn't. Way to put words into his mouth.

"And it's funny you call anyone who doesn't agree with your spew a strawman,"

No, a "strawman" is when you argue points that are different to the original topic. Something you're doing very regularly.

Posted by Liam on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 11:43am


No my point has been the same all along that Def Leppard was not influenced by Van Halen. How in the hell can they have influenced them an ocean apart. You are trying to say that Def Leppard was keeping up with Van Halen while they were in the club scene in LA. Could happen today but not 30 years ago. Two bands, two diffent continents, two different sounds. That all I'm saying.

Posted by dano on Wednesday, 04.2.08 @ 11:54am


Do you think if Nirvana didnt became famous,will we still discuss how Soundgarden or Alice in Chains or Pearl Jam or The Melvins were better than them? I once read in a article that the sale of Ten by Pearl Jam started to pick up when Nirvana's Nevermind album started to sell.

Posted by PRL18 on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 10:05am


Probably, but not nearly as frequently.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 04.4.08 @ 10:06am


musically speaking. nirvana did nothing. the fact that cobain is in the Rolling Stone top 100 guitar players of all time (and so high) is a friggin joke!

Posted by Blades on Saturday, 04.5.08 @ 13:18pm


Hey blades guess what Cobain does deserve to be on that list because nobody can play like him like nobody can play like SRV or Hendrix.He was unique in his skill and just cause he was simple doesnt mean he was a bad guitar player. And musically nirvana did do something. They inspired loads of alternative rock groups with nevermind which is a lyrical masterpiece.

Posted by bryan on Monday, 04.7.08 @ 18:12pm


"nobody can play like him"

I can do "Smells Like Teen Spirit" blindfolded. It isn't difficult.

"He was unique in his skill and just cause he was simple doesnt mean he was a bad guitar player."

There was absolutely jack "unique" about him, whether it be instrumentation, song-writing or whatever. No, simplicity doesn't automatically render you a bad player, but it sure as hell makes you case as a 'good' guitarist pretty difficult.

"And musically nirvana did do something. They inspired loads of alternative rock groups with nevermind which is a lyrical masterpiece."

Lyrical masterpiece?! What, are you seven years old?

Posted by Liam on Monday, 04.7.08 @ 18:19pm


Ok ill say this teen spirit maybe very very easy but have you listened to the rest of nirvanas catalog? how about sappy? You probably cant play that with your eyes closed. How about the sound of the come as you are solo? He definatly was unique with effects and feedback if you have seen any of nirvana concerts. And nevermind's lyrical content is very powerful. First of all it was great music and it still is,you cant tell me that the first time you heard teen spirit you didnt like it.Second, Kurt's lyrics related to a whole generation of teens and that continues today.

Seeing that you are so alternative i wouldnt think nevermind would be your album since it apparently isnt good anough for you. So listen to In Utero and then maybe your thoughts will change.

I absolutly hate people like you. Everyone has their opinions but why do you argue about nirvanas influence and legacy when its already there? And you really should get outside since half of the stufff you write is on a daily basis

Posted by bryan on Tuesday, 04.8.08 @ 13:01pm


"First of all it was great music and it still is,you cant tell me that the first time you heard teen spirit you didnt like it."

No, I didn't like it much at all when I first heard it. I probably like it more now. It's only your opinion that it's great music - I've never though of Cobain as anything but an okay-ish Pixies tribute band.

"Seeing that you are so alternative i wouldnt think nevermind would be your album since it apparently isnt good anough for you. So listen to In Utero and then maybe your thoughts will change."

Already have. It's even less coherent than Nevermind.

"I absolutly hate people like you. Everyone has their opinions but why do you argue about nirvanas influence and legacy when its already there?"

Nirvana don't have a "legacy." All they were doing was capitalizing on the already-growing popularity of '80s alternative music.

Maybe if you'd like to show me why they do have a legacy, rather than relying on unsubstantiated hearsay, I'd start taking you seriously.

"And you really should get outside since half of the stufff you write is on a daily basis"

Not that it has anything to do with this topic, but the reason I'm stuck indoors is because the weather is absolutely horrid over here, and I only go out in horrid weather when it's necessary.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.8.08 @ 13:12pm


EDIT: I've never though of Nirvana as anything but an okay-ish Pixies tribute band.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.8.08 @ 13:21pm


^How ironic.

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 04.8.08 @ 13:39pm


Bryan - you are fighting an arguement which will forever be debated. Nirvana's impact was probably bigger when discussing the cross-over into popular music than the sub-genre itself. The Grunge movement had been around a number of years before anyone heard of Nirvana. "Teen Spirit" and MTV were a perfect marriage and everyone went crazy. Cobain himself is quoted as saying that he just wanted to cut a record that sounded like the "Pixies". So there goes any discussion regarding innovation. As for influence, it is not like Nirvana hit the scene and then all the other bands formed. They were already around. Check out Mother Love Bone. Also, look at the release date of "Man in the Box" by Alice in Chains; you will see that it is a year before "Teen Spirit" was released. Did a few secondary bands hit the scene after Nirvana; yes. But that is like discussing the influence of GnR even though they basically took the sound of early Aerosmith. Because Nirvana was so huge, just like GnR, many people think that it all started with them, but it didn't. I am certainly not trying to be disrespectful to Nirvana, but it is what it is.

Now, with all that being said, I am sure that Nirvana will be inducted in their first year of eligibility. I am sure Wenner is going to try and capitalize on inducting Cobain. Everyone else has made money on his death, why not that piece of garbage (Wenner).

I have spent too much time here these last couple of days. I need to get more motivated at work.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 04.8.08 @ 14:02pm


youd see a flannel shirt you could get at the thrift store for $5, in a GAP catalog for $100.

Posted by joe on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 15:59pm


Will they get in? Yes, they will.

Should they get in? Quite frankly, I don't know.

Posted by K-Money on Saturday, 04.26.08 @ 19:28pm


They will definitely get inducted the first year of eligibility. There's isn't a single doubt in my mind about it.

Posted by aquadonia on Wednesday, 05.7.08 @ 03:12am


How can you have a rock n' roll hall of fame without Nirvana? They sang about real stuff in and did it in a brilliant way. Listen to "You Know You're Right" - no song like it.

Posted by Salamandar on Friday, 05.9.08 @ 11:46am


they were the last crack in the damn for alternative to get into mainstream. and IMO the best band ever and the best album ever: Nevermind.
smells like teen spirit is in the RARHOF list as a 'song that changed rock and roll' so OBVIOUSLY they will. but the real question is 'which band will induct them'?

Posted by JOE on Monday, 05.12.08 @ 17:12pm


i agree with some comment i saw up there nirvana should be in they did what no one else would they stopped us from listening to the **** on the radio that's on today and that's what we need now some bands like disturbed and korn and avenged sevenfold are starting to do that but,that's not really working

Posted by the pac on Sunday, 06.1.08 @ 17:04pm


Nirvana in the hall? Yea definatly. They should have their own wing.

Posted by austin on Monday, 06.16.08 @ 20:12pm


Oh they're making Nirvana their own wing in a few yars - didn't you hear? It's going to be called the "Like The Pixies, But Nowhere Near As Good" wing

Posted by Liam on Tuesday, 06.17.08 @ 09:53am


hmm..I honestly think Nirvana should no doubt be recognized for all that they have done.Its not about whether you liked there music or not.Its about what the have contributed to the world throughtout there music genius-ness.The band was very influential on some of todays great bands.Take Seether for instance.The first song Shawn Morgan ever learned to play on guitar was Polly by none other than Nirvana.They definatly deserve it.

Posted by elle on Tuesday, 06.17.08 @ 16:11pm


smells like rock n roll hall of fame induction? hell lets bring kurt home already and end this, having nirvana in the rnrhf will finally rest kurts soul.

Posted by jay presnell on Friday, 06.20.08 @ 22:39pm


An absolutely awesome band. They may be the last guaranteed first ballot induction when the time comes. The band shook things up in a major way. I hope in 2013 the musical world is being rattled in the same way that it was in the first half of the 90's.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.6.08 @ 05:48am


no, nirvana freakin sucks! their songs consist of them riding power chords, and kurt kobain wasnt a hero, he was a child in a grown mans body! he complained and the only reason why people show him respect is because he died, and thats the truth!

Posted by connor on Monday, 07.14.08 @ 23:15pm


No doubt Nirvana will be in as soon as they are eligible. Whatever you think about them, there is absolutely no doubt about their huge influence or the new generation and the new era in rock that they ushered in.

Posted by Mountaineer on Tuesday, 07.15.08 @ 12:31pm


Nirvana is the backbone of modern rock. if they don't get in, no one should be allowed in.

Posted by Wojo on Thursday, 07.24.08 @ 15:09pm


Backbone of modern rock? That's one hell of a sense of humour you've got there.

Posted by Liam on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 05:17am


He does have a wonderful sense of humour when he says they are the backbone of modern rock. It depends on what kind of modern rock you are listening to. Stop being one-dimensional please.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 14:30pm


YES!! I still don't get it why they're not in now? I mean, kurt's jagstang is there in a glass display case, though his band is not inducted? That's stupid.

Posted by adam on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 09:14am


adam...repeat after me..."Nirvana isn't ELIGIBLE until 2013" and please, don't tell me they should waive that rule for them!!!

oh, and that jagstang...I'll give you 100 bucks for it, tops. I really hate that particular Fender model!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.27.08 @ 09:23am


OVERRATED

Posted by YouTube on Monday, 07.28.08 @ 14:03pm


how can u say nirvana is great they had one good song (smells like teen spirit) kurt was nutz pearl jam should be put in before them b/c unlike nirvana eddie vedder hasnt shot himself

Posted by barker on Friday, 08.1.08 @ 21:25pm


them and the rolling stones r the most overrated rock bands of all time, the greatest will always be bruce springsteen then the beatles then pearl jam b/c all three ruled here generation in music

Posted by barker on Friday, 08.1.08 @ 21:28pm


Ok, This is about The bands contribution to the history of music, not if you like the band or not. Personally, Nirvana is my favorite band and I would love to see them get into the hall in 2013. Oh by the way barker, I love Pearl Jam to death, but Ten didnt become a phenomenon until after Nevermind did. Nirvana literaly changed the face of music, Pearl Jam was just along for the ride like most Alt bands were. I love the pixies, but they will ALWAYS be known as the band who influenced Kurt Cobain and the band with song at the end of Fight Club("Where is my Mind?" for those who dont know)whether you want it or not. Everyones opinions on the matter are irelevent, since no matter what, Nirvana will be in the hall enventually.

Peace

Posted by Kohl on Monday, 08.11.08 @ 00:28am


101% YES RHOF !!!!

Posted by Dennis on Monday, 08.11.08 @ 12:31pm


The whole essence of Nirvana and the song "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is captured beautifully by "Weird Al" Yankovic in the lyrics of his song "Smells Like Nirvana." "I'm screaming and I'm screaming, and I don't know what I'm singing. Yeah."

Posted by Stu on Friday, 08.15.08 @ 13:45pm


"Pearl Jam was just along for the ride..."

Wow. First off, "literally" is spelled "literally," not "literaly."

Pearl Jam is the only grunge band that endured and still produces good music, sells out concerts, etc.

That doesn't seem in keeping with a bunch of groupies "along for the ride." Both bands were great, both changed the face of music.

Posted by Jay on Monday, 08.18.08 @ 08:09am


"Pearl Jam is the only grunge band that endured"-Jay

Mudhoney and the Melvins have new releases out this year. Just FYI.

Posted by William on Monday, 08.18.08 @ 16:30pm


hey jay who cares if he left out an "l"in literally

Posted by oki on Wednesday, 08.20.08 @ 11:27am


well said Stu on Friday.

Although I think Nirvana is one of the most overrated bands, they'll probably get in seeing as the committee are a bunch of biased old shitfaces.

Posted by Shats on Thursday, 08.21.08 @ 16:09pm


Ok ive been hearing alot os shit about nirvana being overrated. Theyre not.

Teen Spirit is an overrated song even kurt admitted it. Honestly nirvana was an amazing alternative band as you may have read they might not have been the first great alternative rock band to break through in the 90s but they are the most prominant.

Posted by Bryan on Sunday, 08.31.08 @ 14:30pm


Question...just exactly what were they an "alternative" to???? Compared to a lot of what I've witnessed in music, they were an overblown garage band.

But that's just me...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 08.31.08 @ 19:38pm


Gitar -

"Compared to what I've witnessed in music, they were an overblown garage band."

Let me just say this:

The Beatles landed in N.Y. on Feb. 7, 1964. Amongst those who did not cover the touchdown at the airport was NBC (I believe?). A legendary story that Ihave heard states that while on-air (MIND YOU) anchor Chet Huntley noted there arrival (w/out a feed) and duly noted to the effect that "we didn't feel it was worth the trouble" (not sure what the exact wording was - I read this a long time ago, but it sticks w/you).

The score (as of 2/7/64): Huntley 1 - Fabs 0

Compared to what he had witnessed up to that point - Crosby, Sinatra, the Big Bands, heck, even Elvis (probably to a minor degree in his world), he probably thought the idea of devoting camera time to a screeching, hairy, off-kilter clown act was hardly a creative use of national broadcast time. And he was right. And wrong.

As you are right. And wrong. In regards to Nirvana.

Sometimes we just don't see it....

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 09.1.08 @ 05:52am


Cheesecrop...I hear ya, and I'm just voicing my opinion, nothing more. I realize everyone has their own perspective on music over the years, and yours and mine are usually pretty close. For me, Nirvana wasn't anything new or different, and I just shrugged my shoulders when I heard them and thought "much ado about nothing". As Claw stated, someone else's "fresh and new" is usually someone else's "been there, done that".

Claw...one thing about "Like A Virgin"...Madonna didn't write it!!! Two guys wrote it (Steinberg & Kelly). It would've had very little impact except for a performance on...MTV!!! The song itself was pretty much the band Chic' performing with her doing the vocals 9which wasn't surprising since Nile Rodgers produced the album). Cultural & socioligical events and misic usually feed off of each other. Madonna's music in itself had very little to say. Her impact was primarily in front of a camera, on a medium that a lot of other people were using to do the same thing. Her videos were mostly just an example of the age-old philosophy that "sex sells". From my point of view, stirring controversy to make a cultural or sociological statement is more than just stepping in front of a camera and seeing how obnoxious you can be. Her pattern has been to be more of a follower than a leader musically. When the face of popular music changes, that's usually when Madonna changes...not vice versa!

I'm surprised when she did her induction speech, she didn't say "I want to thank ME for this award". If she thanked everyone who did help her get ahead, the speech would've lasted all night!

Sorry I dealt with 2 issues here...they kinda ran into each other (at least in my beady little mind).

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 09.1.08 @ 08:06am


This comment has followed the one posted in the soundgarden ............. there has been a long debate on which a better band - AIC , soundgarden , nirvana or pearl jam...... people who have posted here i believe have heard soundgarden .............. leave your statement that nirvana or pearl jam's success brought bands like soundgarden into mainstream success....superunknowm is not a credit of any of the band and non of the bands above could ever match the level of music produced by soundgarden. They were just way above other bands.....nirvana's nevermind success is seen today more of a commercial thing than a musical talent ................ and dont get me wrong i m a nirvana fan too......but they were no match to soundgarden .............infact there were a very few bands both past or present that ever did match them ............... i always discover something new in their music which is so absent in the bands mentioned above ....... to like soundgarden you have to be an avid listner and please stop counting commercial success .............. or the world will be full of justin timberlake

Posted by K K on Thursday, 09.4.08 @ 10:59am


yes, nirvana will be in the hof, and they deserve it. alot of the musicians listed above are all great in their own way, all of the comments about nirvana only being popular because cobain died is bs and its not my opinion because you could say that about anyone. so basically if hendrix, morrison, and elvis would've kept living they would've just been good but not among the best ever, retarded. bottom line is great musicians will get noted in history whether you like it or not just like pearl jam, aic, and soundgarden were all great bands. I've been writing lyrics for awhile because its a hobby and its fun, but reading cobains it always blew my mind that someone could be that good at writing songs, which is why i have respect for him because nowdays most of these bands cant even write their on stuff. personally imo chopin will always be the best musician ever. on a side note cobain should not be regarded as a great guitar player but as one of the best songwriters to ever live.

Posted by argh on Tuesday, 09.9.08 @ 08:38am


oh and almost forgot to mention they did knock off the king of pop from the top of the charts, not too bad for as some ppl claim a crappy garage band, and btw cobain was indeed alive when that happened

Posted by argh on Tuesday, 09.9.08 @ 19:46pm


argh...you're not real convincing. Remember, everyone's point of view is different, be it age, demographics, etc... What is the overriding factor that would make them an undeniable shoo-in? Songwriters....there have been an abundance of great songwriters, Kurt Cobain wasn't one of the greatest who ever lived. Now, if he would've hung around and did it for a significant amount of time...maybe. Originality...they weren't the first...and a lot of people on this site don't even think they were the best of that movement. Influence...Mmmmm...maybe some.

They were part of a movement that changed the landscape of rock...but were they everyone's focal point? It doesn't appear that way.

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 09.9.08 @ 20:08pm


hmm, will they get in? yes, do i feel like an idiot for answering my own questions? yes it appears that way

Posted by argh on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 10:28am


i may not be convincing but they definitely have a hell of alot more credentials than alot of these bands that are put in. believe it or not kurt was the last great rock star. who gives a shit about originality, if that were the case they'd probably have a handful of bands in the hof. i mean i don't know, they did have five number one songs and one of them was almost 10 years after he died... so yea even though you say they were not the best of their time i don't hear too many if any big musicians out there that would call them terrible, in fact for most the bands these days nirvana was their influence, and if u dont believe me ill be happy to list a number of good bands that said so.

Posted by argh on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 10:48am


argh...First of all, if you don't have originality, then you have redundancy and boredom. Nirvana kind of reminds me of Deep Purple or similar bands when I was a teen. According to a lot of people they're very influential (especially Richie Blackmore), but they're not in the HOF...Why???

I will agree that the HOF has gotten to be a little "watered down" over the years, for what I see as obvious reasons. That's just my opinion, though...you can't let EVERYBODY in!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 11:03am


i agree with you and i think you make valid points, its just that when bands like rise against and inflames say they were influenced by them, and bands like rhcp, neil young and cold all wrote songs about him and even oasis noel gallagher said cobain was his generations john lennon its hard to say that he was just not original or relevant to at least some degree

Posted by argh on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 11:46am


I think Purple is not in the Hall because the committee is comprised of idiots. Besides that, the one thing that works against Purple is the number of members that actually made a significant contribution to the music over their 40 years. If the band is inducted, you are probably looking at 10 members from Purple who can claim induction.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 12:01pm


argh...I do acknowledge your point of view. You do bring up good points, which is appreciated and a lot easier to have a meaningful rock conversation with.

I'm just an old guitar player who's about the same age as Rock & Roll!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 12:03pm


If I had to guess and based on past performance, there is no way Nirvana does not get inducted in their first year or two of eligibilty.

Fact: They are not some innovator of a new sound. Cobain is quoted as saying that he was hoping they owuld sound like the Pixies.

Fact: They are not the beginning of "Grunge", nor are they the first of the Seattle bands to get radio play. Man in the Box was released about a year before Teen Spirit and is a hell of a lot better song.

Fact: Nirvana did not signal the demise of the Hair Bands. Bon Jovi, Warrant, Twisted Sister and Poison were the beginning of the end for the Hair Bands. They did it all themselves and then were pushed along by Guns and Roses.

Fact: Nirvana is not the most talented of the bunch: musically, Soundgarden blows them away.

Fact: Nirvana is the face of everything that they did not do first. And no one can dispute that. Add in the dopes pathetic suicide and you have the stuff of myth and legends.

Fact: Nirvana was a very good band. I would have been interested to see what they would have been doing now.

Fact: Rolling Stone loves Rock and Roll martyrs, but only if they sell. Cobain sells.

Nirvana is a lock!


Deep Purple > Nirvana

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 13:02pm


Trust me Gitarzan - Just like you, I am as old as dirt. My first electric guitar was a "Goya" with 6 or 8 half pick-ups (I forget), played out of a Marshall head and an "Acoustic" bottom with 6 ten inchers. It made an ugly noise; but it was a clean ugly. Don't ask me what the half pick-ups did because I never figured it out; but it looked good and had all these little guitar switches to set up the different string to pick-up action.

Always good chatting with you.

Do you remember if Peter Green and Bob Welch were honored when Fleetwood Mac was inducted?

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 13:10pm


Dameon...my first was a used Harmony Meteor hollow-body electric (with action so high I nearly had to stand on it!!) with this little "Encore" amp. I also received (this was my 12th birthday) a Mel Bay chord book and the album "Meet The Beatles", at which point my parents said "knock yourself out"...which I nearly did on several occasions!!

I thought I had died and gone to heaven!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 16:38pm


I didn't initially want to jump in here. I felt that someone should bring up the fact that they're not eligible till 2013, but as the post went on I saw a fact sheet printed, and I feel I should say something here.

Fact: While they were not the innovators of a new sound, they did create a distinctive version of that sound (kind of like how ELO spent there career creating advanced versions of Sgt. Pepper, or how Billy Squier gave Zep fans a fix in the early 80's).

Fact: They weren't the first ones played from Seattle. Cool w/that.

Fact: Nirvana was the end of hair bands - to a point. To suggest that Twisted Sister or Bon Jovi was the death of hair metal technically would mean that hair metal started around 81 (say, Motley's "Too Fast for Love") and ended in 1983-84 w/ "I Wanna Rock" and "Runaway". If that's the case this has to be the shortest lived genre ever, and therefore I want to know what all the complaining's about.

Fact: Nirvana is not the most musically talented of the bunch. I can swing either way on this one. Kurt never did anything for the guitar as a lead instrument, but in the construction of a song as a sum of different instrumental parts he was quite good.

Fact: Kurt was an idiot for taking himself out as he did. Cool w/that.

Fact: What would they be doing now? Nothing. Kurt would have been solo, maybe on occasion trading an idea w/ Grohl, but they would have been two separate entities.

Fact; Kurt sells today. No he doesn't. He is just like Presley/Lennon/Hendrix/Morrison,etc. - you need a pump primer to make them sell. They sell more in people's mind's than anywhere else. He's as disposable as the rest of them - if you want him (or them) to be.

Nirvana > Deep Purple

Because I merely wish not to dispose of him tonight (it would make this post irrelevant)


Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 18:57pm


Dameon...I couldn't swear to it, but I'm pretty sure the whole body of Fleetwood Mac's work was honored that night. I don't think Mick Fleetwood and John McVie would have it any other way.

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 19:34pm


Actually, Dameon....Bob Welch was NOT included in Fleetwood Mac's induction, which is weird because he was instrumental in getting them signed with Warner Bros. and getting better exposure in the states. He played with them for quite a while, and "Hypnotized" and "Sentimental Lady" have been AOR radio staples for years. Mac members even played on his first solo album. Hmmm....??? Just the most popular line-up, along with Green, Kirwan, and Spencer were included in the induction.

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 19:47pm


If that's the case this has to be the shortest lived genre ever, and therefore I want to know what all the complaining's about. (CC)

It is the worst of the genres because it was named after a joke. I truly believe if those bands that I mentioned hadn't appeared, the sound would of had more respectability. Look at the bands that are rarley mentioned: Tesla, LA Guns, Skid Row, Saigon Kick, Enuff z'nuff. These bands got crushed under the revolt against Hair Metal, when in fact they were pretty damn good.

I mention that Cobain sells because he was made a martyr by R.S. and his fanboys. He gave his life for his music while pushing away the fame. Cobain sells because of these issues.
So noble - Bullshit - he couldn't handle his depression, addiction and whore of a wife.

Fact: What would they be doing now? Nothing. Kurt would have been solo, maybe on occasion trading an idea w/ Grohl, but they would have been two separate entities. (CC)

I think they may have recorded a few more albums before calling it quits. I am a big fan of the Foo Fighters and I can see where Dave would have wanted to break free.

Deep Purple > Nirvana

Smoke on the Water is far more influential to what came after it than the influence Teen Spirit had on what followed it. Just for the record, even though I don't like the song, Smoke on the Water was the first song I learned on guitar followed by Ironman and You Really Got Me

Good chatting with you CC

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 09.10.08 @ 20:17pm


sorry but i like deep purple as much as the next guy. its just that nirvana had more number one hits than deep purple had actual good songs, so yea nirvana>deep purple. also considering alot of the musicians around that time all thought cobain was great i tend to take sides with their opinion. dave grohl is a great musician he always stated how much of an amazing music cobain was. the biggest reason i think they'll get in easily is because hes really the last rocker to basically have it all, he could sing,write,play,and he had the look, plus all of his songs had really good hooks and are fun to play on guitar

Posted by argh on Thursday, 09.11.08 @ 09:35am


I guess we will just have to disagree on this one.

You are correct with the issue regarding Nirvana charting more than Purple, but chart success never went to Purple. They were always an Album oriented band who were at their best on stage. And let's not forget that Deep Purple did not have MTV in the 60's and 70's. Purple was a band that had to be seen. They were doing things musically that were not all that common. The only problem I see with Purple was that there are so many different stages to them. I think that is why they are consistently overlooked. People forget that they were as much a Prog Rock band in the early days as anyone.

And one true fact that remains is that Smoke on the Water is to this day one of the most if not the most influential guitar song in the genre of Rock. And the sound of Nirvana's most successful and influential song was clearly and directly influenced by the Pixies.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 09.11.08 @ 10:16am


Dameon, you're arguments are one-sided. You don't think Smoke on the Water was influenced by anything? Deep Purple may not have had MTV, but they had radio like everyone else (you think MTV would have helped them?).

I would say that Nirvana are also album-oriented. They never wrote singles. Listen to In Utero. Sound like they were writing for radio/MTV airplay?

Smoke on the Water is probably more influential because it's been around longer. But I bet most kids learning the guitar today learn that Teen Spirit riff too. Time will tell.

Posted by mel on Thursday, 09.11.08 @ 10:32am


For me, Deep Purple>Nirvana

I find Nirvana to be one of the most overrated bands of all time

Posted by Keebord on Friday, 09.19.08 @ 17:46pm


Keebord:

Even though I like the band, I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate on why they are overrated. I promise not to even write anything back about whatever you say. Just please post something so that we can put a halt to the Coven posts!

I had to plead for someone to talk about Britney Spears a few days ago because of this! I think even you'll agree that Nirvana is worth at least a few more words than Britney. It also shows the level of desperation some of us feel about this overblown occult lunacy here!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 09.19.08 @ 17:57pm


deep purple = most overrated band ever, see i can do it too, whatever everyones overrated rarrrrr

Posted by argh on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 12:11pm


nirvana is the best enough said they will win they rock the world the rock eveything they are one of the best and most influencial bands in the world

Posted by patrick on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 19:57pm


the best of its generation

Posted by mrxyz on Monday, 09.22.08 @ 22:28pm


many people have been waiting for them to be honored including me, they stood out more than any band ive ever seen

Posted by pete on Sunday, 09.28.08 @ 22:21pm


For myself Nirvana getting into the RRHOF is akin to how i feel about Kiss getting inducted.
Love em or hate em (i'm indifferent) they influnced many,spearheaded on a large scale the whole grundge movement making them RRHOF worthy.
There's many other older veteran artists i'd personally love to see get inducted myself.
I vote yes none the less.

Posted by Gary James CA on Monday, 09.29.08 @ 09:32am


if i could pick three bands to put into the HOF right now they would be:
bon jovi (reason..."living on a prayer")
nirvana (reason...second album nevermind..."smells like teen spirit")
pearl jam(reason first album ten "even flow" "alive")

if theres one thing i would legislate before picking nominees is this if they have a "hits" album you have to list to it first then decide

Posted by baw "the lumberjack" on Monday, 09.29.08 @ 15:38pm


imo the thing that made bands like nirvana soundgarden pearl jam and aic great was the fact that these bands came around at about the same time and each one of them had a number of great songs, even if u dont like them youve still heard of songs like lithium, come as you are, teen spirit, breed, heart shaped box, all apologies, rape me, and in bloom. but any nirvana fan would know besides these they had alot more good songs. some current bands i can say the same thing for are tool, foo fighters, slipknot, weezer, rhcp, and metallica just to name a few. of course theirs more but the point is the number of solid songs all these bands had gives them a really good shot to get in.

Posted by argh on Tuesday, 09.30.08 @ 05:58am


i was listening to the "Bleach" album long before "nevermind" came out so as i watched them change the face of music for the better,and set the bar alot higher for the so-called bands out today,i think they should be inducted as soon as possable

Posted by Earl C on Tuesday, 09.30.08 @ 14:16pm


Mudhoney
Posted by shawn

I'll take Mudhoney over ALL the more known grunge acts,but Nirvana as we all know will get in sooner or later.
They have the numbers in all aspects,i.e. sales,popularity,postumous legend and on.

Daydreaming : "how cool would it be if Mudhoney" got in...

was listening to the "Bleach" album long before "nevermind" came out
Posted by Earl C

Likewise,a friend had made me a Sub Pop Super Comp. mix tape and Nirvana weren't well known yet.

Posted by Lynn on Tuesday, 09.30.08 @ 18:27pm


duvncpge nhpi vkaytm pyqkezt xptg ewmblop beoaupqf

Posted by xumzyno ngcbeuwk on Wednesday, 10.1.08 @ 11:46am


Nirvana sucks

Posted by Pussy Detector on Saturday, 10.4.08 @ 13:36pm


dive with me....dive with me.... NIRVANA rules

Posted by akatsuki on Saturday, 10.11.08 @ 00:27am


Theyll get in on the first ballot. Probably the most influential band to come around since the beatles. It's not a question of whether or not you like them, they contributed more than any band has to rock n roll in the past 40 years.

Posted by shane on Sunday, 10.26.08 @ 16:32pm


It's not a question of whether or not you like them, they contributed more than any band has to rock n roll in the past 40 years.

Posted by shane on Sunday, 10.26.08 @ 16:32pm


I think you're giving them entirely too much credit. Saying they're the most influential band in the last 40 years is definitely a stretch. They were a large part of a wholesale change in the popular music landscape at the time, and I do acknowledge them for that. As far as influence and innovation goes, I really don't see that much.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 10.26.08 @ 17:19pm


I think you're giving them entirely too much credit. Saying they're the most influential band in the last 40 years is definitely a stretch. They were a large part of a wholesale change in the popular music landscape at the time, and I do acknowledge them for that. As far as influence and innovation goes, I really don't see that much.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 10.26.08 @ 17:19pm
--------------------------------------------------
"As far as influence & innovation goes, I really don't see that much."

YET

"They were a large part of a wholesale change in the popular musical landscape at the time"

Haven't you answered your own question here? (lol).

I do agree though, they weren't the most influential band of the past 40 years. I would put them amongst a top 10 in this regard, but not at the top of the list.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 10.27.08 @ 05:11am


Cheesy...over the weekend, my girlfriend's daughter and some of her friends, ages 16 to 19, came to Denver for a "rave". While they were here I thought I'd ask them if they knew who Kurt Cobain and Nirvana were. Almost to a person, it was "Well, yes...sorta..." When I asked about the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, almost in unison their response was "DUH!!! Who doesn't!!!!" Now, I know that was fairly isolated, but the response was interesting...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 10.27.08 @ 18:00pm


A lot of people will compare Nirvana popularizing alternative rock right up with the Beatles and the British Invasion. I grew up on Nirvana but the British Invasion had the Beatles, Stones, Kinks, Yardbirds, Animals and the Who. For importance the British Invasion win on that one.

Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 10.27.08 @ 18:23pm


Kahutz...I realize it's also a matter of what you grew up with, too. Bands that those kids listen to have me a little stumped, but the point I was making is that there are a few legendary artists that everybody seems to remember. I'm not sure exactly what needs to happen for Nirvana to fall into that catagory, or a lot of other groups who were the "best new thing" to a given generation.

It's funny, back in the 60's the Yardbirds really weren't that big of a deal...at least in my neighborhood. But they had those three legendary guitarists, which I think is what keeps them alive more than anything.

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 10.27.08 @ 18:37pm


I am not surprised the Beatles and Led Zeppelin are popular with younger kids. I was just in Virgin Records Store and the Beatles, Led Zeppelin stuff was the most visible stuff at the store.

Posted by Kahutz on Monday, 10.27.08 @ 18:56pm


There's one more thing that needs to be mentioned here, but I'll say right now that it is a little tricky to dance around. That is the question of just how these kids felt talking to you about what they may consider "new" music. I can tell you countless instances growing up when I was w/friends, & if it came to music all we really talked about was modern stuff. A bunch of us would get together to go to the movies & we'd meet up at one person's house beforehand. If his or her parents were there, we'd make small talk, but whenever the subject floated to music, I'd hear friends who openly thought Metallica/Megadeth/ even GNR openly cop out to saying Zeppelin was better... in front of the parents. I was a teen in the late 80's-early 90's, and in many cases it was a way of being sociable/getting the parents out of the conversation. I still remember the Who's 89-90 tour, and hearing parents talk about how great it would be, but few of us even thought for a second these guys could even match an act like Anthrax for an instant. Back then you didn't mention it, partially to avoid one-sided conversations, but also because we knew REAL rock belonged to us! Didn't matter what mom & dad thought, cause we were in the drivers seat & we didn't need them.

This is the reason I like hearing from people younger than myself on this site. No parental pressure to nod when mom & dad break out the stories. Out here in the ether, the kids can be free to talk about the rock they like, new or old, w/out constraints.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 10.28.08 @ 14:58pm


Cheeseman...actually, one of them was a big Rockabilly (at least what he thought was Rockabilly) fan, so I dug kinda deep and let him listen to Johnny Burnette & the Rock & Roll Trio, Gene Vincent, etc..., and he flipped out...LOL!!!! It opened a whole new world to him, which was kinda cool. I also let them listen to "Toys In The Attic" and stuff like that. They didn't realize Aerosmith had that hard of an edge. They also like being introduced to old school electronic stuff. Of course they didn't realize how far back that music went.

It was really a good time because they were so receptive. Of course, I'm not Mom & Dad...just some old guy who knows lots of music...LOL!!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 10.28.08 @ 17:26pm


I take it then that all they knew was either later Aerosmith, or whatever was on the radio? That's sad. I had a friend whose mom was really into them, and during the whole "treading water" phase of their career, before the comeback (or non-comeback, if you prefer). We used to play Nintendo baseball at his place, and it always seemed the song "Draw The Line" came on right when the game launched it's inevitable rally, usually around the 6th or 7th inning. I've always heard the talk about "Dark Side of the Moon" and "The Wizard of OZ". Well, I'd like to go on record and say that "Draw the Line" and original Nintendo Baseball have the same connection, albeit fewer than most know it.

BTW - I promise to leave the Nintendo bit behind, but let me toss out one question to all assembled... in the old original game, you had a red team and a blue team, but they always played in the same park. The crowd was always cheering, but I never knew for who. Does anybody really know who had home-field advantage here?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 10.28.08 @ 18:52pm


When I was 11, I rode my bike to a CD store and got "Never Mind". A few weeks later my mom came into my room and saw the baby on the cover. She then gave it to charity because the cover was not "suitable" for my age. How would the homeless use a CD.

Posted by Mike on Tuesday, 11.11.08 @ 12:51pm


Let's hope no Nirvana

Posted by Matt on Saturday, 11.15.08 @ 20:29pm


"Smells Like Teen Spirit" defined a generation. Any song that does that deserves to be in the Hall. Plus, Kurt's tragic death affected "Generation X" just like John Lennon's death affected his generation.

Posted by vic on Sunday, 11.16.08 @ 13:11pm




"Smells Like Teen Spirit" defined a generation. Any song that does that deserves to be in the Hall. Plus, Kurt's tragic death affected "Generation X" just like John Lennon's death affected his generation.

Posted by vic on Sunday, 11.16.08 @ 13:11pm

If that was all they ever did it would of been enough!!!!

Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 11.16.08 @ 13:14pm


Nirvana were one of the most influential bands of the 20th Century and very rightly deserve to get in. If it wasnt for Nirvana bands like Puddle of Mudd, Nickelback, 3 Doors down and loads others may not be around or have the style they have. If Nirvana don't get in, someone in the HOF is on somethin

Posted by BigPaddyN on Monday, 11.17.08 @ 14:50pm


So according to you if it wasn't for Nirvana we wouldn't have Nickelback, 3 Doors Down, or Puddle of Mudd? Because I could care less about those bands

Posted by Mr. Octagon on Monday, 11.17.08 @ 15:47pm


nickelback, 3 doors down and puddle of mudd are not even in the same league as nirvana. kurt was a great all around musician, safe to say he carried nirvana. dont get me wrong i njoy foo fighters but grohls a better drummer than singer imo

Posted by argh on Friday, 11.21.08 @ 06:37am


"Had REM not existed, it is much less likely that 'Nevermind' would have found the audience that it did. Had Faith No More and Jane's Addiction not made alternative rock "cool" for metal fans, Nirvana would not have appealed to that audience either (especially considering that the video for "Smells Like Teen Spirit" received heavy rotation on "Headbanger's Ball", MTV's menial outlet for metal videos)."

I'm going to take exception to your source's claim here and, as someone with as much authority as anyone else (so-called "professionals" included), clarify this issue: First of all, Headbanger's Ball rarely played the Teen Spirit video until long AFTER the Nevermind LP was on fire and selling thousands of copies per day. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was only, back then, what MTV called a "Buzz Clip." THAT is what generated all the attention. And Buzz Clips were just that: videos put out by obscure, virtually unknown bands that just so happened to ROCK! That is to say, they offered something more artistically concrete than the average popular release. Secondly, that said, the halcyon Cobain was the perfect frontman for a trio (one didn't see many trios during the heyday of metal OR thrash) that FOR ONCE, didn't have any allegiance to a genre!!! Neither Cobain himself nor NIRVANA et al EVER CLAIMED TO BE THE INVENTORS, POPULARIZERS, ETC. of the so-called "grunge" genre. Grunge was a creation of the media; a label mandated by those who oversee and edit the work of music journalists. And when the media wants a label, the media gets one. To blame the band for this smacks of ignorance. And thirdly, just as a side note: Neither Metal, Thrash (whatever you want to "label" it) nor REM, Jane's, or Faith No More could ever have accomplished what NIRVANA accomplished, for one simple reason that has nothing to due with luck or timing. Cobain wrote hooky pop-punk songs that conveyed more with their overall sound than either his riffs, melodies or lyrics could on their own. In a way, he was very much like Warhol. He was a man with a scandalous lack of taste whose artistic sensibility was as sweet and tough, as pop and underground, and as innocent and chic as anything in our culture.

Posted by Rocco on Sunday, 12.14.08 @ 17:10pm


Rocco, your 1st para is a "quote" (from where I don't see?). Seems your actual comment/response is all that comes after.

As to "Teen Spirit" being a so-called buzz clip, well maybe it was that initially. But as we all know it became THE definitive clip of the MTV generation. It goes hand-in-glove w/the moonman planting the MTV flag (in my mind). What is your point? Are you trying to establish who was the greatest influence? In the final analysis, it was Nirvana that became the emblematic band.

You might be the right guy to post about grunge cause you have some knowledge and can play words like notes, but hard to figure what it all means. What difference does it even make who coined the term "grunge", that changes nada. You want to praise Cobaine? ... or do you wish to bury him (some statements are unflattering)? I value your objectivity, but pls stop playing cub journalist/coy poet. Yes or No on Nirvana, and why?

As long as I'm at it, I vote Yes, because I associate their songs with stinky hockey dressing rooms and a bunch of us guys listening to that music to get psyched up to go out and play.

Posted by Telarock on Monday, 12.15.08 @ 17:31pm


No talent whatsoever...terrible band

Posted by Harddaysnight on Monday, 12.15.08 @ 23:10pm


they suck. period.

Posted by 80's on Monday, 12.15.08 @ 23:12pm


greatest rock band i've ever heard

Posted by akeem on Tuesday, 12.16.08 @ 01:38am


Telarock,

I was responding to "William," who decided to quote another hack music journalist's opinion piece in a pathetic attempt to marginalize Nirvana's contribution to rock/popular music.

The truth is: I love Nirvana. Obviously, I'd like to see them in the hall of fame as soon as they're eligible. I think most of the Post-Gen-X crowd writing things here like, "they suck" and "worst band ever," etc. have a fundamental lack of perspective. They're just too young to remember the global electro-convulsive shock Nevermind sent through society. Cobain hasn't really been dead all that long which makes it somewhat difficult to recognize the massive amount of influence he, his band, and other Seattle-based bands (Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, etc., etc.) have had on the business side of the industry as well as the music scene they currently enjoy.

Posted by Rocco on Wednesday, 12.17.08 @ 09:52am


greatest rock band i've ever heard

Posted by akeem on Wednesday, 12.17.08 @ 18:10pm


The most overrated band in the universe. They blow.

Posted by Nirvanablows on Wednesday, 12.17.08 @ 18:21pm


why bitter???



Then you haven't heard much akeem

Nirvana sucks

Posted by Wobo on Wednesday, 12.17.08 @ 18:16pm

Posted by akeem on Wednesday, 12.17.08 @ 18:21pm


Not much of a Nirvana fan. I feel they're overrated

Posted by Firebrick on Thursday, 12.18.08 @ 18:33pm


My least favorite band together with pearl jam....they suck

Posted by CINDERELLA on Thursday, 12.18.08 @ 21:08pm


Nirvana may not have invented grunge but in 1991 they were head and shoulders above all their contemporaries in Seattle and everywhere else because they were (arguably) the best. The first time I heard "Lithium" on the radio I was half awake in bed and next thing I knew I was staggering around the house freezing to death looking for a pen and pad to write down the name of the band. I was already in my thirties and pretty jaded as far as any infatuation with new rock bands was concerned.
Obviously they still had flaws like Kurt’s limited playing ability – his solos were either just noise or a direct copy of the verse melody – and the arrangements were pretty standard and borrowed heavily the Pixies loud/soft thing. But Kurt’s innovation was with the music vastly more than the style. He injected songs with passion and yearning. He wrote beautiful melodies set against great chord changes that really transported me. Plus he was a singer that "meant" it. Listen to his vocal cords shredding at the end of “Territorial Pissings”.
As much as I still like Nirvana’s contemporaries, even Kurt’s own heroes the Melvins, they simply never grabbed hold of me like Nirvana did.

Posted by Polly on Friday, 12.19.08 @ 13:41pm


No! Worst band in the history of music. Even new wave bands like Muse and Coheed and Cambria are better

Posted by Mr.Crrowley on Friday, 12.19.08 @ 16:22pm


No no no. They only influenced shitty bands like themselves.

Posted by LittleFighter on Friday, 12.19.08 @ 16:27pm


Their far from being the worst band in history. IMO the thing that made it all work was Cobain's ability to figure out what went together to create a finished work. What few have ever been willing to give credit to is the fact that Cobain is w/out a doubt the best arranger to come down the line in at least the past 25 yrs., if not 30. Think about it. Everyone knows his guitar playing was not so hot, to put it charitably. Add that in with lyrics that were often depressing when they weren't confusing, and by all rights you've got a recipe for disaster.

So why is it that the songs stick in your head, even when there shouldn't be any coherent reason for them to? It's all in the finished product. The guitar playing sucked compared to others, but for the songs as they were designed, it's perfect. If what came down the line wasn't so hot, it's not that they can't play so much as they can't put it all together right, and have tossed out any technical skills they did have along the way.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 12.19.08 @ 17:12pm


I hate Nirvana and all this grunge crap. Metal all the way!

Posted by SLAYER666 on Friday, 12.19.08 @ 17:54pm


I checked and Nirvana did only have 3 albums:
1 - Bleach
2 - Nevermind
3 - In Utero

They did do an Unplugged, but even IF that were an album, its a complilation. To be honest, Nirvana does sadly get much rock martyr buzz. And the more I read about them, I realize they were not greatly innovative at all.

However, I liked them. And I think they do get in the Rock Hall based upon "the global electro-convulsive shock Nevermind sent through society" as Rocco put it. Hey, it did seem like a convulsive shock! Folks will remember them come 2013.

Posted by Telarock on Friday, 12.19.08 @ 18:40pm


NO WAY! I HATE NIRVANA!

Posted by Grungesucks on Saturday, 12.20.08 @ 03:11am


Nirvana and Foo Fighters - worst bands in the history of music!

Posted by Grohl'saFag on Sunday, 12.28.08 @ 08:31am


For all you guys saying that you hate Nirvana, you need to remember that it is not not a popularity contest, it is about how influential the band was. Their lyrics did have meaning in certain aspects. Not all songs have to be suicidal love songs. Nirvana's songs were about different things and real life situations.

Posted by Jawsa on Sunday, 12.28.08 @ 22:57pm


I get and understand why some people don't like nirvana. It could be they just don't like that type of music or prefer something else, but noone on here has a valid reason to say they suck. Every musician thats been asked about Cobain in general basically sometimes in other words or another all think he was brilliant. Unless its all a huge conspiracy and they really hate him, but its just what I've heard.

Posted by argh on Monday, 12.29.08 @ 11:52am


Nirvana SUCKS! GRUNGE SUCKS! they deserve to be inducted to the Shitty Music Hall of Fame.

Posted by FuckNirvanaFuckGrunge on Friday, 01.2.09 @ 14:09pm


Nirvana sucked if Kurt would'nt have killed himself they would have been washed up by 1998 at the latest.
Nirvana is a disgrace to rock.

Posted by Nirvana=Shit on Friday, 01.2.09 @ 15:26pm


Nirvana sucked if Kurt would'nt have killed himself they would have been washed up by 1998 at the latest.
Nirvana is a disgrace to rock.

Posted by Nirvana=Shit on Friday, 01.2.09 @ 15:26pm


They will but they really shouldn't.
Long story short,Nirvana sucked balls and grunge was way worse than hair metal,all grunge did was influence emo and popularize the seattle sound.Not really anything to be proud of.

Posted by Tony on Sunday, 01.4.09 @ 19:17pm


They will but they really shouldn't.
Long story short,Nirvana sucked balls and grunge was way worse than hair metal,all grunge did was influence emo and popularize the seattle sound.Not really anything to be proud of.


Posted by Tony on Sunday, 01.4.09 @ 19:17pm
--------------------------------------------------
I cannot & will not knock anyone for their personal opinions (i.e. Nirvana sucked balls). What I will say is it is obvious you did not have any meaningful contact w/the era in question. It's easy now to dismiss Seattle, especially when you hear the 3rd-raters who've emerged in this decade. Two things:

1. After all the years of metal, grunge was a breath of fresh air. I can still recall friends jumping off the metal bandwagon in 90 & 91, before Nirvana, and rushing to rap, looking for something else.

2. Not every Seattle act sounded the same. Put it this way - in 1979, how many people were sick of hearing the Knack do MY SHARONA? The Knack we're basically a pumped up British Invasion band riding the new wave trend. Did the kids in 79 look back 15yrs to 1964 & condemn the whole of British rock? That Seattle stuff has been gone for 15 years as well (at least those originals). They really have no bearing on what's up now. For that matter neither do the metal guys.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 01.5.09 @ 15:31pm


Nirvana, was not the greatest band of all time. That's going too far. But boy were they great. I personally don't think their studio work is that good, (Nevermind, In Utero). But "Unplugged in New York" is one of my favorite CD's, and IS one of the best CD's of the nineties. They were on the verge of becoming something far greater than they were. Listening to their performance of "The Man Who Sold the World" or "Plateau", Is just drop dead spectacular. They were amazing. And They do Deserve this, no matter what anyone says.

Posted by Calzone on Friday, 01.9.09 @ 15:42pm


NEVERMIND WASN'T JUST AN ALBUM...IT WAS A MOVEMENT...OF COURSE NIRVANA DESERVES TO BE IN THE ROCK & ROLL HALL OF FAME....IT'S A NO BRAINER TO ME AND 90% OF ALL ROCK FANS(GIVE OR TAKE A FEW)

Posted by RJ on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 19:22pm


"NEVERMIND WASN'T JUST AN ALBUM...IT WAS A MOVEMENT"

Yeah. A bowel movement.

Thus far I've managed to avoid indulging in my seething hatred for all things grunge (or, as I like to call it, "the unraveling of centuries of musical progress"). But this one was too good to pass up.

Posted by Randy on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 23:50pm


"NEVERMIND WASN'T JUST AN ALBUM...IT WAS A MOVEMENT"

Yeah. A bowel movement.

Thus far I've managed to avoid indulging in my seething hatred for all things grunge (or, as I like to call it, "the unraveling of centuries of musical progress"). But this one was too good to pass up.

Posted by Randy on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 23:50pm
--------------------------------------------------
Far from being the unraveling of anything, grunge saved rock universe from collapsing in under hip-hop. As I said earlier, I can still recall the move away from metal towards hip-hop in the late 80's & early 90's. I can understand how modern rock today could make anyone think that grunge was some ad nauseum movement that never quit, but from 91/92 to 96/97 ? (or whenever you wish a cutoff date) it was the best thing going.

That being said, & since no one is truly sacred here (Yes, I mean Presley, Dylan, Beatles, Zeppelin, Hendrix, GNR, the lot of them - THERE ARE NO SACRED COWS HERE!) let me give you more ammunition to fire off on Nirvana:

I once knew a guy who described grunge as not a musical movement, but rather the stuff he cleans out of his toilet bowl.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.15.09 @ 05:06am


So Cheesecrop, are you saying afterall Nirvana was a bowel movement? Regarding your last verse, can you make that into a limerick?

Posted by Worm on Thursday, 01.15.09 @ 11:02am


So Cheesecrop, are you saying afterall Nirvana was a bowel movement? Regarding your last verse, can you make that into a limerick?

Posted by Worm on Thursday, 01.15.09 @ 11:02am
--------------------------------------------------
Now that I look at what I wrote, I can safely say I tied myself in a pretty big pile of knots on that one. When I blow it I blow it big time. I don't just shoot myself in the foot, I take off the whole foot, the ankle, and at least part of the shin bone as well.

If you can whip something up in rhyme, go right ahead.

It's whuppin' boy time, & I'm the target!

Groucho to Chico (Horse Feathers): "Why don't you bore a hole in your head and let the sap run out"

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.15.09 @ 18:26pm


I won't argue with anyone here whether or not the band was talented. Did they or did they not revolutionize the musci scene...was there a scence, yada yada...We all have opinions and they can not be considered fact. It's all up for interpretation. So, go on and say they were a piece of shit band from a piece of shit land, etc... I liked them a lot and I know I wasn't the only one. I would love to see them inducted. I feel it will be well deserved :)

Oh, and for those who think Eddie Veder should induct them *cough cough* ah no. Until K died, the bands scoffed at each other. Once K passed...different story from Pearl Jam & Eddie. I like Eddie now. Hard Sun is cool. He was a twat in my book before.

Posted by This_Girl on Thursday, 01.15.09 @ 19:12pm


Anyone who has read my posts in the past should be aware that the last few with my moniker were not me.

Quasi-Gitarzan...why don't you go dream up your own moniker...???

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 01.19.09 @ 06:24am


Wow, your own troll! That means you've achieved celebrity status, Gitarzan. That's the online equivalent of a stalker.

Posted by The_Claw on Monday, 01.19.09 @ 07:04am


ROFL....GROOVY!!!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 01.19.09 @ 07:21am


for all the dumb comments about them being popular because cobain died, you should prolly just kill yourself then you would become just as popular i guess, or you could dry your tears and realize that if ANY young musician died today they still wouldnt be as popular as cobain. i liked layne staley and he died young, but wasnt as remembered because truth be told he wasnt as good. and again coming from musicians mouths that have actually made it cobain was the next generation john lennon.

Posted by argh on Monday, 01.19.09 @ 09:36am


Actually, musicians who are worth a damn will tell you that Cobain was a overhyped hack-which is exactly what he was.

Posted by Randy on Wednesday, 01.21.09 @ 09:45am


im actually curious which ones said it, so give me some names so i can confirm it.

Posted by argh on Thursday, 01.22.09 @ 08:57am


Nirvana will be surefire, first ballot, hall of famers. It seems to me like most people who claim to dislike Nirvana have never actually listened to their whole albums, and are just annoyed that they've been so hyped. They WERE overexposed, no doubt about it, but to just dismiss their music as garbage is a mistake. I like all their albums, and aside from the fact that their music rocked, they put on a great live show.

I imagine Courtney Love and Frances will go to the ceremony to accept on Kurt's behalf, assuming Courtney hasn't croaked by then. That's going to be very interesting seeing Dave and Krist on the stage with Courtney, after all the bad blood and lawsuits between them. It could be the most uncomfortable induction ever. And you never know what Courtney's going to do or say; she's a loose cannon. She and Dave might end up rolling around on the stage, duking it out, lol. I can't wait for 2014.

Posted by tard on Wednesday, 01.28.09 @ 18:10pm


101 % YES ya can't do better than them and Suicid on top Wow! now that is what call a showman a true rocker lol I wish he was still with the living the guy was hot !!

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 13:56pm


mrxyz, a short lesson in math. 100% means total and complete. But you keep saying 101% yes, or 110% yes. That's 100% annoying.

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 15:51pm


SMELLS LIKE TEEN SPRIT!!!!!

Posted by Mike on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 18:15pm


SMELLS LIKE TEEN SPRIT!!!!!

Posted by Mike on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 18:15pm




mrxyz, a short lesson in math. 100% means total and complete. But you keep saying 101% yes, or 110% yes. That's 100% annoying.

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 15:51pm


If I have a$1.00 then I get another $1.00 I have made 100% If I get $2.00 I have made 200%..

Do your math.. Until then
Keep Jammin.. and enjoy the Show!!!

PS NIRVANA ROCKS!! 200%

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 18:24pm


mrxyz, if I give you 100% of my box of donuts, how many donuts will I still have left to give? Can I ever give you 110% of my donuts?

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 18:42pm




mrxyz, if I give you 100% of my box of donuts, how many donuts will I still have left to give? Can I ever give you 110% of my donuts?

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 18:42pm

Yes 120% you can
If you had 10 donuts and got 11 donuts I now have 110%,,,, Or if you don't have the other donut you owe me 1 .. Heck I may want 2 donuts because I was anticipating 110%.. BTW I like JELLY DONUTS!!!!


you best stick liking 2U an Madonna this can get deep.. stay in the Shallow end...!!!

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 18:52pm


I don't know where you do your mathefication mrxyz but is clearly flawed.

Posted by yzlev on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:07pm


you are 110% ridiculous

Posted by wormboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:13pm




I don't know where you do your mathefication mrxyz but is clearly flawed.

Posted by yzlev on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:07pm


Yeah well I did not get it from you..and don't come looking for donuts from me ask the worm...lol
beware he can only give you what he has never more... that is where his road ends,, that is where mine begins ,, go beyond..

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:15pm


stay in the Shallow end...!!! - mrxyz

mrxyz, what are you doing hanging out on the Nirvana page anyway? Just curious. BTW I'm not a U2 lover.

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:15pm


mrxyz it sounds like you have a weight issue with all these donuts you want. have you seen a counselor? and what is this about the deep end have you gone off it with your donut habit?

Posted by beachboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:20pm



mrxyz, what are you doing hanging out on the Nirvana page anyway? Just curious. BTW I'm not a U2 lover.

Posted by Worm on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:15pm



I was going to ask you the same I like them..! 110% I guess you love Madonna can't blame you she helps the needy...

where are my donuts? make the fresh jelly..
I am waiting...

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:32pm


rxyz it sounds like you have a weight issue with all these donuts you want. have you seen a counselor? and what is this about the deep end have you gone off it with your donut habit?

Posted by beachboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:20pm


Dear Beach Boy...

I was going to give all of these donuts 110% for you and all of your kook/hodads friends you can listen to Dick Dale {YOUR KING}and watch the real surfers surf..Yum Yummy donuts in your tummy!!!!
See you out there??
Surfs UP RU>>?



Posted by mrxzy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:38pm


You are 110% not in reality. Dick Dale is an amazing artist who you only wish you could be. For me and my kook/hodad friends, at least I have some mrxyz....I doubt you even surf since you are a Madonna fan. Hang Ten BRO

Posted by beachboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:45pm




You are 110% not in reality. Dick Dale is an amazing artist who you only wish you could be. For me and my kook/hodad friends, at least I have some mrxyz....I doubt you even surf since you are a Madonna fan. Hang Ten BRO

Posted by beachboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:45pm


When I eat donuts I don't have friends,, I eat them alone .. I hate sharing.. Yeah Dick is amazing just ask him..
Surfs UP!!!

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:51pm


When you eat donuts you don't have friends? What the hell is that supposed to mean? You must mean you are only friends with the donuts, as they probably help you through your jealously over Dick Dale's success. See you at the beach...if you even know where one is...

Posted by beachboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:54pm


hen you eat donuts you don't have friends? What the hell is that supposed to mean? You must mean you are only friends with the donuts, as they probably help you through your jealously over Dick Dale's success. See you at the beach...if you even know where one is...

Posted by beachboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 19:54pm


Beach Boy
is this Joe the former drummer of the Beach Boys Wilson Pickett, Grass Roots and a sometimes Drummer for Jim Fuller{GODFATHER OF SURF GUITAR}

The Father of the electronic drums {syndrums..}.. ????? If so... Surfs UP!! if not why ask.?

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 20:04pm


YEAH! you got its...its joe-mama. haha mrxyz you are so close minded. you need to get in touch with your spiritual side and think outside your feeble world. and the godfather of surf is no one but Dick Dale. What planet are you on???

Posted by beachboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 20:08pm




YEAH! you got its...its joe-mama. haha mrxyz you are so close minded. you need to get in touch with your spiritual side and think outside your feeble world. and the godfather of surf is no one but Dick Dale. What planet are you on???

Posted by beachboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 20:08pm

LOL I almost believe it is.....Hey stop slummin and get back to your cave.. Heck everybody knows Beach Boys do not surf... Don't tell me if it was not for DICK you would of been in some jazz band or even worst ... I would check you orbit before worrying what planet I am on...

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 20:16pm


hey brother. i am not in any such jazz band or even "worst". i am aware of my orbit and know that what ever orbit you follow is not one from this world...peace brother bear. im off to the beach

Posted by beachboy on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 20:20pm


Beach Boy Enjoy the donuts you may need them as a life persevere...

Posted by mrxyz on Friday, 01.30.09 @ 20:24pm


THEY SUCKED!
90's was the worst era in music!
The best thing that came out of that dumb band was Dave Grohl...
Good Day!

Posted by manny on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 11:34am


"90's was the worst era in music!"

Nah, not if you look hard enough. Think I'd go with early 70s, personally.

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 12:25pm


Nah, not if you look hard enough. Think I'd go with early 70s, personally.

Bowie (Yeah, I know Space Oddity was released in '69', but he truly broke thrugh in the early 70's), Queen, Aerosmith, Lola versus Powerman and the Moneygoround (Being a big Kinks fan, I am sure you know that album - released in 1970), Led Zep, NY Dolls, the formidable years of T-Rex and a hundred of other bands. Wait, the Ramones played their first gig at CBGB's in August, 1974.

I'm thinking the first half of the 70's was pretty f'n good.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 14:20pm


I meant in terms of worst period for music; I don't think they're bad at all -- no period is, really -- but I think the least number of great albums came out then. If I were to defend it I'd be most inclined to use people like Can, Nick Drake, Led Zep...

Posted by Jack on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 15:28pm


You would use Nick Drake and Can over Queen and Bowie? That's what makes you special.

Where have you been anyway? How are the studies going? I see you still have that charming personality of yours. DO me a favor and go check out the board from Coven. I think you will like that.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 02.3.09 @ 16:30pm


Yeah I'd take Drake and Can over Queen and Bowie. Queen are a vile band, IMO, and Bowie's overrated.

Been busy, man, and yeah it's all fine around here. And yourself?

Posted by Jackhole on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 10:12am


Queen are a vile band, IMO, and Bowie's overrated. (jack)

Drake and Can - funny! That's why I enjoy chatting with you. Your opinions and tastes always put a smile on my face.

All is good here. It has been a brutal Winter in NYC and watching my money disappear on the market has done wonders for my health. Have you checked out the Coven board yet? What was your opinion on the bio-pic of Ian Curtis? (Control)

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 11:35am


What do you find wrong with Can and Drake? Can's first five is one of the strongest runs of five ever, and Drake's three are largely untouched within folk.

Good to hear. Ain't checked the Coven thread yet -- not enough time -- and I thought Control (why do I keep thinking it's called "Closer"?) was pretty decent and certainly better than the Dylan biopic.

Posted by Jack H. on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 12:11pm


It is not that I find anything wrong with either. Excellent artists for sure. The thing is a lot of my opinions are based on live performances. Half of what comes out on an album depends on the producer and recording engineer, so I really don't get a feel for a band until I see them live. And since I never saw either one perform, I never could completely surround myself with it. Nick did not realy like touring and to be honest, Krautrock was never my favorite thing. I don't recall Can playing in NYC at the time I was in the clubs.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 13:00pm


From what my astounding and musically gifted ears (LOL) tell me, Nirvana was one of a number of bands heavily influenced by Joy Division. At the time, JD was one of the most influential bands to come along in a while. If we want to talk about similar bands being inducted, Joy Division should head that list.

Has anyone ever listened to "All Apologies" and "She's Lost Control" back to back...you can definitely hear the influence...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 02.4.09 @ 18:12pm


I thought Nirvana was total crap then and I still do.They were no diffrent from those Hair Metal bands in the 80s imo.Nevermind was a terrible album in every aspect.Bad lyrics combined with horrible technical playing=terrible album.Kurt and Angus Young are the two most overrated guitarists of all time and Kurt is the most overrated songwriter.Most overrated band is either Ac/Dc or Nirvana.

Posted by Az on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 14:02pm


I cannot & will not knock anyone for their personal opinions (i.e. Nirvana sucked balls). What I will say is it is obvious you did not have any meaningful contact w/the era in question. It's easy now to dismiss Seattle, especially when you hear the 3rd-raters who've emerged in this decade. Two things:

1. After all the years of metal, grunge was a breath of fresh air. I can still recall friends jumping off the metal bandwagon in 90 & 91, before Nirvana, and rushing to rap, looking for something else.

2. Not every Seattle act sounded the same. Put it this way - in 1979, how many people were sick of hearing the Knack do MY SHARONA? The Knack we're basically a pumped up British Invasion band riding the new wave trend. Did the kids in 79 look back 15yrs to 1964 & condemn the whole of British rock? That Seattle stuff has been gone for 15 years as well (at least those originals). They really have no bearing on what's up now. For that matter neither do the metal guys.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 01.5.09 @ 15:31pm
I did have contact with the era in question and that era of popular music was worse than the 80s.Nirvana was nothing more than a one-hit wonder flash in the pan flavor of the moment band who acheived longeviety based on Kurt blowing his brains out.Nirvana was a creation of MTV just like Limp Bizkit,50 Cent,Motley Crue,and now Lil Wayne.

Posted by Tony on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 14:27pm


NIRVANA is NOT overrated
KURT COBAIN IS overrated
of course, anyone with some knowledge of Nirvana is aware that they never wanted to be some corporate superstar. but they are deserving just on their influence alone, let alone the masterminded power behind their tunes. very few bands have enough good songs to count on one hand... for Nirvana you need 25, 30 fingers on one hand if you wish to do so.

they are NOT the best band of all time by any means, or even the best of the 90's. but rather you love them, are neutral, or hate them, they are the BIGGEST band of the 90's, even with such a short career.

sadly, Kurt's death was turned into some kind of crazed monopoly, turning Nirvana into a franchise instead of a band. doesn't matter. they are one of, (not THE) most recent band to have true influence on rock and roll as a whole.

Bleach, Nevermind, Incesticide, In Utero, MTV in New York Unplugged... all have more good tracks than bad. Sure Nirvana was choppy and occasionally had some pointless ranting lyrics, but few bands can accomplish the aforementioned, and for that they deserve induction

Posted by Paul Kagebein on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 14:30pm


Both Nirvana and Kurt Cobain are overrated, severely so.

"they are one of, (not THE) most recent band to have true influence on rock and roll as a whole."

Not really.

Posted by Jack H. on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 14:39pm


They are overrated in the sense that WAY too many people consider them the best band ever. It's annoying and uneducated, and most of all, untrue.

And I wasn't counting bands that originated before or around Nirvana's time that have continued to influence through the 90's and 00's (such as The Offspring, Green Day, and Weezer did with punk, Tupac and The Notorious B.I.G. did with rap, and Sublime, RHCPS, Radiohead, Beck, Soundgarden, Oasis, and U2 did with various rock subgenres) All of those artists (except Sublime) originted before or during Nirvana's existence, so I guess they all fall into my generalization.

But you have just a few that are 'influencing' artists since them.

Posted by Paul Kagebein on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 14:49pm


"such as The Offspring, Green Day, and Weezer did with punk,"

None of those did anything with punk.

"But you have just a few that are 'influencing' artists since them."

Well few of the ones you listed are influential.

Really, a great number of bands from around and beyond Nirvana's time have been much more influential than they were.

Posted by Jack H. on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 15:04pm


The Offspring, Green Day, and Weezer didn't make big leaps for the genre by any means, no.
Nonetheless almost every punk band mentions at least one of them as an influence, even if it doesn't show up in their music.

And all the bands I named had influence on their a large fanbase anyway, which counts as influence too.

Sadly, everyone I named except for Radiohead and RHCPs are immensely overrated

I neglected to mention Nine Inch Nails.

Posted by Paul Kagebein on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 15:10pm


"Nonetheless almost every punk band mentions at least one of them as an influence, even if it doesn't show up in their music."

Hahahaha! OK, sure...

"Sadly, everyone I named except for Radiohead and RHCPs are immensely overrated"

I think you made a typo: "except for" should be "especially," no?

"I neglected to mention Nine Inch Nails."

And rightly so.

Posted by Jack H. on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 15:37pm


The troll again?

"And all the bands I named had influence on their a large fanbase anyway, which counts as influence too." - Paul

Nope. If that were true, it was just a big "who has the largest fanbase" contest. But a large fanbase says nothing about your historical importance. Influence on other musicians, that's the only thing that counts. No doubt Journey was a major influence on their fans, but that says nothing about their chances of getting in.

"Really, a great number of bands from around and beyond Nirvana's time have been much more influential than they were." - Jack

I'm curious. Convince me. If you think there are more than 13 bands from beyond, say, '92 that were more influential, I want to hear them. Who where they, and who did they influence?

Posted by The_Claw on Friday, 02.6.09 @ 04:32am


well claw....... yes nirvana were a great band but yes there were a large no. of bands that were more influential than nirvana ...........

to start the soundgarden ........does this ring a bell.... if not well there is no point in argument

Posted by kk on Friday, 02.6.09 @ 05:53am


I can't say I ever heard of The Soundgarden. I do know a Seattle rockband called Soundgarden, without the The, but you can't possible mean that band, since 1) I find it difficult calling them a band from beyond Nirvana's time, as they were contemporaries, and 2) Soundgarden was among the bands Paul mentioned. You probably noticed I quoted Jack saying "a great number of bands [...] have been more influential than they were." Soundgarden is among those "they".

I didn't ask for acts more influential than Nirvana. I asked for acts more influential than Nirvana, Soundgarden, Radiohead, U2, The Red Hot Chili Peppers, Beck, Green Day, Oasis, The Offspring, Weezer, Tupac, the Notorious B.I.G., and Nine Inch Nails, that emerged after Nirvana's big breakthrough.

Posted by The_Claw on Friday, 02.6.09 @ 06:42am


I did have contact with the era in question and that era of popular music was worse than the 80s.Nirvana was nothing more than a one-hit wonder flash in the pan flavor of the moment band who acheived longeviety based on Kurt blowing his brains out.Nirvana was a creation of MTV just like Limp Bizkit,50 Cent,Motley Crue,and now Lil Wayne.

Posted by Tony on Thursday, 02.5.09 @ 14:27pm
--------------------------------------------------
On one hand you say you had contact w/the era, & that it was worse than the 80's, yet when you condemn them as a flash in the pan, you site Motley Crue as an "MTV creation" as well. This begs to answer the question...

What 80's were you living in? Or is this just a go nowhere rant made up by someone who obviously misread my original posting?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 02.6.09 @ 06:55am


"I'm curious. Convince me. If you think there are more than 13 bands from beyond, say, '92 that were more influential, I want to hear them. Who where they, and who did they influence?"

Why '92? Nirvana only had one (incredibly sloppy) album from after that year. I actually said bands "from around and beyond Nirvana's time," so I think I'll stick to that. Here we go:

Nah, screw this. Anyone who thinks Weezer were influential desperately needs to get their facts straightened out. Actually:

Slint, Boredoms, Stone Roses, Fugazi, Talk Talk, Autechre, Aphex Twin, Public Enemy, A Tribe Called Quest, Wu-Tang Clan, Nick Cave.

That's 11, and I'm not going to justify them since I fear you lack familiarity with a good number of them.

Posted by Jack H on Friday, 02.6.09 @ 07:23am


You're such a snob! Don't put words on my mouth, I never said Weezer should be considered among the most influential, I just asked who you consider to be more influential. And don't be so condenscending to think I don't know any of the artists you listed. I'm quite familiar with practically all of them, and probably even could tell why you listed them. I consider Talk Talk, ATCQ and Nick Cave among my favourite acts, own all the Stone Roses albums (yeah, all two of them), have the utmost respect for Public Enemy and love Autechre.

And even if I didn't, what kind of lame answer is "I'm not going to justify them since I fear you lack familiarity with a good number of them"? If I lacked familiarity, wouldn't this be the chance to expand my knowledge? Okay, I admit, I'm not that familiar with Boredoms. But I'd love to know more about them. Enlighten me! You're not getting away with it that easily.

But still: you were the one claiming that there were more bands from beyond Nirvana's time that were more influential. I consider most of the artists you listed as contemporaries, some even were already quite well known way before Nirvana emerged. But I don't see many influential artists on your list "from beyond Nirvana's time", "beyond" being the keyword here.

Posted by The_Claw on Friday, 02.6.09 @ 08:00am


Jack/L - It is good to see that you still have that wonderful quality to make new friends.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 02.6.09 @ 08:57am


Kurt Cobain was a lousy guiarist,a horrible lyricist,and a vocalist with almost no range.
The band itself never created any music that made me think wow thats a great band.
They've obviously impacted music in a major way for better or for worse though.After weighing everything I have to say No.Just seems as though they're influence took rock in a negetive direction rather than a positive direction considering most if not all of the bands they've directly influenced seem to be awful i.e post-grunge.You also here a lot of emo bands saying that Nirvana is a big influence on them.
If the question is will they get in thats a yes.The Hall of Fame thinks doller signs whenever they imagine Nirvana getting in.In my opinion nirvana getting would be a buisness move.

Posted by Kevin Snow on Friday, 02.6.09 @ 11:58am


"You're such a snob!"

Ja...sorry.

"Don't put words on my mouth, I never said Weezer should be considered among the most influential, I just asked who you consider to be more influential."

Sorry, man, I just wasn't reading carefully and was just skimming the keywords. My bad.

"own all the Stone Roses albums (yeah, all two of them),"

...You mean you don't own the cut-rate remix album or any comps?

*spits in disgust*

"And even if I didn't, what kind of lame answer is "I'm not going to justify them since I fear you lack familiarity with a good number of them"?"

A laaaazy one.

"Okay, I admit, I'm not that familiar with Boredoms. But I'd love to know more about them. Enlighten me!"

They're the quintessential and most influential "Japanoise" band. Super ae abd Vision Creation Newsun are pretty much godlike albums, and I don't think I've ever heard a *bad* Boredoms album. Check em out, especially if you're into stuff like Can's weirder material.

"I consider most of the artists you listed as contemporaries, some even were already quite well known way before Nirvana emerged."

I think of it more as when the artists released their influential material, aswell as when that material started being influential. For instance, I'd say the Boredoms got more influential as the 90s progressed. And also, it gets pretty difficult to chart influence the closer to the present you come. And you consider Autechre, Aphex Twin Some names? How's about:

Boards of Canada, Pavement, Squarepusher, Mogwai, Super Furry Animals, Stereolab?

Posted by Jack H. on Saturday, 02.7.09 @ 03:54am


I'll bet you everything I own that once Nirvana is eligible they will be inducted. Not a doubt in my mind. That is one band that will be. But there are so many that aren't that should be.

Posted by A music fan. on Sunday, 02.8.09 @ 14:59pm


nirvana should get inducted but not that early i love nirvana if it wasn't for them f*****g hair metal bands would still exist if grunge was still around all that emo bulls*** like paramore and fall out boy wouldn't exist, so anybody who says nirvana is overrated and suck love emo bands and hair metal bands

Posted by steve on Sunday, 02.8.09 @ 19:03pm


When is everyone going to understand that Nirvana was just the icing on the cake when it ocmes to the death of Hair Metal. Those bands killed themselves with the crap they were putting out. GnR and Metallica were the ones who started digging the supposed graves for the Hair Metal bands. But here is the question - did Hair Metal in fact die?

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.9.09 @ 06:28am


But here is the question - did Hair Metal in fact die?

Posted by Dameon on Monday, 02.9.09 @ 06:28am
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, it did die off - in a manner of speaking. If what you mean by hair metal is 80's pop fashioned metal, then yes. The heavy over-produced sounds of those particular bands have not been a part of most mainstream rock for at least 16-18 years now. If you're just judging bands on their follicle power, then no. Still plenty of hairy folk creating massive metal. There just not incorporating in 80's styles, for the most part.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 02.10.09 @ 17:21pm


Except for one thing Cheese - A lot of those Hair Bands have been doing some major tours and selling a fair amount of tickets. Maybe we have a new genre - Nostalgia Hair Bands.

Posted by Dameon on Tuesday, 02.10.09 @ 20:56pm


Better yet - How about "Old Scary Hair Bands Gone Bald"

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 02.11.09 @ 04:45am


"Old Scary Hair Bands Gone Bald"

Haha that's great! What's a hair band when you take away the hair?

But I'll agree with Dameon that, as far as the death of hair/glam metal, Nirvana wasn't the only factor. Nirvana definitely was a huge one, though. Nirvana stepped in with a brand of rock to replace hair metal. Hair was definitely in decline, but without grunge to replace it, it would've kept going and just gotten worse and worse.

Posted by Mountaineer on Sunday, 02.15.09 @ 19:27pm


i mean they already have an exibit on grunge and its mostly nirvana

idk how they wont get it

Posted by abertucci on Sunday, 03.1.09 @ 15:14pm


They should get in for creating grunge,as well as for having, the best song of the 90's.

Posted by S.R on Wednesday, 03.11.09 @ 15:50pm


The didn't create grunge, they just brought it to the mainstream and kudos to them for that. And they certainly did not have the best song.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 03.11.09 @ 22:56pm


And they certainly did not have the best song.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 03.11.09 @ 22:56pm
--------------------------------------------------
What's your favorite, then? In fact, can you give me your top 5?


My own favorite "grunge" songs (no order):

Alice in Chains - Angry Chair
Screaming Trees - Alice Said
Dinosaur Jr. - Freak Scene / The Wagon (either)
Meat Puppets - Backwater
Pearl Jam - Corduroy

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 03.12.09 @ 05:43am


Lil' Wayne has stated Nirvana are one of his biggest influences....

If that's not pervasive influence then what is?

they're talked about in the same breath as the beatles by most modern bands... i don't think there's a question of it

Posted by Pierrot on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 19:40pm


Nirvana are certain first-ballot Hall of Famers. I certainly feel they are worthy based on their influence if nothing else. Teen Spirit alone makes them worthy simply for ending the reign of the 80's hair band wannabees. Everything they did after simply reinforces the revolutionary force they were on rock music.

Regardless of that, RS and their toadies will induct Nirvana because of the troubled life and times of Kurt Cobain. He fits their definition of a hero alienated by society because of his courage rather than because of his flaws. They will cast it as the alienation of a troubled genius rather than the downfall of a visionary but narcissistic man who was both brilliant and flawed. Brilliant we'll hear...flawed we won't.

Nirvana does deserve to be inducted because of their vision and courage. Sadly the reasons cited by the powers that be will reflect little if any of the truth.

Posted by John Hathaway on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 13:22pm


This is a no brainer. And this is more evidence for why the Stooges should be in too.

Posted by Rudy on Sunday, 04.5.09 @ 19:07pm


The most influential band in the past 25 years. They will get inducted first ballot for sure.

Posted by VIc on Saturday, 04.11.09 @ 10:56am


i hope Pat Smear would be inducted in the sideman category once nirvana will be inducted.

for sure, they will be inducted in the year they're eligible.

Posted by akeem on Friday, 04.24.09 @ 03:28am


Just for the record - to all the indie/alt champions out there. If you want to hear where a lot of it all comes from; check this tune out. Joy Division, REM, Nirvana and so many other leaders/innovators of some of the other genres of rock all had this in the back of their minds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bTlZDZOj-8&feature=related

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.24.09 @ 06:27am


Just for the record - to all the indie/alt champions out there. If you want to hear where a lot of it all comes from; check this tune out. Joy Division, REM, Nirvana and so many other leaders/innovators of some of the other genres of rock all had this in the back of their minds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bTlZDZOj-8&feature=related

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 04.24.09 @ 06:27am
--------------------------------------------------
They also had a lot of other songs in the back of their minds as well - and none of them had to do w/the Beatles at all.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 04.25.09 @ 10:03am


i think nirvana should be in the hall of fame. nirvana's album nevermind sold millions of copies.then with their second full length album in uetero wasnt as much of a sucess as nevermind but still shot #1 on the charts. their unplugged performance on MTV lacek some of their hits but became another sucession for nirvana. but they eventually went out with a bang with the death of kurt cobain.although it was a short time for the band, the spirit of nirvana lives on in the music

Posted by michael on Thursday, 06.4.09 @ 20:06pm


I know this is horrible to say but I think if Kurt Cobain didn't die, we wouldn't look at Nirvana the same way if he was alive. It's similar to how people view JFK for example. Couple years, nothing really major, didn't die in battle or anything but people still talk about it. People discuss how he died just like with Kurt's death/suicide...or was it?

Posted by Lester on Saturday, 06.20.09 @ 09:39am


Nirvana should not be in HOF. good band, but a mercy entry should not be ok.

Posted by Jim on Sunday, 06.21.09 @ 19:47pm


Nirvana should not be in HOF. good band, but a mercy entry should not be ok.

Posted by Jim on Sunday, 06.21.09 @ 19:47pm
--------------------------------------------------
far...


FAR...


Far from a mercy entry!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 06.22.09 @ 05:44am


The Replacements did it better. Let them in first.

Posted by Dave on Tuesday, 06.23.09 @ 10:59am


No question. Nirvana has to be the most influential artist that has yet to get into the hall of fame.

Posted by Justin on Tuesday, 06.30.09 @ 01:17am


Maybe you think they are overrated.
Maybe you think Kurt doesn't know how to play guitar.
Maybe you think their songs have nothing special

But, they are still the best for me and will be inducted in 2003.

RIP Kurt Cobain

Posted by Rio C. Law on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 09:14am


2003 is over. Don't you mean they will be eligible in 2013(2014 cceremony.).

Posted by Dude Man on Wednesday, 07.1.09 @ 09:34am


Wow, Nirvana had such overrated lyricists imo. Here's a few I pulled out of the Nirvana's work:

"I wish I could eat your cancer when you turn black"- Heart-Shaped Box

"I know I know A dirty word"- Smells like Teen Spirit

"Ive been sucking the walls of her anus"- Moist Vagina

"We could plant a house We could build a tree"- Breed

Posted by Dude Man on Tuesday, 07.21.09 @ 23:32pm


Yeah, cause we all know taking things out of context and intent is really the best way to analyze lyrics. You know Dylan wrote stuff like that too, I guess he sucks. What wisdom.

What do you think the pinnacle of pop writing is? I Want to Know What Love Is? Can't Get Enough of Your Love? Knocking at Your Back Door?

Posted by Elastic Man on Wednesday, 07.22.09 @ 00:08am


I never said Nirvana "sucks". I'm just one of the people that thinks they're a little overrated, but that's just my opinion. I'm not denying them thier place in rock history.

Posted by Dude Man on Wednesday, 07.22.09 @ 07:12am


"What do you think the pinnacle of pop writing is?"- Elastic Man

Anything from The Beatles.

Posted by Dude Man on Wednesday, 07.22.09 @ 07:44am


Dude Man, it's disingenuous to pull out a few random lines from Nirvana to say they were overrated lyricists, and then point to the Beatles as the pinnacle of pop songwriting? "I wanna hold your hand" is a great lyric? "For goodness sake,
I've got the hippy hippy shake."?

Citing a couple of random lines is proof of nothing.

Posted by Avedon on Wednesday, 07.22.09 @ 08:44am


I'll just post all the lyrics to Moist Vagina. Would that make you feel any better?

"She had a moist vagina
I particularly enjoy the circumference
Ive been sucking the walls of her anus

Marijuana

I prefered her to any other

Marijuana"

"Hippy Hippy shake" was written by Chan Romero not the Beatles. The Beatles could write these simple songs, yet they always had hooks. If you disagree with me that's fine, but I don't want to go on and on about this.

Posted by Dude Man on Wednesday, 07.22.09 @ 09:13am


"What do you think the pinnacle of pop writing is?"- Elastic Man

Anything from The Beatles.

Posted by Dude Man on Wednesday, 07.22.09 @ 07:44am
--------------------------------------------------
May I make a recomendation - please see the following:

Mr. Porter, Cole

and/or

Mr. Gershwin, George

If you wish to hear the pinnacle of pop music writing.

BTW - As mentioned before, anything can be taken out of context. Is there not a contradiction of sorts in saying ANY band that comes after the Beatles has terrible lyrics if you are going to say the Beatles opened the doorway for deeper lyrics, as many rock fans like to say?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 07.22.09 @ 19:40pm


One thing that needs to be emphasized here...every generation of rock music lovers has their first "really big thing"...so in essence no one here is really wrong. As I've stated before, when Nirvana first came along they just really didn't pull my chain...at all. I thought they were a "good band", but that was about it.

Now, did they make an impact on rock music...of course. Were they "earth shattering"...I guess it depends who you talk to. For a child of the "Woodstock Generation", probably not...

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 07.22.09 @ 21:26pm


"I'll just post all the lyrics to Moist Vagina. Would that make you feel any better?"

Do you really think this song was intended as serious? Here's a hint: It was never on an album, it was never a b-side. Cobain wrote extensively about his thoughts, problems, and people in his world and that's where his best work lies. You quoted Heart Shaped Box, which I think is some of his best writing, and took an important line out of context. That's wrong. Kurt Cobain was also fond of humor and senseless stuff; Moist Vagina is one of those songs. Using a silly and insignificant entry of an artist's work as representative of what they do is wrong.

Posted by Elastic Man on Thursday, 07.23.09 @ 04:22am


Since your mad about me taking lyrics out of context here's all the lyrics to Heart-Shaped Box:
________________________________________________

She eyes me like a pisces when I am weak
Ive been locked inside your heart-shaped box for weeks
Ive been drawn into your magnet tar pit trap
I wish I could eat your cancer when you turn back (alt: ... when you turn black)

Hey! wait!
Ive got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Hey! wait! (alt: hate! haight!)
Ive got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Hey! wait!
Ive got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Your advice

Meat-eating orchids forgive no one just yet
Cut myself on angels hair and babys breath
Broken hymen of your highness Im left black
Throw down your umbilical noose so I can climb right back

Hey! wait!
Ive got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Hey! wait!
Ive got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Hey! wait!
Ive got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Your advice

She eyes me like a pisces when I am weak
Ive been locked inside your heart-shaped box for weeks
Ive been drawn into your magnet tar pit trap
I wish I could eat your cancer when you turn back (alt: ... when you turn black)

Hey! wait!
Ive got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Hey! wait!
Ive got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice
Hey! wait!
Ive got a new complaint
Forever in debt to your priceless advice

Your advice (x3)
_________________________________________________

Happy now. If you think I'm being unfair with Kurtsuppose you can say that. I'm just tried of what critics say they have done. For the record they didn't kill hair metal, they were not the first alternative band to crossover, and they were not the first grunge band to crossover either. They are the most influencial grunge band, I'll give them that. I'm not saying "Nirvana sucks" and I'm not calling them a bad group.

Posted by Dude Man on Thursday, 07.23.09 @ 12:40pm


Fair enough.

"For the record they didn't kill hair metal, they were not the first alternative band to crossover, and they were not the first grunge band to crossover either."

Sure, hair metal ran its course but its pointless to deny they had nothing whatsoever to do with #1, no one has ever claimed they were #2, and #3 is debatable. Ten didn't blow up until 1992, Bad Motor Finger came out during the Teen Spirit sensation, everything before was still niche success on par with other alternative music like the Pixies. Technically, no "pure" grunge ever crossed over (save some of Bad Motor Finger.) Nirvana was competing on Madonna, Michael Jackson, and Guns n Roses level before any other Washington band. That's my definition of crossover success.

Anyway, serious critics just talk about their music, not that stuff.

Posted by Elastic Man on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 00:32am


1. Nirvana are often sited as the lone killers of hair metal(such as on RS's 500 greatest albums list they claim Nevermind, "blow poodle-hair metal off the map") which they had mush less to do with it than most people think(notice I didn't say nothing). So yes critics do talk about "that stuff".

2. Albeit no critics claim Nirvana were the first alt. band to crossover they are sometimes reconized, "as the band that brought the sound of the American underground to a mass audience" like in the Seven Ages of Rock documentary. Despite the fact that bands like R.E.M., The Church, Jane's Addiction, AIC, etc. had hits with that music before Nirvana as some people have already mentioned.

3. No, it isn't debatable "Man in the Box" hit before "Smells like Teen Spirit".

It might be crosssover in YOUR mind, but the bridge had already been made between the alt. bands and the mainstream crowds. Nirvana only lengthened the growing fan count.

Posted by Dude Man on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 13:15pm


2. Albeit no critics claim Nirvana were the first alt. band to crossover they are sometimes reconized, "as the band that brought the sound of the American underground to a mass audience" like in the Seven Ages of Rock documentary. Despite the fact that bands like R.E.M., The Church, Jane's Addiction, AIC, etc. had hits with that music before Nirvana as some people have already mentioned.

It might be crosssover in YOUR mind, but the bridge had already been made between the alt. bands and the mainstream crowds. Nirvana only lengthened the growing fan count.

Posted by Dude Man on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 13:15pm
--------------------------------------------------
This is where things get a little tricky, Dude, cause now you are wandering into the area of sales. You see, there were a lot of rock fans who clearly didn't listen to Jane's, REM, Alice, etc. before Nirvana hit. This is why it's so hard to account for what sales mean. In all honesty, how much did Jane's Addiction really sell before Nirvana? or for that matter Alice? REM is the obvious case of outright success before "Nevermind", but in terms of breaking down the walls to get bands like Radiohead noticed, REM weren't necessarily the most successful here. This is the pitfall everyone wanders into when they try to say someone other than Nirvana was responsible for what happened in the early-mid 90's.

Before you came to this site, Dude, there was a gentleman named Liam here. He'd drag me over the coals if he was here to read what I just wrote (but then again he did that to nearly everyone). You'd have had a fine discussionw/him on this! (lmao).

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 17:32pm


Early in Jane's Addiction's career they had trouble even making the Billboard top 100, but Ritual de lo Habitual broke them through, hit 19 on the charts and went gold, one year before Nirvana's crossover Nevermind. R.E.M. had top 10 albums as far back as 1987. AIC did struggle on the charts early in thier career, but they did get the important MTV exposure. Nirvana, IMO are a good case of being in the right place at the right time. Grunge and alternative music in general had already opened the flood gates and Nirvana had the perfect opportunity.

I wish I could have had a conversation with Liam as well. He must have been here for awhile seeing all the comments he had.

Posted by Dude Man on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 22:01pm


Dude...There are two rules to follow in conversations with Liam;
1) Liam is always right.
2) If Liam is ever wrong, refer to rule 1!

Posted by Gitarzan on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 22:21pm


"Dude...There are two rules to follow in conversations with Liam;
1) Liam is always right.
2) If Liam is ever wrong, refer to rule 1!"- Gitarzan

LOL

Posted by Dude Man on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 22:25pm


"1. Nirvana are often sited as the lone killers of hair metal(such as on RS's 500 greatest albums list they claim Nevermind, "blow poodle-hair metal off the map") which they had mush less to do with it than most people think(notice I didn't say nothing). So yes critics do talk about "that stuff"."

That's general music journalism, I'm talking criticism. You're avoiding that.

"2. Albeit no critics claim Nirvana were the first alt. band to crossover they are sometimes reconized, "as the band that brought the sound of the American underground to a mass audience" like in the Seven Ages of Rock documentary. Despite the fact that bands like R.E.M., The Church, Jane's Addiction, AIC, etc. had hits with that music before Nirvana as some people have already mentioned."

That's not music criticism.

"3. No, it isn't debatable "Man in the Box" hit before "Smells like Teen Spirit".

It might be crosssover in YOUR mind, but the bridge had already been made between the alt. bands and the mainstream crowds. Nirvana only lengthened the growing fan count."

Popularity and mainstream ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Just stating Man in the Box hit before Teen Spirit doesn't say anything. It's interesting to note that it wasn't nominated for a Grammy until 1992. What does that tell you about how the mainstream industry viewed the music? You're denying the obvious fact that the torrents of imitators only came about after the explosion initiated by Nirvana (all of that Candlebox, Collective Soul, Bush stuff hit in 1993.) Alice in Chains didn't reach the mainstream until Dirt and the Would? single (yes, having an MTV hit or Modern Rock Radio hit doesn't mean you're on top of the world; The Pixies did that...does anyone ever say they crossed over?)

You seem hung up on just diminishing Nirvana's importance, which isn't going to happen. Who give's a shit about that? You haven't said one thing about their music; how Cobain used the loud, quiet, loud dynamic in a thrilling new way, his performance style, how these things combine with his lyrics, etc., you've just made poor attempts to de-legitimize his writing by posting his lyrics out of context. Criticism is the former and that's what I'm interested in, not some arbitrary list that uses cliches to remind us what's good. If the rock hall wants to stick around its going to have to start focusing on the artistic side of popular music rather than petty influence (and I say so because Nirvana's acknowledged influence does them no justice. It's the artistic quality of their music that people care about.)

Posted by Elastic Man on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 23:39pm


Here's a little something interesting I just found on the allmusic blog...

"Kings of Leon has officially crossed over. The band’s current single, “Use Somebody,” recently peaked at number nine on the Adult Top 40 chart. Meanwhile, the song continues to fare well on Billboard’s rock chart, making it the perfect summertime anthem for headbangers and soccer moms alike."

Smells Like Teen Spirit made it beyond the modern rock charts to the mainstream rock and Hot 100 charts. This is what crossing over into the mainstream is.

Posted by Elastic Man on Saturday, 07.25.09 @ 00:00am


If the rock hall wants to stick around its going to have to start focusing on the artistic side of popular music rather than petty influence

Posted by Elastic Man on Friday, 07.24.09 @ 23:39pm
--------------------------------------------------
WHAT!!! And have Madonna's credentials questioned!

THE HELL YOU SAY!!!!!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Saturday, 07.25.09 @ 06:26am


First off I made the journalism references because you said critics don't talk about "that stuff". Which is wrong.

I said "They are the most influencial grunge band", so how am I denying thier influence? Really read next time.

"Cobain used the loud, quiet, loud dynamic in a thrilling new way"- Elastic Man

The Pixies did it first, so how was it "thrilling" and "new"? I thought a smart boy like yourself should have known that.

"If the rock hall wants to stick around its going to have to start focusing on the artistic side of popular music rather than petty influence (and I say so because Nirvana's acknowledged influence does them no justice. It's the artistic quality of their music that people care about.)"-Elastic Man

Weird how you call Nirvana "artistic" and how you say progressive bands wrote, "pointlessly and vaguely "complex" songs."

Posted by Dude Man on Saturday, 07.25.09 @ 16:24pm


The only thing that I see in Nirvana's favor might be "perpetuation of the artform", because they certainly didn't do anything to discredit rock music. As far as innovation goes, they really didn't do anything that someone else hasn't done OR take it to another level. As for the loud...quiet...loud dynamic, go listen to something like "It Ain't Me Babe" by the Turtles, and then tell me what Nirvana did was so much different...and that was about 30 years earlier.

Like I've stated before...to be inducted (at least in my opinion), an artist really needs to "set the music world on it's ear", take it to levels not seen before. Did Nirvana do that? Not from my point of view. Don't get me wrong, they were a good band, and Cobain wasn't a bad writer, but since when is that enough to get an artist into a "HALL OF FAME"??? There's been a lot of those over the years who haven't even been considered.

I guess the HoF nominating committee has been so flippent in their inductees lately that they might as well add a few more and dilute it's importance even further...

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.25.09 @ 19:06pm


"I said "They are the most influencial grunge band", so how am I denying thier influence? Really read next time."

I never said you didn't. I said you're diminishing their importance, different thing. Maybe you should learn to read.

"The Pixies did it first, so how was it "thrilling" and "new"? I thought a smart boy like yourself should have known that."

Maybe a smart guy like yourself should learn something about sentence composition. "Used the loud, quiet, loud dynamic in thrilling new ways" already suggests that it exists and Nirvana did something different with it. I'm mean really, did you miss that I mentioned the Pixies earlier (hey, you didn't seem interested in addressing any of my good supported points about crossing over.)

"Weird how you call Nirvana "artistic" and how you say progressive bands wrote, "pointlessly and vaguely "complex" songs.""

When the fans or prog musicians start explaining why the complexity of their piece has anything to do with the often claimed "philosophical content" in their lyrics, emotional content (which prog lacks), or aesthetic quality, it will be artistic. Just making something "complex" or cribbing from classical music or making concept albums doesn't mean the music they make is as emotionally rich as aBeethoven concerto or has the vision of an Orwell novel (vague talk of "philosophy" or "complexity" is the only thing the fans use to qualify ELPs music.) Until then, it's just the musical equivalent to Star Wars; "high concept" usually isn't considered artistic for a good reason.

(note: That isn't meant as a diss on Star Wars or escapism, just a comparison, so don't start down the haughty taughty road. I think that post you quoted was in reference to Emerson, Lake and Palmer. I don't like them but I do like other British progressive rock bands and I have mentioned that before. It would have been honest of you to mention that too but you don't seem to interested in things like that.)

Frankly, if you're just going to mischaracterize what I say and demean me I'm finished with this conversation.

Cheesecrop - "WHAT!!! And have Madonna's credentials questioned!

THE HELL YOU SAY!!!!!"

Of course, "artistic quality" could also mean mastery of the pop form...but we'll stop there, I'm not opening up that can of worms.

Posted by Elastic Man on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 02:54am


An expansion of why I feel negatively about some progressive rock:

Though it's not classic era prog, Queensryche's Operation: Mindcrime is often held up by fans as a masterpiece of progressive metal and they labor over things like what really happened to Sister Mary. In my experience with the metal/progressive metal community, they really think this storyline is deep because it lightly touches on Orwellian themes. I actually think Mindcrime is remarkably and unusually coherent for a concept album or rock opera, a format I am vocally against. (Rock operas are often incoherent messes and usually never add up to much more than "the protagonist has a spiritual awakening or epiphany...end." - see Tommy and Quadrophenia, two otherwise fantastic records.) All Operation: Mindcrime really is is a noirish take on 1984 themes without any real insight or point other than to tell a noirish story. That's fine, I think it does a fantastic job in that regard and it's one of the best metal/prog metal albums but that it's often held up as deep artistry is telling of how progressive rock fans and musicians see the music.

What I get from Emerson, Lake, and Palmer fans is that I should like them simply because they make "complex" music. Sure, maybe it's difficult to play the keys like Keith Emerson, and I can see that people could enjoy the rush of hearing people play like that, but there's much, much more to music than simply tying together intricate instrumental bits. Karn Evil 9 uses one theme from the movie 2001, man's battle with its creation, but just turns it into a cheesy sci-fi movie. My opinion is that it has no notion of good taste when it comes to handling its supposed philosophical lyrics and it is (usually, there are exceptions) downright deficient at communicating any human experience. To me it seems prog bands use the artifice of "concept" or allusions to great classical works to make them appear deeper than they really are.

In other words, this is an example of what "pretentious" means.

I admire people like Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, and Kurt Cobain because they write about personal experience or their recurring themes and build on them in ways which are true to the small, quiet, personal experiences everyone in the world has. Dylan's Blonde on Blonde is a great example; he details his issues and relationships with women. Dylan's confronting himself as much as his subjects and we can see some of ourselves in his songs because we all go through this. He's touching on something fundamentally universal about life. They use the pop song as their canvas and their own distinctive marks add greatly to what they are writing about (just one example for Cobain: his use of loud, quiet, loud signals catharsis which the Pixies did not use it for and that is distinctly Cobain.) I find this method more thoroughly and honestly artistic than a group like ELP ever could hope to be.

But that's just me.

Posted by Elastic Man on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 05:41am


Once again, the "loud, quiet, loud" dynamic has been around for decades (It Ain't Me Babe" by the Turtles (which is a Dylan cover), "Listen People" by Herman's Hermits, etc...) and if you take away the lyrics, they're all generally the same.

Now, what did Nirvana do that was so earth-shattering in Rock Music? His lyric writing didn't differ much from a lot of others before him (if you want to be realistic, most songs ARE about personal experience...Fleetwood Mac had the best selling album of all time at one time that was FULL of them), and their music wasn't particularly complex.

Did they "shake up the world", or were they and others from that era simply a "breath of fresh air" to some people...?

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 09:02am


You said, "You're denying the obvious fact that the torrents of imitators only came about after the explosion initiated by Nirvana (all of that Candlebox, Collective Soul, Bush stuff hit in 1993.)." which I wasn't because I said they were influencial.

Yes, I am trying to diminished thier importance because truth be told they didn't kill hair metal, didn't do anything new with loud, quiet, loud, and alt rock was breaking through pre-Nirvana.

Star Wars is one of the greatest film series ever and there is no denying the impact of those films. If you don't like the "geek rock" prog bands fine, then don't listen to thier music. If anything thier music had more emotional than Nirvana. Even Dave Grohl doesn't think "Smells like Teen Spirit" has a meaning

As far as Reed. Metal Music Machine is based on personal experience?

Posted by Dude Man on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 12:59pm


My final thoughts on Nirvana is that they were a good band. Not very innovative, but very influencial. A band that I think do deserve induction, but they have been overblown by critics and have been linked to several events that they were not nesseccarily responsible for.

Posted by Dude Man on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 14:52pm


Wow, I sure did shrew up the word necessarily didn't I...

Posted by Dude Man on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 15:23pm


Yep, you shrewed it up, alright!!! You need to study my proven proofreading techniques (which are not unlike my proven inventory techniques at work! My idea of a successful inventory count is simple....One (1) warehouse full of stuff...there, counted!!!!)

Tips are greatly appreciated...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 15:41pm


Now, what did Nirvana do that was so earth-shattering in Rock Music?

Did they "shake up the world", or were they and others from that era simply a "breath of fresh air" to some people...?

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 09:02am
--------------------------------------------------
First off, you're beginning to drift into the standard baby-boomer cop-out of bringing immaterial things into the music. If this were to continue, I'm sure you'd turn around and start tossing the political, spiritual, social, or economical crap that is often used to gain a false sense of leverage. I know you haven't fallen back on it... yet. Try not to, if you can.

Second, if you need to hear just what it was that happened in the 1990's that affected the decade, just turn on any station in your market that used to be "classic rock" but switched over to a more modern format in the past 10-15 yrs. Just listen to what's being played, ask yourself which artists used to be there, and just fill in the blanks as to who made them disappear.

It's funny, cause I have an old magazine from yrs. ago that talks about this very thing. The poor lady representing the radio stations switching over to this more modern format cannot bear the realization of what is happening. She attempts to describe this change-over as being a change to what she calls "classic rock that really rocks".

My definition: "Modern Rock" and what few older bands that really can still run w/the kids!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 17:58pm


So, what you're saying is that I'm "turning into my father"...not quite. I just happen to think there were bands during that time that were decidedly better, and I don't think my question is so off the mark.

As for "classic rock radio" in Denver...they play Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and STP...to name a few from that era. They very rarely play Nirvana. One is KQMT (The Mountain), and the other is KRFX (The Fox). If you're curious about this area's definition of "classic rock" you could stream them or look at their playlists.

I am always looking into advancements in rock music...I simply didn't hear anything I hadn't heard before in Nirvana. They were a good band, but nothing "special". If you're saying that I've experienced a lot of music to compare it to, then I am guilty of that. There's a lot of difference in hearing music from, say the 60's...and having actually lived through it.

As an example, I asked my significant other's 17 year old daughter (a HUGE Tool fan) if she's ever heard of Curt Cobain...her response was "uhhhh, maybe!!!" I then asked her if she'd heard of the Beatles...she said "DUHHHH...who hasn't?" Isolated case...or the general perception of Nirvana nowadays?

It's almost as interesting to see who's standing the test of time as it is to see who the "next best thing" is...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 18:22pm


Kurt Cobain was not Nirvana. You can't say that that's the general perception of Nirvana because your daughter didn't know who Curt Cobain is. That's like saying "Do you know who John Bonham is?" and, if the answer is no, figuring that no one knows who Led Zeppelin is. Everyone's heard of Nirvana, they are The Beatles of the nineties in that respect. They are not nearly as influential or flat out brilliant as The Beatles, but in popularity, they are The Beatles of the nineties. They deserve a Rock Hall induction, simply because after them, nothing in music was quite the same. Alternative became mainstream, and Indie had to rise to take Alternative's place. Doing something that sea-shifting locks you a place in the hall. Even if, a few months later, Pearl Jam would've done the same thing. (and they'll get in the hall to).

Posted by Calzone on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 18:32pm


Your comments on the "classic radio" illustrate just what I am getting at. In terms of influence, they are right at the top.

You might want to argue about innovation, but even here we've a case far more interesting than it seems. I've heard everyone argue that the Pixies were the ones who should get credit for what Nirvana did. The main problem is that if the Pixies are in fact first, how come they DIDN'T blow everything out of proportion like Nirvana did? You could say it had to do w/the commercial end of things, I imagine. Even then it still points to something that was in these songs that people connected to, that was obviously not there in the Pixies work. Beyond this, I can go no further. I have no clue myself as to what it was, but there was obviously something.

BTW - I reccomend trying the question again, only this time, rephrase it. Ask if they know who Nirvana is, then ask if they know who either Paul Mc Cartney or Ringo Starr is, w/out mentioning the Beatles by name. See if you get the same effect - it could be solo vs group identification.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 18:34pm


Cheesers...I know we've had this conversation before, and I don't necessarily disagree with you because a lot of things come into play in issues like this...age, demographics, etc... Who knows, by the sound of it, Nirvana had a bigger impact on you than on me, and nothing we say to each other about it is going to change our respective outlooks.

As Jerry Lee Lewis once said, "Rock & Roll is Rock & Roll, and if there's something better out there I'd like to hear it". Nothing beats rock, and I'm always listening for the "next best thing"...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 18:37pm


She's a weird kid (LOL)...she can name all of the Beatles, Queen, Led Zeppelin, etc... There's an awful lot of kids listening to those stations I mentioned.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 18:45pm


They did have something of an effect, though not as great as it may make out.

It was more for what came through the door after them during that time.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 18:45pm


"First off, you're beginning to drift into the standard baby-boomer cop-out of bringing immaterial things into the music. If this were to continue, I'm sure you'd turn around and start tossing the political, spiritual, social, or economical crap that is often used to gain a false sense of leverage."

-Cheesecrop

Isn't music to a certain degree based on those factors you mentioned? Politics, spirituality, social factors are what contribute to an artist's outlook and therefore his or her output.

"Second, if you need to hear just what it was that happened in the 1990's that affected the decade, just turn on any station in your market that used to be "classic rock" but switched over to a more modern format in the past 10-15 yrs. Just listen to what's being played, ask yourself which artists used to be there, and just fill in the blanks as to who made them disappear."

-Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 17:58pm

I wouldn't credit Nirvana or any 1 band in particular for those changes.
What drives it is $$$, not quality of the music. The 18-34 year old demographic is what advertisers on those radio stations want to sell to. When Billy Joel and ELP and Steely Dan disappeared from my local rock station WMMR in Philadelphia it was because of this reason. When people hit a certain age-usually in their late 30s they stop listening to the radio as much as they used to because they have more important issues to attend to like family matters, and business projects. They just don't have as much free time. They have plenty of money especially the Billy Joel, Steely Dan types, but just aren't listening......

Posted by SG on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 20:25pm


Calzone...hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's a lot of times when a band identifies with one guy, and if Nirvana had a face, it would be Kurt Cobain's...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 20:51pm


Another thing worth mentioning is that in the Denver area, the only station that plays 50's rock at all is a weak signaled little AM station. With all the digital remastering of these songs, there's obviously no audience for this music. The FM station that used to play it switched to a "60's, 70's, & 80's" format...basically "Classic Top 40".

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 21:25pm


I kind of feel bad about the "smart boy" comment. I apologize E.M.

Posted by Dude Man on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 22:57pm


Dude Man, it's all good, I'm just more passionate about this band than many others. ;)

Gitarzan - "Now, what did Nirvana do that was so earth-shattering in Rock Music? His lyric writing didn't differ much from a lot of others before him (if you want to be realistic, most songs ARE about personal experience...Fleetwood Mac had the best selling album of all time at one time that was FULL of them), and their music wasn't particularly complex."

I'm not saying simply writing about personal experience is the measure of the band's value; it's how they do it. You would agree that John Lennon and Paul McCartney had distinct ways of writing wouldn't you? They favored different things to the point that you can identify who wrote what based on what you are hearing. Phil Spector and "The Wall of Sound" is a great example of this. This is the same with people like Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, and Kurt Cobain. They made a kind of personal music that was distinctly their own via not just how they write their lyrics and what topics or themes they favor but how they play their instruments, sing, how they use production techniques or arrange their music. Just like how Van Gogh had his own personal technique as a painter or how Orson Welles' work is termed "Wellesian" as a writer/director.

In a sense, I'm borrowing how film theorists and critics view their art form and respective history and am trying to apply it here. It's not simply about who invented the tools...it's who is using them best...using them in a way to create their own personal art.

I'm aware that this is getting into the realm of a kind of elitism (criticism demands it) but it won't change reality; people will always listen to what they want when they want. While I think there's a fair tradeoff with respects to what the people want, I also think an organization like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, developed with a particular purpose, should be inherently critical. I guess I'm urging them to adopt more critical standards. There's going to be a point where the type of "widespread influence" criteria the hall trades in doesn't matter/work anymore...I think we're living in that generation right now.

Posted by Elastic Man on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 00:20am


Isn't music to a certain degree based on those factors you mentioned? Politics, spirituality, social factors are what contribute to an artist's outlook and therefore his or her output.

I wouldn't credit Nirvana or any 1 band in particular for those changes.
What drives it is $$$, not quality of the music. The 18-34 year old demographic is what advertisers on those radio stations want to sell to. When Billy Joel and ELP and Steely Dan disappeared from my local rock station WMMR in Philadelphia it was because of this reason. When people hit a certain age-usually in their late 30s they stop listening to the radio as much as they used to because they have more important issues to attend to like family matters, and business projects. They just don't have as much free time.

Posted by SG on Sunday, 07.26.09 @ 20:25pm
--------------------------------------------------
To the first - My point is that there are gigantic swaths of boomers who will argue in favor of "classic" rock because of the era it was in. You know, the music had "meaning" in the 60's, and all that stuff. Well, all music has meaning to the people who were listening to it, at the time they were listening. There's no exclusivity to emotions here. Simply put, if the music needs some kind of extraneous crutch to fall back on, then was it really as good a music as you thought it was?

Two, I definitely agree w/you that $$$ drives markets. Consider though what you say in relation to WMMR. Now MMR began in 1968. My knowledge of them has always been as a devoted baby boomer rock station (I've heard the ads for the original Woodstock on there). If you were looking at the idea of 18-34 demographics, the station at the start should have been reaching out to those born between 1934-1950. I seem to recall a catchphrase from the era - "don't trust anyone over thirty" - which would seem to challenge the notion of demographics here. If the boom started in the mid-late 40's, this would seem to go against that audience, unless MMR had a secret Elvis/Little Richard phase that I'm unaware of at the beginning of their existence.

Continued Next ----->

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 06:05am


SG - Continued --->

We share the same market, as you must realize by now. All I remember is a "classic' station that, when the jig was up in the mid-90's, tried to keep it's audience in a rather underhanded fashion. I still remember when WYSP made the switch in late 95. A year later, WMMR had an ad on TV which to this day I still recall. It had an actor dressed as a hippie, a disco guy, a new waver, and a grunge kid, while a voice over said "we've been with you all the way". When you tuned in, it was the same old "classic" rock. After a year of this, & w/YSP beating them in the ratings, they switched over.

I have to say, thank you for allowing me that flashback moment. For a brief moment I was back in college there. I have to ask one other thing...

Do you think the Phillies should trade the farm for Halladay??? I mean, six to one, half a dozen to the other here...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 06:14am


Yo Cheesecrop, I just don't see how the music can be separated from the time it was created in. Music/art is a reflection of the environment it is created in to a large extent. Therefore that environment can't be "extraneous" TO the music. If the times are turbulent like the late 60s then the music reflects that. Compare a song from that era like "For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield to a song from the early 60s like "Big Girls Don't Cry" by the Four Seasons. I won't go as far as these classic rock hippie folks and say that 1 song is better than the other, but the changing times clearly changed the music.

MMR I think always had a more elastic format where they didn't lock themselves in as much as YSP did with "Classic-rock." You would hear plenty of new stuff as well as old where WSP could only play stuff from before 1983 & it just became stale bread (like WMGK is today!) In modern rock radio you try to take your original audience from inception and kinda hang on to it as long as possible until the 35 + year old threshold is breached -then you slowly become more current which is what MMR has done to the point that now they don't play anything from the 60s except Hendrix, The Stones and the Doors.

Phinally, my phellow Philadelphian I declare that the Phillies don't need Mr. Halloway, just keep swingin' the bats the way they did over the weekend, and when Brett Meyers comes back that should take care of the pitching dept.

Posted by SG on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 10:44am


Give Me A Leonard Cohen Afterworld So I Can Sigh Eternally.

Posted by QAZ on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 12:01pm


"There's going to be a point where the type of "widespread influence" criteria the hall trades in doesn't matter/work anymore"- Elastic Man

Newsflash, the only thing Nirvana have is influence. They have zero innovation and they didn't break any new bourdaries. If influence is taken out of the criteria than Nirvana don't deserve induction.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 13:06pm


I just don't see how the music can be separated from the time it was created in. Music/art is a reflection of the environment it is created in to a large extent. Therefore that environment can't be "extraneous" TO the music. If the times are turbulent like the late 60s then the music reflects that. Compare a song from that era like "For What It's Worth" by Buffalo Springfield to a song from the early 60s like "Big Girls Don't Cry" by the Four Seasons. I won't go as far as these classic rock hippie folks and say that 1 song is better than the other, but the changing times clearly changed the music.

Posted by SG on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 10:44am
--------------------------------------------------
I guess so. I just know that if a song doesn't rock in any big way compared to what comes later down the line, there should be no social fall back position brought in to defend it (I've heard people do this before). This includes tunes I used to like as well in the 80's & 90's. I know I can't stand it when people my own age turn around and knock modern bands like Fall Out Boy or Nickelback by just tossing out names like Nirvana, Guns N' Roses, Metallica, Pearl Jam, etc. Irregardless of my own personal opinions of some of the modern acts, these bands mean something to someone out there in high school or college. I know I could never bust anyone's bubble like that, and they have every right to tear me down if I should try it.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 17:53pm


"Newsflash, the only thing Nirvana have is influence. They have zero innovation and they didn't break any new bourdaries. If influence is taken out of the criteria than Nirvana don't deserve induction."

Sure...okay...

You know, every other art form is beyond this, that's why no one takes popular music seriously. There's plenty of good music and occasionally really great music coming out today. Are you saying that because they aren't creating something obviously, unquestionably brand new (like The Velvet Underground's Heroin or European Son in the 60s) that it's not worth our esteem? The music industry doesn't work that way anymore.

After years of making formulaic movies like Good Will Hunting and Finding Forester as well as the infamous shot by shot Psycho remake, Gus Van Sant did a 180 and started creating more difficult films like the ones he was known for in the late 80s and early 90s. These four newer films (Gerry, Elephant, Last Days [as you may know, partly based on Cobain], and Paranoid Park) are quite different from his older films. He didn't "invent" any of the techniques used in these films (long, ponderous takes, lack of dialogue or traditional dialogue, lack of traditional narrative and narrative structure, unprofessional actors) but he did assemble them in a way that is uniquely his own work, receiving great acclaim in the process (Elephant won Palme d'Or at Cannes in 2003.) There's a method and rationality to his work that is distinct from anyone else making pictures today. It's the same thing with a band like Nirvana in 1991.

Posted by Elastic Man on Monday, 07.27.09 @ 22:55pm


"You know, every other art form is beyond this, that's why no one takes popular music seriously."-Elastic Man

Who doesn't take music seriously???

"receiving great acclaim in the process"-Elastic Man

IMO acclaim means nothing either in the rock industry or the movie industry. Bands like Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin were hated by critics when they first made albums. Or take a film series like the Godzilla series for example. Hated by critics and yet loved by fans.

As far as I'm concerned I&I stay the criteria. I personally wish the hall could let fans play some factor in induction, but seeing as that is not the case, I&I is fine.

Posted by Dude Man on Tuesday, 07.28.09 @ 13:19pm


Of course they should get in! They were great! Its a shame what happened to Kurt Cobain, if he hadn't of passed they'd allready be in I bet. Also Smell Like Teen Spirit was a great song, they had a lot of other good songs but it was the best. It scored #1 on a countdown of the 100 greatest songs of the 90s and like #13 on the 100 greatest hard rock songs ( this is on the TV show VH1 from time to time.) They were also good enough that their drummer went on and made the Foofighters. Witch is also very famous. Honestly, how can you deny them?

Posted by Cameron Greger on Friday, 08.7.09 @ 21:01pm


"Its a shame what happened to Kurt Cobain, if he hadn't of passed they'd allready be in I bet."
- Cameron Gregor

No they wouldn't. They aren't even eligible until 2013!

Posted by Keebord on Saturday, 08.8.09 @ 03:50am


I can play just as well as Cobain. They don't belong in the HOF.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 09.20.09 @ 15:12pm


Along with GNR probably the most influential rock band since classic Aerosmith. . . a no doubter

Posted by Chris on Sunday, 09.20.09 @ 17:25pm


I'm sure lots of people can play just as well as famous acts- that's the differewnce, the HOF is for famous (or at least, known) musical acts. :)

Nirvana undoubtedly will be inducted- one of those no-brainers for immediate induction upon eligibility.

Posted by JR on Sunday, 09.20.09 @ 20:57pm


Well, obviously I am stating the obvious. I would be blown away if Nirvana did not get inducted into the R & R Hall of Fame during their first year of eligibility. I certainly hope that this happens as it should happen. Perhaps then bands like The Pixies and Sonic Youth can also come in; after all, Kurt said that he was so influenced by both bands. I can only hope that all three enter into the Hall of Fame.

Posted by Lori M on Friday, 10.9.09 @ 21:21pm


Well, many of us were hoping that last year when James bemoaned the fact that Purple was not in yet would cause the Hall to open its eyes. As you can see by the usual suspects which have been nominated that this did not happen. So don't bet on Nirvana being inducted will open the doors for the Pixies and Sonic Youth.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 10.10.09 @ 15:35pm


Nirvana should get in they r like the best band ever they should have already gotten in.They altered the sound of music for ever. R.I.P. KURT COBAIN...

Posted by L.T. Warren on Friday, 10.16.09 @ 08:52am


Maybe they're not in because they're not eligable?
Seriously learn this stuff before you make a stupid comment

Posted by Greg on Friday, 10.16.09 @ 13:13pm


Nirvana is alright but way too overrated. If any grunge band gets in first, it should be Soundgarden or Alice in Chains.

Posted by Rob on Saturday, 11.21.09 @ 12:20pm


i was only two when kurt died but growing i remember listening to nirvana they are my favorite band and always will be hope theyre in

Posted by michael on Friday, 12.4.09 @ 15:13pm


No doubt they are one of the best bands of all time....all these faggs who are saying crap about them being overrated are stoopid nazis who need to go die.....Nirvana is great, awesome, etc....No arguement....SO SHUT UP! lol

Posted by Adam on Wednesday, 12.9.09 @ 11:27am


also im doing a research paper over Kurt.....so back off stoopid nazis.......

Posted by Adam on Wednesday, 12.9.09 @ 11:29am


Adam...take a couple of bucks and go buy a grip...and a clue!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Wednesday, 12.9.09 @ 17:27pm


I think Adam didn't take his medication this morning.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 12.9.09 @ 17:43pm


No doubt they are one of the best bands of all time....all these faggs who are saying crap about them being overrated are stoopid nazis who need to go die.....Nirvana is great, awesome, etc....No arguement....SO SHUT UP! lol

Posted by Adam on Wednesday, 12.9.09 @ 11:27am


I think they are great but easy on the sharp words...it takes away from their greatness and takes away from your coolness

Posted by mrxyz on Wednesday, 12.9.09 @ 18:07pm


No need for arguing or complaining here - let's live & let live...

Have there been any nutjobs on the site while I was gone? Did anyone make a new, informed, truly staggering case for Madonna? Kelis? Coven?

Big Sexy's back in town, but he need's to be clued in here...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 12.9.09 @ 21:40pm


Nirvana made grunge famous in the 90's all their singles were #1 i don't see why they shouldn't be voted into the hall of fame. and for the people here saying that they don't like Nirvana or that they suck read this quote form Kurt, "If your a sexist, homophobe,don't like are music, or basically an asshole just stay the hell away from us because I hate you."

Posted by bob on Tuesday, 12.15.09 @ 22:01pm


There is no doubt that Nirvana will be in the Hall of Fame in 2013. They completely changed the face of rock in a way that changed cultural fads. They knocked Micheal Jackson off the billboard charts, their CD "Nevermind" is one of the most sold albums in the HISTORY OF MUSIC. Kurt Cobain has the same image status as Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison, and Paul McCartney.
Nevermind went 10x platnium, selling over 10 million copies (just in the U.S.), In Utero went 5x platnium, selling over 4 million copies (just in the U.S.).

But aside from all of those stats, there is one thing that stands out above all of it....THEY F-KING ROCKED.

Posted by adamc on Wednesday, 12.16.09 @ 05:45am


Nirvana will and does deserve to get into the RRHOF. Love them or hate them they were a major part of change in the music scene and the culture of the country. There is a reason that most of the kids in the USA started wearing flannel. Yes there are other bands that deserve to be mentioned in this culture change as well, ie Pearl Jam, Sound Garden, Alice in Chains ect. All of these bands should be in. I will forever be indebted to all of these bands for getting me to pick up a guitar. Those for notes at the beging of Smells Like Teen Spirit changed my generation forever.

Posted by Dan on Wednesday, 12.30.09 @ 08:46am


Grunge sucks. I cannot think of any band that has a worse impact on rock music than Nirvana.

Posted by Trent on Wednesday, 12.30.09 @ 18:18pm


I dont like their music.

NO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Mister Who on Tuesday, 01.12.10 @ 11:25am


YEAH NIRvana!!!

Posted by march on Tuesday, 01.26.10 @ 11:56am


I will be shocked if they do not get inducted their first year of eligibility, they popularized a new rock sound, they revived rock and roll for the time they were a band. If they do not get inducted I will boycott the RRHOF, RIP Kurt

Posted by Donald on Friday, 01.29.10 @ 06:57am


If anyone says that Nirvana doesn't diserve to be in the Hall of Fame because of Kurt Cobain's Drugs or the music is the biggest retard in the world

Posted by Chris on Monday, 02.1.10 @ 19:04pm


WHATS GOING ON EVERYONE !! IM 28 YEARS OLD I'VE BEEN A NIRVANA FAN SINCE I WAS 9 THEY'RE STILL MY FAVORITE BAND ALL TIME . I LOVE G N R THERE MY 2ND FAV, BUT AXL IS AN A**HOLE, SO LET'S GET SOMETHING STRAIGHT COBAIN IS THE BIGGEST NAME IN MUSIC EVER!!! ITS LIKE WHEN U MEET SOMEONE YOU WOULD USUALLY SHAKE THEIR HANDS, OR DON'T KNOW WHO FREDDIE MERCURY IS, IT WOULD BE A SAD DAY IN MUSIC IF NIRVANA ISN'T INDUCTED IN HOF, AND IF NOT PEOPLE SHOULD SHAME THE HOF. ANYWAYS COBAIN IS THE MAN' I SEE ALL THESE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT PEARL -JAM HA YOU KIDDING ME, HE'S DECENT BUT, NO COBAIN. MY 8 YEAR OLD NEPHEW IS STARTING TO PLAY THE GUITAR AND HE WAS INSPIRED BY NIRVANA NOT STP OR MELVINS, FLIPPER,MUD HONEY. COBAIN INSPIRED MILLIONS OF PEOPLE GREAT ARTIST IN MANY FACTORS NOT JUST WRITING AND PERFORMING, HIS ART WORK,EVERYTHING. HE WAS A VERY COOL GUY WHO WAS GENUINE. NIRVANA WILL ALWAYS BE HEARD. VOTE ON NIRVANA 1 SHOT THAT'S ALL IT WILL TAKE TO GET IN THE HOF,.......

Posted by RICH - COBAIN-G'N'R- on Monday, 02.8.10 @ 04:55am


people say its sad mj died kurt dyin is waaayyy sadder

Posted by L.T. on Tuesday, 02.16.10 @ 07:16am


"They made one of the most revered albums of any subgenre of rock, they opened the door for other bands from Seattle (as well as elsewhere) that the major labels might have stayed away from otherwise, and they had a leader that was considered the spokesman for not only the movement but his generation well." Yes, it is a great album, though Rolling Stone originally labeled it 3 stars and then changed their tune once the band became succesful. They did break down the doors to superstardom for Seattle, though the major labels bit isn't true (Soundgarden were the first, making their major debut in '89, and Alice in Chains followed in '90.) I would also argue that both those bands set the stage and got the momentum going for Nirvana's success, AIC in particular, as "Man in the Box" was a hit a whole year before "Teen Spirit." And if you go over to the U.K. you're more likely to hear Damon Albarn or Noel Gallagher called the voice of a generation, right Liam?

Also, I object to the critical idea that Nirvana also popularized alternative when R.E.M. did that (Out of Time spent 2 weeks at #1 in the U.S. 1 week at #1 in the U.K. and was 3x platinum in October '91, and Nevermind didn't begin selling until November.)

"However Nirvana and GNR redefined Rock/ Hard Rock in their own decative image." No, GNR did not redefine Hard Rock, because they didn't bring anything new to it.

"IF IT WASN'T FOR THIS BAND MUSIC WOULD'VE CONSISTED OF BANDS LIKE MOTLEY CRUE, POISON, AND ALL THE OTHER HORRIBLE GLAM BANDS OF THE 80'S. SO THANKS TO YOU KRIS, DAVE, AND KURT FOR SAVING MUSIC AND ME! HATS OF TO NIRVANA!!!!" Yes, the makeup was gone but the scene never actually died. Poison struggled to keep up but kept going and are still caryying on today. Ditto for Motley Crue (who I like), though they apparently tried to adapt to Seattle. Ratt are still around as well, and Cinderella. Again, "Main in the Box" was a hit first, around the same time that Megadeth, Slayer, Anthrax and their lesser known peers cracked MTV (Metallica drove the first spike with "One" going into rotation in '89.) Also, Jane's Addiction had already proven that alternative could rock ("Mountain Song" was a hit, as was Faith No More's "Epic.") It was them with AIC and the thrash bands that cracked the hair bands' hold on MTV, along with Living Colour's "Cult of Personality" (though AIC did open for Poison.) As also noted, hair metal was going underground anyhow (Motley Crue had already removed the makeup in '87, Twisted Sister broke up in '87, Poison fired CC Deville in 1990), mostly due to an overload of power ballads and lack of talent in the fourth or fifth-wavers.

"Hey guys i guess some of you are ignorant and some of arent but you have no right to judge the lives of my friend and a beautiful person. Layne and Kurt werent pathetic they were powerful." Posted by Jerry Cantrell on Wednesday, 03.12.08 @ 15:37pm

I have no idea whether that's actually Jerry (though I am using my real name), but I'll play along. I have to agree with Dameon that Kurt was weak. All he had to do was get help and confront his demons because he had everything going for him; a beautiful baby girl, fortune, lots of friends, two great bandmates and he blew it. As for Layne, not only did he not overcome his addictions, he didn't even try after about '94. Sad on both counts, but hardly unavoidable tragedies. The new album's great btw, Jerry.

"Deep Purple > Nirvana" Very true, Dameon, in terms of innovation and influence. They should've been in years ago.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 02.16.10 @ 20:54pm


My apologies for splitting this into two posts, but I didn't want to be flagged for spam. So, we've established that Rolling Stone overrates them (Kurt Cobain was not the 12th greatest guitarist of all time, and wasn't better than Tony Iommi, Brian May, Jeff Beck, Randy Rhoads, David Gilmour, Eddie Van Halen, Ritchie Blackmore or Kim Thayil; Jerry Cantrell is better as well, and they are not the 27th greatest artist of all time), that RS and various other critics falsely credit them for saving rock and killing hair metal, falsely credit them with popularizing alternative, and though they did turn Seattle bands into superstars it was Alice in Chains who cracked MTV first. Some also like to consider them the most influential band of the last 20 years. Wrong again; I'm sure they do have some influence, but you'll find more AIC and Pearl Jam soundalikes in modern rock. I think for influence and the impact of getting the media spotlight completely fixed on Seattle and for being a great band they should go in, and they'll go in easily; I just think it's dangerous and misleading for Rolling Stone to try to re-write rock history to suit their personal preferences. I think that Soundgarden should go in first, and the Pixies, and a couple of other early American alternative rockers (I don't know much about that, so I'll let William, Kit and Liam figure that out.) On the U.K. side, New Order, Joy Divison, The Smiths and The Stone Roses (and Gang of Four.)

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 02.16.10 @ 21:04pm


(Kurt Cobain was not the 12th greatest guitarist of all time........................ LOL
I like Nirvana alot !! but.......... He is not even the 100th greatest .. I do think they are a shoe In but OMG that he is not... !!!!Sometimes a bunch of ok musicians = one heck of a band

Posted by mrxyz on Tuesday, 02.16.10 @ 22:28pm


For once we can agree.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 02.17.10 @ 20:18pm


Of course. They were brilliant, and in terms of influence, they set the tone for music in the 90s. Owning a decade should be enough.

Whoever said Incesticide was only good because of Steve Albini is talking hollow nonsense. If that were true, why aren't Albini-produced records from PJ Harvey (or Bush) as influential or compelling? Kurt Cobain was a master songwriter and performer, and his brilliance would have shone though if freaking Raffi were producing.

Posted by Bjorn on Wednesday, 02.24.10 @ 14:08pm


Honestly, Nirvana is a great band but what have they done for rock? They were just another grunge band that got cleaner and cleaner in sound. They were popular and have some great stuff but they weren't innovators, the things they did had been done before but they had simply gotten noticed. If you want a truly groundbreaking innovative band, look at another band on the list such as Fugazi. Fugazi created genres, movements, and never stopped being innovative.

Posted by punk on Wednesday, 02.24.10 @ 23:08pm


Get away from the "something has to sound completely different from everything else" argument, it's worthless and dependence on it is a fundamental weakness of popular music criticism, or perhaps better, the fans. It doesn't matter if the loud, soft, loud dynamic had been done before, the Nirvana iteration is individual in its own right. For instance, I would describe the Nevermind sound as the melodic prowess of the early Beatles meets The Stooges. The Pixies didn't sound like that and neither did Dinosaur Jr. It's also worth pointing out that none of the bands that copied Nirvana got that aspect of the band right and they themselves brought nothing to the mix (not to mention missing the strong Lou Reed influence on later pieces like Dumb. Or Sebadoh. Or R.E.M. Or Boredoms. Or countless other groups.) Cobain, too, had a distinct lyrical style which is his and his alone.

In Utero and the unplugged album are as emotionally raw as it gets (the latter being musical portraiture at its finest.) Calling it cleaner is absolute nonsense. And it really doesn't matter how well produced Nevermind was. That's like complaining about Scorsese making big budget pictures like Gangs of New York (a perfectly personal Scorsese film to its very bones.)

Posted by Jonas on Friday, 02.26.10 @ 00:35am


In Utero and the unplugged album are as emotionally raw as it gets (the latter being musical portraiture at its finest.) Calling it cleaner is absolute nonsense. And it really doesn't matter how well produced Nevermind was. That's like complaining about Scorsese making big budget pictures like Gangs of New York (a perfectly personal Scorsese film to its very bones.)
Posted by Jonas on Friday, 02.26.10 @ 00:35am

Great example, as Gangs of New York was a really good movie. I think the reason people bring up the production on Nevermind is because some people talk about Nirvana taking overproduction away from music, which is nonsense because Nevermind had some of the same traits that Motley Crue and Def Leppard had (it doesn't matter, as you said, because no matter what you think of those bands you can't deny their stuff had an excellent sound.) It is true that Nirvana had their own unique sound, but don't argue that too much because then we'll hear from fans of acts that don't really deserve it, like Foreigner and Boston. I'm not arguing with you, just pointing some stuff out. Best to just say that they helped their Seattle contemporaries reach superstardom (though Alice in Chains already had a hit, as I said), they were the first of the Seattle bands to reach superstardom, they had some influence, they gave popular music a shot in the arm and they were a great band, and for those reasons they should and will be inducted.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 02.28.10 @ 16:36pm


1. They made Grunge popular.
2. 80's glam rock suddenly died when Nirvana was born.
3. A lot of vocalist today sound like Kurt Cobain.
4. Whenever you think about the 90's decade, first thought that comes out of your mind is Nirvana.
5. Most Seattle bands became popular because of Nirvana.
6. Kurt Cobain killed himself cause he is sick and tired of being too famous!

Posted by Edgar on Thursday, 03.4.10 @ 23:58pm


1. They made Grunge popular. (Maybe)
2. 80's glam rock suddenly died when Nirvana was born. (Don't flatter the scene - Nirvana was not the reason. It was thridt tier bands like Europe, Nelson and others that killed the scene)
3. A lot of vocalist today sound like Kurt Cobain. (Who cares)
4. Whenever you think about the 90's decade, first thought that comes out of your mind is Nirvana. (Nope - AIC hit the radio a full year before Nirvana)
5. Most Seattle bands became popular because of Nirvana. (perhaps, but I like to think that the music had something to do with it)
6. Kurt Cobain killed himself cause he is sick and tired of being too famous! (Nope - he was a pathetic junkie) Stop making him into a hero.

Posted by Dameon on Saturday, 03.6.10 @ 08:29am


I like Nirvana
plenty have died because they were a junkie of one type or another..
It is a shame that many of the rock role models have sunk to such an low social note . Heck, you almost have to me messed up to even be famous now a days... I would like to see a change for the better ,unlikely it will happen anytime soon .As long as the masses/fans say it is ok, My guess is it will continue to be the social norm.. Where there is life there is HOPE..

Posted by mrxyz on Saturday, 03.6.10 @ 09:58am


"1. They made Grunge popular.
2. 80's glam rock suddenly died when Nirvana was born.
3. A lot of vocalist today sound like Kurt Cobain.
4. Whenever you think about the 90's decade, first thought that comes out of your mind is Nirvana.
5. Most Seattle bands became popular because of Nirvana.
6. Kurt Cobain killed himself cause he is sick and tired of being too famous!"

1. Into superstardom, yes, but it was thanks to Pearl Jam that Nevermind stayed in the charts, as PJ was a band that had universal appeal. As far as the first to be well-known outside of the Seattle area, Dameon is correct that it was AIC first. "Man in the Box" hit MTV a whole year before Nevermind came out.

2. As Dameon said, it was mainly due to the third or fourth wavers lacking in talent, and an overwhelming amount of power ballads, which took the edge from the music, and when you lack edge it's difficult to be taken seriously. If anyone weakened their stranglehold on MTV it was Metallica with "One" (GNR I don't really count because Axl had the big hair and eyeliner sometimes, and they were close with the Crue.) Also, rap was breaking/had broken into the mainstream, Metallica's contemporaries began getting MTV play in '90 (and again, "Man in the Box"), and then R.E.M. became the first alternative band to really break out.

3. Maybe a few, but certainly not a lot (there were more in the past, in the post-grunge era). You can hear more of Eddie Vedder and Layne Staley in modern rock than Kurt (plus just as much PJ and AIC as Nirvana on new bands.)

4. Not necessarily. In Britain we're more likely to think of Radiohead, Blur and Oasis and the impact they had on OUR Alternative. For others it may be R.E.M. or the Chili Peppers or Pearl Jam, or someone outside of Alternative. It's true, however, that a lot of people have come to think of Nirvana as the best band of the 90's.

5. Perhaps, but the pieces were in place for it to happen without Nirvana (again, AIC on MTV, PJ released Ten slightly before Nevemind, and Soundgarden were the first to sign to a major label.) It may not have been as big without Nirvana, but I think it would've happened.

6. Apparently Johnny Rotten said about it on the History of Rock 'n' Roll Documentary, "If you don't want to be a rock star, simply quit being one." Signing to a major label and having pop-metal type production will certainly increase your chances of success. If he wasn't happy he should've gotten help.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 03.6.10 @ 14:36pm


Posted by Edgar - "1. They made Grunge popular.
2. 80's glam rock suddenly died when Nirvana was born.
3. A lot of vocalist today sound like Kurt Cobain.
4. Whenever you think about the 90's decade, first thought that comes out of your mind is Nirvana.
5. Most Seattle bands became popular because of Nirvana.
6. Kurt Cobain killed himself cause he is sick and tired of being too famous!"

My thoughts on that and others who have commented on the same.

1. It doesn't matter if Alice in Chains had an MTV hit first - no one cared about Seattle at the time and they were perceived as a hard rock/heavy metal band. It was Nirvana that placed the focus on that region.

Still, I would consider 1991 the rise of post-grunge rather than grunge (Mudhoney). Nirvana didn't play grunge anymore, Pearl Jam wasn't, Alice in Chains wasn't, Soundgarden was in the process of moving away from it. Grunge was associated with that scene and became a buzz word for bands that were centered there but it's not that simple. For one, Cobain's music was very much informed by things that none of the other 3 bands were exhibiting. Cobain's work is reflective of the entire Washington underground music scene, and the national underground scene, whereas the others are not (Alice in Chains had absolutely nothing to do with groups like Beat Happening who were playing a type of music just was popular in the underground in the late 1980s.) There weren't clones of Mudhoney and The Melvins on MTV. The point is that the medis perception of grunge is lacking and inaccurate.

2. Like others have said, this was already in the process of happening. Types of music fall in and out of favor, it was bound to happen.

3. And that reflects poorly on him, but only because those bands (I assume you mean Seether and the like) don't understand where he was coming from artistically at all and aren't really part of that tradition of bands.

4. Dameon, that's completely irrelevant and beside the point again. Don't split hairs. This is like saying The Beatles or Bob Dylan wouldn't immediately come to mind when saying "Music -1960s."

5. It needs to be noted that sales of Ten didn't rapidly increase until after Nevermind came out. Alice in Chain's Facelift only went gold, which was on par for ascending bands at the time. Soundgarden, similar. Nevermind went multiplatinum by the end of 1991, unprecedented for any of the Seattle bands.

6. No, No, No. That's a gross simplification that only peripherally had to do with what was wrong with him (and it wasn't simply heroin either, for that matter.)

But of course it must be reiterated: NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHY NIRVANA WAS A GREAT BAND!

Posted by Elastic Man on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 03:55am


"It doesn't matter if Alice in Chains had an MTV hit first - no one cared about Seattle at the time and they were perceived as a hard rock/heavy metal band. It was Nirvana that placed the focus on that region." True. They were being marketed as a metal band (appeared on the Clash of the Titans Tour, which was a thrash and speed metal billing.) No one denies that Nirvana helped get those bands to a whole new level (after Nevermind got big AIC were then marketed by Columbia as an alternative band for the release of Dirt, and when Facelift came out some people within Seattle apparently made fun of them because they started when the local scene was already booming, and called them a cheap Soundgarden imitation.) The point that some of us were trying to make was that some things were already in place for the Seattle explosion and thus for Nirvana to break out.

"And that reflects poorly on him, but only because those bands (I assume you mean Seether and the like) don't understand where he was coming from artistically at all and aren't really part of that tradition of bands." I listened to Bush for the first time recently and they kind of sound like Nirvana. As I said, you more often hear Layne Staley and Eddie Vedder in post-Seattle bands (see Creed, Stone Temple Pilots.)

"It needs to be noted that sales of Ten didn't rapidly increase until after Nevermind came out. Alice in Chain's Facelift only went gold, which was on par for ascending bands at the time. Soundgarden, similar. Nevermind went multiplatinum by the end of 1991, unprecedented for any of the Seattle bands." True.

"Still, I would consider 1991 the rise of post-grunge rather than grunge (Mudhoney)." Interesting. Usually when post-grunge comes to mind we're thinking of Creed, Nickleback, Candlebox, Bush, Live and the like, but technically what you said is true, as the whole Seattle thing had been going on for at least five-seven years when Nevermind came out.

"Nirvana didn't play grunge anymore, Pearl Jam wasn't, Alice in Chains wasn't, Soundgarden was in the process of moving away from it. Grunge was associated with that scene and became a buzz word for bands that were centered there but it's not that simple." PJ kind of showed up when all three other bands had formed their sound, and they were a hard rock band with a slight bluesy tinge (a "Classic Rock revival band" is what some people call them.) AIC was basically a metal band, and the core of their sound was metal meets post-punk (one of the first alternative-metal bands.) Soundgarden basically became a hard rock/metal band with some incorporations of prog and psychedelic. By the time Nevermind came out, Nirvana were a hard rock band with the quiet-loud technique, some pop elements and a slightly raw edge. "Grunge" the term was invented by someone in Mudhoney as a joke to describe their music, and it stuck. I belive it's defined as a mixture of garage rock, punk and metal with a raw edge to it, and none of those 4 bands had that sound by 1991.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 16:50pm


I've been reading these posts here, & there is a reference to PJ's TEN being released before NEVERMIND. The way I always heard it, NEVERMIND was released in Sept. of 91, while TEN was released in Dec. of 91.

Last time I checked, September comes before December (at least I think it still does?).

If this is no longer the case, you still needn't fear. Tis' I who shall be deemed to be waist deep in the big muddy...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 18:44pm


1. They made Grunge popular.
2. 80's glam rock suddenly died when Nirvana was born.
3. A lot of vocalist today sound like Kurt Cobain.
4. Whenever you think about the 90's decade, first thought that comes out of your mind is Nirvana.
5. Most Seattle bands became popular because of Nirvana.
6. Kurt Cobain killed himself cause he is sick and tired of being too famous!

Posted by Edgar on Thursday, 03.4.10 @ 23:58pm
--------------------------------------------------
You know, now that I read Edgar's comments, I too shall wade in w/a few thoughts (cause I'm a mindless simpleton who needs to follow the pack at all times):

1. Yes. In the literal sense that the market for such music in a mainstream environment was nil at the time, then yes.

2. Once again, yes, in that the market for this distinct style of glam metal also went away. The idea that there weren't still glam acts on labels as late as 92/93 strikes me as rather foolish. There were acts left behind, probably trying to figure out just what happened.

3. No. Precious few vocalists today sound like Cobain. Certainly no Emo act has Cobain influenced vocals, much less the Animal Collective style psych bands.

4. That's anybody's call.

5. Yes. Saying they didn't help out everyone around them is denying the power that album had on the world in 92/93.

6. He was on drugs & needed help. The drugs won, as they often do.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 19:03pm


"1. Yes. In the literal sense that the market for such music in a mainstream environment was nil at the time, then yes." Agreed, though as I said parts of the groundwork had been laid for that to happen, and the idea that they popularized alternative as a whole is false.

"Once again, yes, in that the market for this distinct style of glam metal also went away. The idea that there weren't still glam acts on labels as late as 92/93 strikes me as rather foolish. There were acts left behind, probably trying to figure out just what happened." The scene didn't actually die. Poison never actually broke up, and apparently stuck to their bread and butter the entire time, and are of course still going today. Motley Crue and Def Leppard apparently adjusted their sound to fit in with Seattle (though DL's fifth album came out in '92, after Nevermind exploded, and still got to #1 and went 4x plat. Not Hysteria type sales but still quite good.) When this failed they both went back to what they knew they could do and both are still going. Bon Jovi immediately adjusted their sound, and while they haven't matched their 80's numbers are still filling stadiums and are still popular. To me, if it did die, then Nirvana were the ones that filled in the grave rather than doing any actual killing.

"No. Precious few vocalists today sound like Cobain. Certainly no Emo act has Cobain influenced vocals, much less the Animal Collective style psych bands." Right. Again, Layne Staley and Eddie Vedder are the ones who have had soundalikes.

"That's anybody's call." We Brits were more often calling Noel Gallagher the voice of a generation in the mid to late 90's.

"Yes. Saying they didn't help out everyone around them is denying the power that album had on the world in 92/93." It may have happened without Nevermind (as both Alice in Chains and Soundgarden released major label albums first) but it certainly wouldn't have been as big, you're right. As for the Ten/Nevermind thing: According to All-Music Guide, they helped each other. The review for Ten makes the case that though Nevermind took Seattle to a big audience (and thus caused Ten to become even bigger, got Facelift from Gold to 2x plat. and helped Soundgarden get to a big audience), Ten then helped it stay on the charts: "Nirvana's appeal may have been huge, but it wasn't universal; rock radio still viewed them as too raw and punky, and some hard rock fans dismissed them as weird misfits. In retrospect, it's easy to see why Pearl Jam clicked with a mass audience - they weren't as metallic as Alice in Chains or Soundgarden, and of Seattle's Big Four they owed the greatest debt to classic rock."

"He was on drugs & needed help. The drugs won, as they often do." Exactly.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 03.10.10 @ 20:46pm


Sam, you sure have valid points, I'd be honored to make love to you, in a bath tub.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 03.14.10 @ 04:01am

Would only work if you're gay or bi (as I am a male and bi.) Or has someone hijacked your account? That has sometimes happened to Gitarzan and Liam. Thanks for the compliment.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 03.14.10 @ 19:33pm


Or has someone hijacked your account? That has sometimes happened to Gitarzan and Liam. Thanks for the compliment.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 03.14.10 @ 19:33pm
--------------------------------------------------
This was somebody hijacking my account.

As it stands though, I get to experience being gay in the third person. It's quite interesting, being myself & having a gay alter ego at the same time. I'm actually reminded of a Weird Al Yankovic song called "I Think I'm a Clone, Now", sung to the old Tommy James song "I Think We're Alone Now".

Now if somebody w/talent shows up, I might just turn into something...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 03.14.10 @ 19:54pm


Good to know. Lots of people seem to have abandoned the site, so there's not much discussion. I might have to take a break for a little while. When Nirvana's time gets closer I'll do a Keltner analysis.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 03.16.10 @ 20:21pm


Yes to them.!

Posted by mrxyz on Wednesday, 03.17.10 @ 06:01am


That's not the real CC, Edgar. It's an imposter (I am bi, so I'm a little flattered.) Yes, Nirvana do deserve it and they are a lock for induction, probably first-ballot (I mean, is there anyone on the 2013 list who has strong credentials beyond Massive Attack), I just feel it would leave a bad taste if they and Pearl Jam got in before Soundgarden as that kind of thing has been happening before.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 03.19.10 @ 21:37pm


Bollocks. I haven't really listened to Mudhoney but they were major players in the grunge scene, so they could have a strong cause. Nirvana, Massive Attack and Mudhoney, the 2013 names that stand-out.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 03.21.10 @ 21:24pm


Geez, only four more years to go now? I'm gettin' old...

Posted by denyo on Wednesday, 03.24.10 @ 20:30pm


Nirvana should get in tomorrow, changed my life and many other peoples, the most significant band since the Sex Pistols.

Posted by Luke on Sunday, 03.28.10 @ 15:22pm


Nirvana should get in tomorrow, changed my life and many other peoples, the most significant band since the Sex Pistols.

Posted by Luke on Sunday, 03.28.10 @ 15:22pm

Wrong. As William noted, the majority of the 80's and 90's alternative bands wouldn't have got that far without R.E.M. Other bands post-Sex Pistols that were more important and/or had more impact? U2, Iron Maiden, Joy Division, Venom, New Order, Slayer, Metallica, The Melvins, The Pixies, Motley Crue, Def Leppard, Black Flag, Soundgarden, The Smiths, The Stone Roses, Public Enemy, N.W.A. Megadeth, Anthrax... that's just off the top of my head. And Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains had more influence, for better or worse. They were a great band, and they do deserve to get in, but they weren't even close to as revolutionary as critical revisionists like Rolling Stone make them out to be.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 03.28.10 @ 16:07pm


Nirvana should get in tomorrow, changed my life and many other peoples, the most significant band since the Sex Pistols.

Posted by Luke on Sunday, 03.28.10 @ 15:22pm

No they shouldn't. They should wait 25 years like everyone else.

Posted by Keebord on Monday, 03.29.10 @ 14:28pm


i dont mind at all that rap is in the hall of fame but if nirvana doesent make the hall of fame in its first year eligable then the hall of fame is full os shit they are 1 of the best band of all time

Posted by tron on Saturday, 04.3.10 @ 09:52am


To the idiots William and Liam

Why don't you two brainchilds look up Van Halen and Def Leppards history. Van Halen's first album came out in 1978. Def Leppard first pressed also came out in 1978. Look it up you dungweeds! So please quit with the Van Halen was first to come over. Joe Elliots dad gave him money for their first recording in 1978 a six song ecord. Eat it!

Posted by dano on Tuesday, 04.1.08 @ 22:29pm

You and I have had good communication, so with all due respect you're wrong. VH formed in '74; Def Leppard formed in '77. Gene Simmons saw Van Halen playing in one of the Southern California clubs sometime in the two years that followed and was obviously impressed, because he funded the making of a demo, which was done in 1976 and features "Runnin' With the Devil" and "Somebody Get Me a Doctor". This demo is available as a bootleg. They then produced another demo in 1977 for Warner Brothers (the same year Def Leppard formed). This demo features those two songs plus "Feel Your Love Tonight" and "You Really Got Me" (yes I know it's a cover) and is also available as a bootleg. So, in fact, VH recorded two demos before Def Lep recorded their first, so William and Liam are correct, Van Halen was, if not the first hair band, then closer to being the first than Def Leppard.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 04.22.10 @ 18:51pm


In case you don't believe me: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreleased_Van_Halen_projects There are links to VH's official site saying that those are available as bootlegs. Sorry. Both bands had teased hair and spandex pants, and both played Hard Rock that was focused more on being catchy than edgy, with lots of hooks. Same applies to Quiet Riot, who formed in 1973 (a year before Van Halen, I think) and released their first album in 1977 with Randy Rhoads (though that was after VH's first demo.) So, the first hair band would be either Quiet Riot or Van Halen. I'm not saying Def Leppard weren't influential, because they were, they just have nothing on Van Halen.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 04.22.10 @ 19:56pm


Yes Sam, but you're forgetting that Def Leppard was British. See, that's of paramount importance in this argument. Liam's so self-conscious (or self-righteous) in praising musicians from his native country, you'd swear he was Canadian.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 04.22.10 @ 20:14pm


"Liam's so self-conscious (or self-righteous) in praising musicians from his native country, you'd swear he was Canadian." - Philip

He and I both have to defend our fellow limeys. I think if he was trying to defend other Brits, he would've sided with Dano. He recognized, like I did, that VH were first (plus he likes VH and doesn't like DL) and spoke accordingly. No offense, but I personally feel that he's gotten a bit of a bad rap. Yes, he's a bit stubborn sometimes, but he knows his stuff and has whipped some ignoramuses into shape. I would've liked to debate him. Has the Class of 1990 voting begun yet?

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 04.24.10 @ 14:41pm


"1. If Nirvana will be inducted who will induct them??
and
2. Will Chad Channing and/or Pat Smear will be part of the induction??
and
3. If Kurt was alive will he go to the induction dinner or like the Sex Pistols bash the R&R HoF??

4. What band will you think will play if Nirvana will be inducted and what song is fitting to be played in the Hall???
5. Will Nirvana be inducted in the first Ballot or liks Sabbath 3 or more??" - PRL18

1. Tough question, but if I had to place a bet I'd say Eddie Vedder. He's already in the Hall's good books (having inducted The Doors, The Ramones and R.E.M.) and since he was a contemporary and most of the "feuding" was due to the fact that Kurt hated Pearl Jam and called them sell-outs, he probably wouldn't have a problem with doing so. Other possibilities: Chris Cornell (another Nirvana contemporary who might've known Kurt), Michael Stipe (he was friends with the band and also with Courtney, is Frances Bean's godfather, and was interested in collaborating with Kurt before he died), someone from Foo Fighters other than Dave (for obvious reasons), Courtney Love (for other reasons, though because she fell out with Dave and Krist this is even more unlikely), another Seattle contemporary, such as Jerry Cantrell. I'd go with either Eddie or Michael.

2. It's possible Channing would be, but if I had to bet I'd say just the Nevermind line-up.

3. He may not have gone if his idols weren't in (Black Flag, KISS and Sonic Youth are all eligible but not in), but he had a wide array of influences and thus probably appreciated many bands places in rock history, but if you forced me to bet I'd say he would've gone.

4. I'd guess either R.E.M. or Foo Fighters. Pixies, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden are also possibilities. I'll take a stab and say a setlist of "Teen Spirit", "About A Girl" and a slightly more obscure cut ("On A Plain", "You Know You're Right" and "Pennyroyal Tea"), or maybe a medley.

5. They're a lock to be inducted, and probably first ballot. They do deserve it, but the aura around them has become bigger than it needed to be; that combined with a lack of worthy artists in 2013 (Massive Attack should be inducted) will result in a first-ballot, probably.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 04.27.10 @ 20:17pm


To me it's not even a question of then getting in, just will it be first year elig like the Beatles,Stones,Who,Zepplin,Police etc. If you have not heard the 1977 self titled debut of Cheap Trick,get it.It was a hugely influential recording believe it or not.It was a major influence on Cobain and does not sound dated like a typical album from that year.

Posted by RR HOF judge on Wednesday, 04.28.10 @ 11:05am


I've heard Cheap Trick influenced Cobain, and also Smashing Pumpkins. I'll check it out.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 04.28.10 @ 19:56pm


I swear to God if it weren't for the Rolling Stone lists Cobain wouldn't have been discussed nearly as much a guitarist.

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, 05.12.10 @ 19:37pm


also, SURE, he gained more notoriety from his death.

But what about Shannon Hoon? He died only a year after. We don't seem to be idolizing Blind Melon for their contributions.

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, 05.12.10 @ 19:38pm


"Actually, musicians who are worth a damn will tell you that Cobain was a overhyped hack-which is exactly what he was.

Posted by Randy on Wednesday, 01.21.09 @ 09:45am"

People who have praised Kurt Cobain:
David Bowie
Noel Gallagher
Bob Dylan
FRANK BLACK.
All Members of Muse.
Bono
Jello Biafra
Thurston Moore: "They were the last important band. Like, textbook important" - Nirvana Boxset Liner Notes
Patti Smith
PETE. TOWNSHEND.
Neil Young

I think that's good enough...

Posted by Iknowtheyrereallycooltohatebut... on Wednesday, 05.12.10 @ 19:58pm


Yes. Randy is extremely arrogant to believe his opinion holds more water than those guys. I might add that Kurt was the only Seattle guy Noel thinks is worthy anything. And to add:

-R.E.M.
-Soundgarden
-Slash
-Duff McKagan (Axl was also a Nirvana fan)
-Eddie Vedder
-Scott Weiland
-Billy Corgan (I'm pretty sure)...
-James Hetfield
-Kirk Hammett
-Red Hot Chili Peppers (Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Smashing Pumpkins opened for them)

I may find more but I think that's a good list...

And to Joe... I agree Kurt wasn't a great guitarist (though I liked his riffs), and Blind Melon were not an unimportant band and their one hit was awful. Replace Hoon with Layne Staley please, as AIC haven't always got the credit they deserve. Ian Curtis also gained more notoriety after he hung himself.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 05.13.10 @ 21:30pm


Nirvana deserve to be in, they are the figureheads of grunge and was the best band of the whole 90's IMO.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 05.15.10 @ 05:31am


I love them too. I've been back and forth about whether they SHOULD get in, but right now I think they should.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 05.17.10 @ 21:38pm


There's the whole "If-Cobain-Had-Not-Passed-What-Would-Have-Become-Of-Nirvana" debate- would the band be so highly regarded had that not happened? The band did rack up acclaim and such for its albums, but Cobain's unfortunate early demise has added a mystique to Nirvana and its music. Nonetheless, no-brainer that Nirvana will be inducted- probably upon eligibility?

Posted by JBRjoh on Sunday, 06.13.10 @ 15:08pm


If Nirvana does not make it to the Hall of Fame, then the whole Hall of Fame lost all credibility

Posted by Nikolas on Thursday, 07.1.10 @ 13:33pm


Nirvana is the most overrated group of all time.

Chicage should be in, screw Curt Cobain.

Posted by NYFAN001 on Sunday, 07.11.10 @ 10:45am


Shut up about Chicago already. The Doors were the first group to do jazz-rock, so there goes the innovation. As for influence... there's nothing. In fact, they should be banned for life just because of "You're the Inspiration".

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 07.11.10 @ 16:41pm


Actually, the term "jazz-rock fusion" (in it's "purest" form) can be dated back to Santana. For really good fusion (with tons of virtuosos) check out Mahavishnu Orchestra (with John McLaughlin), Weather Report (with Jaco Pastorius), and Return to Forever (Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke, Al DiMeola, and Lenny White...YIKES!!!).

Compared to those groups, I'm not sure what Chicago would call themselves...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.11.10 @ 17:09pm


NYFAN001 - Quit crying over Chicago & Billy Joel. It's a list whipped up by RS magazine, & everybody knows RS has it's own personal likes & dislikes. Hopefully you recognize that the list does not reflect who's in & out of the Hall, since Nirvana isn't even eligible yet. It's not like there holding Chicago or Billy Joel out.

As for you're comment about Nirvana on the list & Billy Joel/Chicago not being there - I'll say this: It could be cause Nirvana caused more of a musical upheaval in three yrs. of commercial popularity than Chicago or Joel did in 30+ yrs.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not the biggest fan of either act, but they both have some very good songs that I do like. Certainly if they were placed in the Rock Hall it wouldn't be the worst thing to happen. Suffice to say, Nirvana is far, far from being the most overrated act of all time, if only due to the impact they had.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 07.11.10 @ 17:42pm


Yes.

Posted by Turd on Monday, 07.12.10 @ 09:11am


"As for you're comment about Nirvana on the list & Billy Joel/Chicago not being there - I'll say this: It could be cause Nirvana caused more of a musical upheaval in three yrs. of commercial popularity than Chicago or Joel did in 30+ yrs."

Cheesecrop: Billy Joel is already in the Hall. Other than that I fully agree with you. I believe The Doors started the jazz-rock with "Touch Me."

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 07.21.10 @ 16:44pm


"Shut up about Chicago already. The Doors were the first group to do jazz-rock, so there goes the innovation. As for influence... there's nothing. In fact, they should be banned for life just because of "You're the Inspiration"."

Well Nirvana wasn't the first to do grunge either, but most people look at them as the essential grunge band. Chicago is pretty much seen as the ultimate jazz rock band because they had the staying power. As for "You're the Inspiration"...well that ones an acquired taste for me, its grown on me after awhile.

As for Nirvana's influence, I think that was due more to Rolling Stone and MTV shoving the "Cobain was a martyr and now his music has meaning cause he killed himself" belief down everyones throats. They did change music, but It was more of a case of being at the right place at the right time. (In reality, any of the grunge bands could've landed in their position.)

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 07.21.10 @ 17:48pm


"Well Nirvana wasn't the first to do grunge either, but most people look at them as the essential grunge band."

If we assume that grunge is a weird mix of garage rock, punk and metal then they were only grunge for their first album, which would make "Nevermind" post-grunge and "In Utero"... well, Hard Rock I guess. The real grunge is probably foreign to the average man on the street.

"Chicago is pretty much seen as the ultimate jazz rock band because they had the staying power."

Again, jazz-rock is usually traced back to The Doors' album "The Soft Parade", which predates Chicago's debut by two years. "Touch Me", the main single from that album, still gets plenty of CRR play, and I don't hear much Chicago on my local CRR's. The ultimate jazz-rock guy to me would be Jeff Beck, who pretty much invented jazz-fusion guitar, and the most longevity in that genre would be Santana, who had jazz tinges to their music.

"As for Nirvana's influence, I think that was due more to Rolling Stone and MTV shoving..."

I don't know. I was too young at the time, and we Brits pushed Nirvana and Pearl Jam aside for the full-scale Britpop explosion as soon as Kurt died. I do know that their influence on the post-grunge landscape of the late 90's to early 2000's is very real, though their contemporaries should also get the credit (or blame, depending on how you ask.)

"They did change music, but It was more of a case of being at the right place at the right time."

That is kind of true.

"(In reality, any of the grunge bands could've landed in their position.)"

Well, as discussed earlier, "Dirt", "Facelift", "Ten", "Vs", "Badmotorfinger", "Superunknown", "Nevermind" and "In Utero" are really post-grunge albums. Alice in Chains had a hit first, but they became really big only after Nirvana became big. Soundgarden didn't hit it really big until '94. Soundgarden and AIC might have done it eventually if Nirvana didn't exist, but they wouldn't have had the same sales or impact, in part because their appeal wasn't as large. Pearl Jam had a bigger appeal, but "Ten" didn't start selling until "Nevermind" did (despite coming out a couple of months earlier, and despite both bands getting similar opening slots.)

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 07.28.10 @ 21:30pm


"If we assume that grunge is a weird mix of garage rock, punk and metal then they were only grunge for their first album, which would make "Nevermind" post-grunge and "In Utero"... well, Hard Rock I guess. The real grunge is probably foreign to the average man on the street."
Its an interesting opinion, i dont know if i actually agree with it though. Grunge, more or less died in 1994, and not because of Cobains death. AIC and Pearl Jam were putting out more experimental albums which were a different style (No Code, AIC's self titled), Superunknown really was much different than Badmotorfinger, (As was Down on the Upside) and bands like Bush and Silverchair were already coming along with post-grunge. With Nevermind, Nirvana essentially took grunge and gave it some pop hooks. Is that post-grunge? Possibly but to me, post grunge is to grunge what hair metal was to pop metal, (no they were not always the same thing) a good musical style taken and reproduced by record companies to ensure success.

Its odd, the guy on my classic rock radio station practically spams 25 or 6 to 4, and always claim Green Day stole their riff. (Brain Stew) Saturday in the Park and Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? get airplay as well. They weren't the first, but they definitely had their impact, and they perpeturated the art form, jazz rock would have been different without them.

Would music had been different without Nirvana? Yeah, but hair metal was dying a slow death anyway, and the public was looking for a change. If Teen Spirit came out 5 years earlier, it wouldnt have had anywhere near the impact it did, and the media wouldve eventually latched on to another grunge band. You probably wouldve had Rolling Stone idolizing AIC and Man in the Box or something instead. As far as post grunge today goes, I give AIC and Pearl Jam credit for inspiring bands to make up fake pain and trying to copy Eddie Vedder.

Posted by Jimbo on Wednesday, 07.28.10 @ 23:25pm


"Possibly but to me, post grunge is to grunge what hair metal was to pop metal, (no they were not always the same thing) a good musical style taken and reproduced by record companies to ensure success." - Jimbo

Well said. Do not put Warrant in the same conversation as Van Halen, KISS and Quiet Riot.

"Its odd, the guy on my classic rock radio station practically spams 25 or 6 to 4, and always claim Green Day stole their riff."

For "Brain Stew"? Not hearing it.

"Would music had been different without Nirvana? Yeah, but hair metal was dying a slow death anyway, and the public was looking for a change."

As somebody else noted, the hair bands were considered uncool by the end of the 80's because of overexposure and not many new good bands. As that person also noticed, thrash replaced hair metal as the "cool" thing for Hard Rock fans to listen to long before the Seattle explosion.

"If Teen Spirit came out 5 years earlier, it wouldnt have had anywhere near the impact it did, and the media wouldve eventually latched on to another grunge band. You probably wouldve had Rolling Stone idolizing AIC and Man in the Box or something instead."

It's true that it was partially right place at right time (AIC had briefly put the spotlight on Seattle with "Man in the Box", R.E.M. and the Chili Peppers [who Nirvana, Pearl Jam and the Smashing Pumpkins all opened for] had become stars, a void left by hair metal, etc.) As I said earlier, however: Soundgarden expanded their audience slowly, and were still an opening act when "Nevermind" topped the charts. AIC had the first hit, but they were also still an opening act prior to "Dirt", and "Facelift" only went gold originally. Pearl Jam put out "Ten" before Nevermind, but the former didn't sell until the latter did. For better or worse, Nirvana put the spotlight firmly on Seattle. Also, it's the same thing as events like the second wave of punk (like The Clash and The Ramones) breaking out, Suede ushering in a new wave of guitar bands in the UK, The Beatles being greeted with a riot at JFK, Motley Crue and the first wave of pop metal striking a chord with the youth of America: Those things happened because some people were tired of what was going on and wanted something different. It was the same thing with Nirvana and the Seattle explosion. Somebody decides things are getting stale and boring, and brings about a sea change (funnily enough, we need someone to clean house with the mainstream right about now.)

You are correct that AIC and Pearl Jam have most of the influence on modern post-grunge. Basically, I still think Nirvana were a great band and should be inducted, even if they do get some false accolades.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 07.29.10 @ 20:37pm


Instead of five times, play the 25 or 6 to 4 riff twice and you have Brain Stew, if you play guitar. (I just looked up a tab for both, and as a bassist ive always played the same thing)

I do hope all of the "big four" of grunge get inducted, though it wouldnt surprise me if AIC and possibly Soundgarden get left out in favor of Nirvana and Pearl Jam, Rolling Stone was never too crazy about them. Dont the musical sea changes usually occur in about the first 2 years of a decade? In that case we probably got a little bit more crap from Nickelhack and company left..ugh... :/

Posted by Jim on Thursday, 07.29.10 @ 21:15pm


These guys will get in and I will bet my first born child on this.

Posted by Dan on Sunday, 08.1.10 @ 16:31pm


Nirvana became the symbol of teenage angst in a time when metal heads were listening to hair bands. Think 1988 Headbangers ball... They literally stopped hair bands in their tracks and the sound of metal changed to grunge. They were immediately influential on a generation ready for a new sound.

Posted by Mistik on Monday, 08.16.10 @ 17:28pm


wow why are you all arguing over nirvana just get it straight no matter what you say or do they will get in they contributed to rock history with "teen spirit" and had a brilliant vocalist and guitarist to carry them through their short lived career. you may think they suck but every member of nirvana had talent whether you like it or not regardless of the suicide of its most popular member just keep in mind that "teen spirit" is the 9th greatest song of all time surpassing "a day in the life" and "purple haze" if your smart enough to know either song

Posted by ioj on Monday, 08.23.10 @ 07:47am


Nirvana produced a song called "POLLY" from their best album Nevermind, after listening to this, one of the greatest legends in rock history "BOB DYLAN" said "the kid has heart".
The reason why he said that was because of the lyrics, which were based on a true incident which he(kurt) read in the local newspaper, the news said that a girl was raped & tortured under a blowtorch after she had attended a punk rock show.

Try listening to this song all who dont like the LEGEND, Kurt Cobain.

Posted by shazz on Saturday, 08.28.10 @ 09:41am


Give me a Leonard Cohen afterworld so I can sigh eternally.

-Kurt Cobain

Posted by DDD on Friday, 09.24.10 @ 07:09am


A terrribly overrated band.
Thats not to say I don't like them, I do. They were a great band, just not nearly as great as people make them out to be (i'm sorry Rolling Stone, Kurt Cobain was NOT the 12th best guitarist of all time). They will get in for sure and deservedly so; their music set the stage for the 90s. That is not to say they were the best band of the 90s; either the Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumkins or Green Day get that call. Think about it, if Anthony Kiedis blew off his head... well I think you know where I'm going (thank god he didn't)RIP Kurt Cobain

Posted by J on Friday, 09.24.10 @ 21:15pm


I am thinking they will be nominated and get in on first ballot

Posted by rockinsue on Saturday, 09.25.10 @ 09:11am


Why are people reposting other people's comments? Still, I'll bite.

"That is not to say they were the best band of the 90s; either the Chili Peppers, Smashing Pumkins or Green Day get that call."

Nirvana>Green Day (that's not an insult to Green Day.) You forgot, also in contention for this title: Blur, Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Rage Against the Machine, Suede (The London Suede there's known as in the US but I'm not going to insult them by calling that,) Oasis, Megadeth, Massive Attack... there are probably others. Why are Nirvana definitely not the best band of the 90's?

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 09.26.10 @ 05:51am


Thus far I've managed to avoid indulging in my seething hatred for all things grunge (or, as I like to call it, "the unraveling of centuries of musical progress"). But this one was too good to pass up.

Posted by Randy on Wednesday, 01.14.09 @ 23:50pm

Centuries of progress? Judas H. Priest some of you classic rockers are whining lunkheads. More like two or three decades of progress, but that's what it was about: Keeping the music grounded, making sure things didn't get too overblown (just like the second-wave of punk.) Ironic that you should piss and moan about musical progress being undone while campaigning for Foreigner to be inducted. Perhaps you have yet to be shown what love is :)

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 09.26.10 @ 11:13am


I hope they get in

Posted by rockinsue on Monday, 09.27.10 @ 09:42am


Perhaps the words of Kurt himself could teach a lesson to everyone here that is hating on Nirvana - "self appointed judges judge more than they have sold". Nirvana sucks? Lets see you write a song still played daily on major radio stations around the world 20 years after being released.

Posted by Joey on Friday, 10.8.10 @ 15:29pm


wow there's acctually a chance they won't get in

Posted by adam on Thursday, 10.28.10 @ 16:15pm


Well you can't give someone a 100% induction chance because you never know what'll happen, but it'll be a shock if it takes longer than three years for them to get in. It's not a question of if, but when.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 10.31.10 @ 07:14am


Of course they will get in, they forged a musical movement that blew almost everything out of the water, very few 80s acts survived it (U2, REM, Depeche Mode), but i still think they sucked so bad, to me Nirvana were just a racket and Cobain was a pathetic excuse for a rock star.

Posted by Paul on Saturday, 11.13.10 @ 13:40pm


Look Nirvana should be and will inducteed into the rock and roll hall of fame. I mean look at what they accomplished in the their 3 year reign in the pop and rock music scene. They took the world of music and overturned it alomst singlehandedly overnight. No other band in memory since The Beatles has done that. They are indeffinantly a shoe in for the hall of fame and my all time favorite and to me the most life changing and influitial band ever. Does nebody else agree with me?

Posted by Cr8zyTimmy on Tuesday, 12.21.10 @ 08:06am


Do I think Nirvana should be inducted? Yes, but since Kurt Cobain is dead now, why would that matter if they were inducted or not? I haven't heard of the band trying to revive themselves. Talent wise, yes they should be inducted but I really don't see any relavance towards it if they haven't been making music after Kurt's death, and if they did, I don't know about it.

I just don't think it's going to happen, even though I wouldn't mind them being in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

As far as the year Kurt died in 1994, that was the year Justin Bieber was born. How about we exchanged Justin for Kurt, deal? Then maybe I would consider an induction for Nirvana.

Posted by Brittany on Thursday, 12.23.10 @ 15:49pm


"They are indeffinantly a shoe in for the hall of fame and my all time favorite and to me the most life changing and influitial band ever. Does nebody else agree with me?"

Well I can't comment on whether they're your favorite or not, but I agree that they're a shoe-in (Brittany, do you want to bet with me on Nirvana NOT making the Hall of Fame? The only ones who you could maybe say are more mortal locks are Green Day, Pearl Jam, Guns 'n' Roses and Nirvana). As for "most influential", you lost me there, though not quite as much as the person up above who said "along with GNR, the most influential band since classic Aerosmith". Influential? Definitely. However, more influential than...

-New Order/Joy Division (both incarnations were very influential)
-The Smiths
-R.E.M.
-The Clash
-The Sex Pistols
-The Cure
-Kraftwerk
-Motorhead
-Sabbath
-Zeppelin
-The Beatles (ironically mentioned in that statement)

...to name a few? I'm not sure about that.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 12.29.10 @ 11:02am


As for "most influential", you lost me there, though not quite as much as the person up above who said "along with GNR, the most influential band since classic Aerosmith". Influential? Definitely. However, more influential than...

-New Order/Joy Division (both incarnations were very influential)
-The Smiths
-R.E.M.
-The Clash
-The Sex Pistols
-The Cure
-Kraftwerk
-Motorhead
-Sabbath
-Zeppelin
-The Beatles (ironically mentioned in that statement)

...to name a few? I'm not sure about that.



Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 12.29.10 @ 11:02am
--------------------------------------------------
The statement you quoted above says the most influential band since "classic Aerosmith". When I think classic Aerosmith, I think "Toys In The Attic" & beyond, up till about say, 1981? 82? Around there.

Right off the bat, this eliminates the Beatles, Zeppelin, & Sabbath. They either did all their work, or the bulk of the most famous stuff, pre-75.

The rest is all apples/oranges. Depends on what you like (danceable, thrashier, scuzzier... is that a word?!!), where you were (everything from your social existence to your geography) & what age you were. It's all neutral...

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 12.29.10 @ 17:47pm


"along with GNR, the most influential band since classic Aerosmith".

Except GNR didn't influence jack.

Posted by Jim on Wednesday, 12.29.10 @ 18:14pm


"Right off the bat, this eliminates the Beatles, Zeppelin, & Sabbath. They either did all their work, or the bulk of the most famous stuff, pre-75." - Cheesecrop

Sorry, I should've been clearer about that. I was mainly responding to the above post suggesting that Nirvana are hte most influential band ever, which seems highly unlikely to me.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 01.1.11 @ 06:36am


Kurt Cobain lists one of his influences as The Melvins or atleast he should as he had a role in the band and Nirvana do sound a bit like the pixies they're both GREAT bands!!!!

Posted by Jake on Friday, 01.7.11 @ 17:36pm


Why Is It That Guys Like Nirvana Are Considered Out Of Date These Guys Are Awesome I Know The Band Is Gone But The Songs & Memories Will Never Die Hell I'm Listening To One Of There Songs Right Now And As Far As I'm Concered There Songs Are Still Great Today As They Were When The First Debuted, THEY SHOULD BE IN THE ROCK N ROLL HALL OF FAME ALREADY.

Posted by Louis on Saturday, 01.8.11 @ 05:42am


R.I.P Kurt

Posted by Louis on Saturday, 01.8.11 @ 05:45am


Even The Clash doesn't have the large amount of credibility than Green Day does.

That's saying a lot for Green Day, I think.

Don't judge them for wearing eye-makeup or the red and black clothing and start recognizing what Green Day's become.

They were even compared to The Beatles.

Posted by shitheadbb on Friday, 01.14.11 @ 10:05am


Don't judge them for wearing eye-makeup or the red and black clothing and start recognizing what Green Day's become.

They were even compared to The Beatles.

Posted by shitheadbb on Friday, 01.14.11 @ 10:05am

Beatles ass?

Posted by chubaka on Friday, 01.14.11 @ 10:34am


who the hell even mentioned green day anyway?

Posted by GFW on Friday, 01.14.11 @ 11:32am


"Even The Clash doesn't have the large amount of credibility than Green Day does."

Who suggested that? Have they been sacked yet? The Clash were far more important than Green Day.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 01.15.11 @ 11:57am


Whoever said that must of confused Commercial sucess with quality.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 01.15.11 @ 12:20pm


The whole essence of Nirvana and the song "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is captured beautifully by "Weird Al" Yankovic in the lyrics of his song "Smells Like Nirvana." "I'm screaming and I'm screaming, and I don't know what I'm singing. Yeah."

Posted by Stu on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 15:40pm


The whole essence of Nirvana and the song "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is captured beautifully by "Weird Al" Yankovic in the lyrics of his song "Smells Like Nirvana." "I'm screaming and I'm screaming, and I don't know what I'm singing. Yeah."

Posted by Stu on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 15:40pm


--------------------------------------------------
One of Weird Al's absolute best.

"Well I'm mumbling,

and I'm screaming,

and I don't know,

what I'm singing,

Well if you have,

some idea,

didn't think so,

well I'll see ya!

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 17:41pm


We don't even need a poll for these guys!

Posted by Edward on Thursday, 01.20.11 @ 04:34am


People often forget. Kurt wrote everything,did all the artwork,did designs for the shirts,made dolls and collages with fetuses and Flowers,made sculptures wich had all become part of Nirvana. Kurt was an absolute artist!Unfortunatley your typical Guitar master will come along and be like "Cobain couldnt solo' or he played 3 chords. NO sh%t!! simplicity was the formula and id say it worked. Dont hate on the guy cause he writes better songs than you with two chords while you still practice your "sweep APPREGIOS".

Nirvana was a great band that absolutlely no doubt they should be in the HOF.Someone said i wonder what would of come of nirvana if kurt didnt die. I dont think much more but its been said that kurt was suppose to record with micheal stypes.(interesting) Nirvana 2014!Be great to see dave and krist together!

Posted by nolan on Saturday, 02.19.11 @ 06:27am


Just because the singer kills himself doesn't mean that any joke of a band like Nirvana can be inducted into the HoF.....
As a matter of fact, Korn is a much better band than Nirvana.

It's a shame really that real artists like Korn are ignored but posers and con artists like Cobain and co. are hailed by the critics just because the former didn't have the balls to stay alive and face reality like a man.

Smells like teen spirit is the worst "Rock" song ever.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 02.21.11 @ 08:40am


At least their songs werne't endless whining.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 02.21.11 @ 12:40pm


^
Not me.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 02.21.11 @ 16:13pm


For the love of God, DarinRG.....first, biebersgirl or whatever, now this...get over yourself already man.

Posted by Stu on Thursday, 02.24.11 @ 05:07am


What's with these people who hijack people's accounts because they don't have the balls to post their own names? Meet me outside the Plume & Feathers at 1:00 tomorrow, and I'll teach you a lesson.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 02.25.11 @ 04:27am


Sam, shall I bring my dildo?

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 02.25.11 @ 05:05am


I so hope that was the real Cheesecrop.

Posted by DarinRG on Friday, 02.25.11 @ 05:17am


I'm sure "Nevermind" is without doubt one of the most successful albums in the history of music; especially in the 90's. They spread a whole heat of the moment for Grunge, and so many bands appeared as followers. There's no reason they shouldn't be inducted.

Posted by Dadada on Friday, 02.25.11 @ 19:31pm


While Nirvana is certainly influential and deserves induction, can we stop this crap about how "Grunge Killed 80s music" thing? Seriously. Bon Jovi had Keep The Faith in 1992, Duran Duran had The Wedding Album with two top ten singles, Janet Jackson and Madonna had numerous successes, Def Leppard had a number 1 album and like 6 top 40 singles (granted it was riding the Hysteria wave but still), Bryan Adams had several top ten hits from 93-96 (even if they all sucked), Aerosmith was bigger than ever after Get A Grip (which was impressive considering how they were borderline hair metal a few years earlier), KISS had their first top ten album in decades with Revenge and got huge MTV support at a time when Grunge was supposedly wiping all heavy metal off of the map, Van Halen kept their winning streak alive with For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge and Balance, New Edition (about as 80s pop as you can get) had a number one album and hits in 1996, The Beastie Boys managed not to just stay relevant, but forge a comeback with Ill Communication, LL Cool J was only dented popularity-wise by Gangsta rap, Guns N'Roses still dominated until the original group broke up, etc.

So no, Grunge did not kill 80s rock, the bands that were wiped out were simply unable to adapt their sound and remain interesting to the general public.

Posted by Jim on Tuesday, 03.1.11 @ 21:25pm


CAN'T GET ENOUGH OF THEM.

Posted by Gigi on Wednesday, 03.2.11 @ 08:48am


Thank you Jim. If anything "killed" the hair bands it would be thrash and speed metal. And no Grunge didn't kill metal, anyone with half a brain would realize that (especially considering Grunge's strong metal influences).

Posted by Sam on Friday, 03.4.11 @ 08:29am


Rest in Peace, Kurt Cobain. (Today is the 17th anniversary of his suicide.)

Posted by Joe on Tuesday, 04.5.11 @ 22:02pm


This is retarded. I've heard the Pixies and the Melvins before, and there's no way you can claim that Nirvana sounds "exactly" like them. That is quite obviously false--the Pixies and the Melvins don't even sound that much like each other, so how can Nirvana sound exactly like both of them? The statement "They sounded almost exactly like their influences, whereas most decent bands have at least a hint of a unique sound about them." is vacuous and subjective, you could really say that about any band if you wanted to.

Posted by Mitch on Wednesday, 05.4.11 @ 07:40am


So my galloping insomnia has taken over after a long respite, & I find myself up in the middle of the night.
-------------------------

While Nirvana is certainly influential and deserves induction, can we stop this crap about how "Grunge Killed 80s music" thing? Seriously. Bon Jovi had Keep The Faith in 1992, Duran Duran had The Wedding Album with two top ten singles, Janet Jackson and Madonna had numerous successes, Def Leppard had a number 1 album and like 6 top 40 singles (granted it was riding the Hysteria wave but still), Bryan Adams had several top ten hits from 93-96 (even if they all sucked), Aerosmith was bigger than ever after Get A Grip (which was impressive considering how they were borderline hair metal a few years earlier), KISS had their first top ten album in decades with Revenge and got huge MTV support at a time when Grunge was supposedly wiping all heavy metal off of the map, Van Halen kept their winning streak alive with For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge and Balance, New Edition (about as 80s pop as you can get) had a number one album and hits in 1996, The Beastie Boys managed not to just stay relevant, but forge a comeback with Ill Communication, LL Cool J was only dented popularity-wise by Gangsta rap, Guns N'Roses still dominated until the original group broke up, etc.

So no, Grunge did not kill 80s rock, the bands that were wiped out were simply unable to adapt their sound and remain interesting to the general public.

Posted by Jim on Tuesday, 03.1.11 @ 21:25pm


--------------------------------------------------
I'm going to say it did (partially cause I need a reason to be typing at this hour).

You referenced Aerosmith, Van Halen, & Kiss amongst acts who continued to have success. I think a part of that reason is that they all had a portion of their audiences form in the pre-MTV era. They didn't necessarily need MTV (though they didn't refuse any extra help when it came their way.

As for Madonna, Janet Jackson, etc., they did in fact lose some influence. Their dance audience bases kept them in the clear for the most part. Also, they both made moves toward the movies/mock respectability. Celebrity-hood saved them.

As for GNR, they were most definitely not the biggest band till they left the stage. A little act called Pearl Jam had completely taken over by 1993. Consider simply that Use Your Illusion, w/MTV help, sold 770,000 copies during it's debut wk. in 1991, which was a record at the time. Two yrs. later, PJ, sans videos, sells 950,000 copies of VS. in it's debut wk. (& GNR were still an official outfit in the fall of 1993).

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 05.5.11 @ 05:14am


why are so many people saying negative stuff about nirvana? I love nirvana.Now I love how alote of people are saying crap about Nirana no mader how mutch crap you say its not going to change the fact that Nrvana IS one of the best bands of alltime and its also not going to change that Nirvana is most likely to win. and to that one dud who said Nirvanas nervermind album was one of the worsr albums that album sold 26 million record records world wide and which 11 million of those records were sold in the U.S. and the record is still being sold today.

Posted by John on Sunday, 05.15.11 @ 15:33pm


You don't have to talk about them because they are a shoe-in for the Rock Hall!

Posted by Roy on Friday, 06.3.11 @ 08:59am


Influence: Nearly all rock bands today are inspired by them in one way or another.
Innovation: Not much here, they didn't bring much new stuff sonically to the Grunge genre.
Critical Respect: Critic's love these guys, they are on many greatest artists lists and Nevermind normally gets into the top 10 on greatest albums of all time lists.
Sales: 50 million sold.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 06.20.11 @ 16:37pm


Regardless of whether another band sold more, Nirvana is one of those no-brainer acts for induction. It would be shocking it the band was not nominated, and inducted, in its first year of eligibility.

Posted by JR on Tuesday, 06.21.11 @ 23:41pm


While I may hate Nirvana, their influence on music is undeniable. In my opinion, they are overrated and a terrible band, however, they started a movement which shook the music industry to its core, so yes they will make it in, and they absolutely deserve to make it in.

Posted by James on Wednesday, 06.22.11 @ 14:29pm


Again, they did not start grunge or post-grunge. They changed the landscape certainly, and they do deserve induction, but let's not go crazy here.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 06.29.11 @ 09:46am


THIS IS THE BEST BAND EVER.

Posted by the on Wednesday, 09.7.11 @ 20:32pm


Okay, if Nirvana doesn't make it in, I'm going to cry harder than I did watching Titanic.

Posted by Cheese on Friday, 09.30.11 @ 21:39pm


Nirvana should absolutely make it in, because their music has brought about something and it always helps me in hard times and makes me dance in good times. Kurt Cobain awesome!
They´re the best!

Posted by Anna on Monday, 10.17.11 @ 13:13pm


The Beastie Boys and Eminem currently have higher induction chances on this site than Nirvana.

Nirvana: 81% Induction chances

Beastie Boys: 82% Induction chances.

Eminem: 89% Induction chances.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 10:12am


Nirvana should get in and probbly will get in. Beastie Boys could do without. But if you like rap/hiphop Eminem is one of the best ever, my students tell me this, mostly black kids an they not frontin' me, as they say.

Posted by Cokey on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 10:46am


I'd say they all deserve in.

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 11:11am


Nirvana should get in and probbly will get in. Beastie Boys could do without. But if you like rap/hiphop Eminem is one of the best ever, my students tell me this, mostly black kids an they not frontin' me, as they say.

Posted by Cokey on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 11:17am


Cokey, if you really are a teacher, then I am very worried, given your inability to spell "uniquely". I'm even giving you the benefit of the doubt that "probbly" was typo, with the missing a.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 13:26pm


Philip, you are a sleuth, but it is the truth. I teach math in Mt. Vernon NY. Cokey is a psoodonym -- but now reely, isnt good spelling sumthing squares do? Not saying that you are one. And besides, I dont dislike squares, wats not to like abowt a right-angled parallelogram w/4 eqwal sides? hehe, lookit now Philip ya made a fooler outta me!

Posted by Cokey on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 20:52pm


Ugh...

Posted by Chalkie on Thursday, 11.24.11 @ 21:31pm


Well, I knew you couldn't be an English teacher. Intentionally spelling poorly is one thing, but you outright admitted you didn't know how to spell uniquely. I mean, we all have words that trip us up from time and time, and have brain farts, but that was just so off that it worries me. Even a math teacher should be able to spell. I remember in high school, I got my grade docked on a biology paper for a misspelling and a grammar faux pas. That was biology, mind you, not English.

Anyway, Chalkie summed up my feelings best with his subsequent post.

Posted by Philip on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 12:51pm


Hey Philip, how do you catch a rare rabbit?
A: Uneek up on him.
How you gonna tell me abowt spelling wurds?

Posted by Indie Rock on Friday, 11.25.11 @ 14:09pm


Weather you like them or not, Nirvana changed the rock scene at their time. They may not have invented the grunge movement, but they made it popular. Pretty much an automatic in imo.

Posted by Eric on Wednesday, 12.14.11 @ 09:17am


i can not believe all the negative comments it truly saddens me to see all the people bashing the legacy of nirvana by the way all the bastards who believe they ripped off the pixies can go to hell and obviously never heard a single song from the band nirvana and are just making false accusations to appease there egos nirvana war thrice the band the pixies were

Posted by GenR on Monday, 01.9.12 @ 03:19am


I love this band.

Posted by Jerry on Tuesday, 01.17.12 @ 22:25pm


hell yes they will deserve 2 be in da hall of fame they with sabbath , ac/dc , motorhead nirvana one of rocks greatest bands , my fav songs are in bloom , rape me , come as you are , lake of fire , heart shaped box , lithium , their album nevermind is one of rocks greatest albums

Posted by peter charlie 1991 on Thursday, 01.19.12 @ 15:30pm


I hate gossip. Who let all airheaded ignorant asswipes talk shit about the most influintial band of the past 25 years of music. I will be the first one to say it i guess. Nirvana were a band unlike any other at the time. Would u people like to know what made them so different. While every other gunge band at the time were busy revolting against their influinces kurt was the only songwriter Who EMBRACED his influences

Posted by Tim on Monday, 02.6.12 @ 00:23am


why would they disregard their influences?

Also not true, you can hear elements of Black Sabbath in Soundgarden.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 02.6.12 @ 13:09pm


Well, I think if the Rock and Roll hall of fame is trying to give the people what THEY want, then they should have inducted Nirvana about 20 commented pages ago! I love nirvana, I went there today and was pretty disappointed on how little they had from the band. I have read a few of the comments and I agree that it should be bases on how much they contributed to music, but I feel that Nivana has definitely contributed their fair share to music. I mean, LADY GAGA, Britney Spears, Taylor Swift and Carrie Underwood are in the ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME, and NIRVANA Isn't?? Oh well, I guess thats what I get for going during women who rock month.. although those women listed above are the farthest thing from ROCKING in my book.

GIVE THE PEOPLE WHAT THEY WANT..... A HUGEEE NIRVANA EXHIBIT.. IN 2012!

(Ain't nobody tryna wait 2 years!)

Posted by Lindsey M on Sunday, 02.19.12 @ 21:23pm


I like it when people say all Nirvana songs sound the same, it's too simple, it's not "grunge", blah blah blah.

All "grunge" bands are supposed to be different. Pearl Jam's has a more country/bluesy influence, Soundgarden is more classic rock, Alice in Chains is more metal. Nirvana is more punk than anything which is supposed to be simple, and is built around chord riffs as opposed to some of the more technical riffs you get with PJ, SG or AIC. It's a question of taste, not talent, IMO.

Posted by Bob on Friday, 02.24.12 @ 03:32am


whether you like nirvana or not they were great in that they were inivative -they managed to be punk/rock/pop/alternative all at the same time. yes some of what they did was influenced by other bands and other bands also did some of what they did, but they still remained unique - you never hear nirvana and mistake it for anything else whereas other bands - well known or otherwise, you might. add to that - kurt was the last great rock star.

Posted by hannah on Sunday, 03.11.12 @ 13:44pm


mnbvcxz0030

Posted by inquireef on Saturday, 03.17.12 @ 19:29pm


utime

Posted by Joync on Tuesday, 03.20.12 @ 00:31am


Just can't wait for them to get in

Posted by Happy on Tuesday, 03.20.12 @ 01:04am


i will be EXTREMELY disappointed if they arent first ballot. greatest ever band with some of the greatest ever songs, need their own wing and everything

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 15:25pm


my fav band of all time

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 15:29pm


their own wing is a bit much but they certainly deserve first ballot induction.

Posted by GFW on Wednesday, 03.28.12 @ 15:32pm


As someone who lived through the grunge era, I can say that Nirvana and the other bands of the genre were overrated whiners. It was all look at us we're dirty and hard not big haired spandex wearing hair bands. The only reason Grunge took off was it was close enough to hair metal in sound that it wasn't a major leap in sound. The really good bands were H.O.R.D.E. tour bands. Most of them actually had talent.

If Kurt hadn't blown the back of his skull off, no one would remember them anymore.

Posted by Totchos on Sunday, 04.15.12 @ 11:18am


funny, i could of sworn they were already hugely successful commercially and critically. most bands like that don't just dissapear from the public eye.

also if your beloved H.O.R.D.E tour bands were so good why does no one give a damn about them anymore?

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 04.15.12 @ 13:27pm


I like the comparisons up at the top... Someone made a comment about a roadie from Motley Crue doing guitar work for Nirvana. Anyone mentioning Motley Crue in that light needs to get a clue. No one took Motley Crue seriously, they were jokes.

As for Cobain, I think he could have come up with a lot more music and by the trend he was following, come out with some really neat projects. Too bad he did himself in. I think Cobain would have been an ever-last of fame either way because his discography would have been more expansive - in and out of Nirvana. But what's done is done and it is all speculation from here.

Of course Nirvana deserves in, after 1 good album and 3 phenomenal one's it is a no brainer. A cathartic and emotive band who had a soft-side of angst-ridden rebellion but a rough side of wisdom doesn't get better than this. It is without a doubt rock n' roll was better in the 90s (late 80s-early 90s). No, I am not a Gen X'er but if you listen to rock n roll in its heyday and blues even, you'll get the big picture. Grunge was about making music for the sake of music and for nothing more.

Posted by Christian on Tuesday, 04.17.12 @ 01:15am


Nirvana was literally 'the' band of the 90's they'll get in the minute they can.

Posted by Keez on Monday, 04.30.12 @ 09:00am


In my opinion there is no doubt that Nirvana will be in the Hall of fame!! I love Nirvana & Kurt! He had the ability to put raw emotion into his songs, weaving poetry into the lyrics, the band creating a whole energy that draws you in!They stood up for their beliefs on a personal & musical level & didn't become sell outs! Kurt even did the art for his album covers & helped with the ideas and creation of their videos! I feel they had real talent and obviously millions of others for the past 20+ years have felt the same. And its also my opionion that llots of brilliant artists are tourtured souls, making them shine brighter than the rest, many with the ability to reach out to their fans artistically.It s just a shame that Kurts personal demons got the best of him.

Posted by Ramona on Monday, 05.21.12 @ 10:40am


Nirvana will be inducted the same way Guns N' Roses were inducted-first year of eligibility!

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 06.9.12 @ 08:39am


This time, there'll be a good reason for the lead singer not to turn up.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 06.9.12 @ 14:25pm


Should they get in? Absolutely. Even my stepdad,who hates Nirvana, thinks so. They were one of the "Big Four" in grunge, they were the most successful of the Big Four, Nevermind literally threw grunge into the mainstream. Kurt Cobain has written many classic songs ("Smells Like Teen Spirit", "Lithium", "Come As You Are", "In Bloom", "Rape Me", "Heart Shaped Box", "Something In The Way", "About A Girl", "Dumb",etc.) and is this mythical god in rock in roll. Plus, there are probably fans on the board.

Posted by Mr.Stone on Monday, 06.11.12 @ 14:52pm


I'm sorry. The Nevermind album didn't actually popularized grunge on it's own. But it did play a big part.

And yeah, Kurt's not really#12. Even he would fine that ridiculous.

Posted by Mr.Stone on Wednesday, 06.20.12 @ 18:15pm


IF nirvana doesnt get in in their 1st year eligible, then i will officially hate the R&R Hall of Fame.
Whether you like it or not, Nirvana is going to get inducted. End of story. They did what no other band could ever have done.
RIP Kurt Cobain.

Posted by Kyle on Thursday, 06.28.12 @ 17:36pm


Nirvana will get in. They are a legend. When Kurt died, grunge died.

Posted by Pump on Monday, 07.23.12 @ 05:55am


Although they were one of the pioneering bands that ushered in the Grunge Alternative Rock movement in the early 1990's, and had achieved notoriety, fame, and a handful of Top 10 Hits, I DO NOT think they are worthy of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

There is ONE BIG REASON why they should NOT be inducted ....

Longevity (or lack thereof).

I am sorry, when you had only three album releases over a course of 5 years, plus a live album, that does not constitute enough longevity in the sense of actual years active and # of album releases during that time.

As a Rush fan, a band that had (and still has) a huge influence on many HOF and future HOF inductees, I stand idly by and watch bands like Guns n' Roses and Blondie get inducted into the HOF when their longevity was questionable at best.

I understand that Kurt Cobain's life was cut short and thus Nirvana disbanded after that, but the # of albums and # of years active is too short.

I am not saying that they should not be inducted in the Rock HOF, but certainly not for at least 5 - 10 years after their first year of eligibility. There are still lots of other influential rock artists and bands with more influence, # of albums, and overall longevity than Nirvana that should be inducted before they are. I certainly would like to see, for example, Kiss, Bon Jovi, Bryan Adams, Def Leppard, & Yes be inducted before Nirvana.

Posted by Brian Vincent on Friday, 08.17.12 @ 15:54pm


"Bryan Adams before Nirvana"

Posted by GFW on Friday, 08.17.12 @ 16:16pm


Two words: Jimi Hendrix.

Posted by The_Claw on Friday, 08.17.12 @ 19:30pm


Lock for induction, obviously. This is definitely a great band, but also one of the most overrated bands ever due to Cobain's death.

Posted by DRM on Monday, 08.20.12 @ 13:53pm


"Bon Jovi, Bryan Adams,"

I don't know how to do the picture thing, but this image says it all:

http://files.sharenator.com/wtf_is_this_shit_Very_Disturbing_Childrens_Book_We_dont_say_quotGermanquot_in_America-s400x297-59009-535.jpg

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 09.2.12 @ 16:39pm


For those who say that Nirvana shouldn't be in because they weren't around long enough...remember Cream? They were only around 3 years and had only 1 album and yet they were inducted

Posted by Tokiya on Monday, 12.3.12 @ 13:55pm


Cream had 4 albums during their time as a band and various live ones released afterwards.

Might wanna do a bit of research next time, champ.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 12.3.12 @ 14:38pm


Nirvana is a shoe-in for next year!

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 12.9.12 @ 23:08pm


NIRVANA

01. Kurt Cobain – lead vocals, guitar (1987–1994)
02. Krist Novoselic – bass guitar (1987–1994)
03. Dave Grohl – drums, backing vocals (1990–1994)

Do you think Chad Channing, the drummer on the first Nirvana album will be inducted?

Nirvana albums

Bleach (1989)
Nevermind (1991)
In Utero (1993)

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 12.9.12 @ 23:24pm


Will Chad Channing be inducted? No. Should he be? Yes. While it wasn't a major label release, Bleach is still considered an "important" recording by Nirvana, so he should be honored for his role, but he also seems like the type of guy they'd snub to stick with the gloss of the better known trio alone.

Posted by DarinRG on Sunday, 12.9.12 @ 23:37pm


Paul McCartney to sing with Nirvana members at Sandy Relief gig

http://music.msn.com/music/article.aspx?news=779684

Posted by akeem on Wednesday, 12.12.12 @ 18:53pm


I could see the Rock Hall choosing to put Chicago and Nirvana on the same ballot for 2014 because of the way that both of their guitarists died (Terry Kath and Kurt Cobain). Chicago and Nirvana in the same year would be great, and maybe even Joy Division/New Order with them as well.

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 12.13.12 @ 08:36am


Would like to note that by all accounts Terry Kath accidently shot himself while stupidly playing with a gun, Kurt Cobain shot himself non-accidently.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 12.13.12 @ 15:11pm


Yes, I know.

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 12.13.12 @ 15:26pm


Chicago, Joy Division/New Order, Nirvana and Stevie Ray Vaughan all in the same year!

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 12.19.12 @ 10:56am


Since when are longevity and quantity more important then quality, influence, and orginality? If recording tons of music over a long period of time is so important then 101 Strings and Mantovani should be inducted before highly influential, critically acclaimed, and commerically successful, but tragically short lived acts like Nirvana or Jimi Hendrix (3 albums) or Janis Joplin (4 albums) or Buddy Holly (3 albums dead at 22) or Ritchie Valens (dead at 17)

Posted by Purpleduck on Friday, 12.28.12 @ 19:39pm


Every new rock or punk band or whatever owes their lives to Nirvana. Without Nirvana none of the new bands would have existed (I'm talking to you Bayside & The Used)Kurt, with his lyrics and talent to write really catchy hooks added with Novoselic & Grohl as poetry in motion. I know Courtney Love's father Hank & he isn't a fan of the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame but I personally want to see this band get respect.Oh and also many hip hop artists are fans as well. So Nirvana has fans from every genre of music because their honest is a turn on and they were very influential. Kurt isn't on the physical earth anymore but I'd like to think had Kurt lived, maybe he'd found peace and got help and enjoyed the music and fame.

Posted by Mark Craig on Sunday, 01.6.13 @ 20:53pm


NIRVANA needs to be in the hall of fame because the only hiccup the band ever had was smells like teen spirit (yes im going there) because even though that song was the song of the year for 1991 it gave the band (and kurt) so much undesired attention (but necessary attention) they still would have gotten famous regardless of that song because they had already been heard in california by 1990 but yes they need to be in the hall of fame

Posted by James on Saturday, 01.19.13 @ 20:43pm


So tired of all the, "If Kurt hadn't of put a gun to his head..." commenters. Nirvana was HUGE even before Kurt committed suicide, and the reason for them staying huge afterward isn't solely because the lead singer is dead. They're a great band who put grunge music on the radar. Eddie Vedder has said himself many times that Pearl Jam along with a ton of other grunge bands wouldn't be where they are without Kurt Cobain. Overstatement? Possibly, since I'm sure they would have gotten there eventually - especially Pearl Jam because they're incredibly talented - but there's no denying that Nirvana's overnight hit of an album, Nevermind, helped slingshot a lot of grunge bands into the spotlight a heck of a lot quicker. I get that there are those who don't like Nirvana, which is fine. You're entitled to your opinion, and obviously not everyone is going to appreciate the same bands/musicians. But just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't deserve to be recognized by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. I look forward to their induction in 2014.

Posted by Ann on Tuesday, 02.12.13 @ 16:58pm


Given their major impact on the entire alternative and rock music scene, Nirvana is almost a lock at first-time induction.

Posted by John Cady on Wednesday, 02.20.13 @ 10:30am


Nirvana most definitely deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and in its initial qualifying year.

For those who think all they did was scream, you've obviously not seen/heard their absolutely wonderful Unplugged session.

Also, if you've heard most or all of their available catalogue and heard Kurt singing different types of music - too often the little "aside" or "for fun" songs - you know his voice was more than just screaming. Actually, most of the screaming was in concert as far as I can tell. But there is always a place and purpose for intensity which some would call screaming.

Kurt could have done so many different things musically and fine art-artistically. Who knows what path he might have taken, what he might have tried, the emotions he might have drawn out of himself and his audience. He was, I think, in reality a gentle soul who was passionate about his art even if he eventually grew weary of what he was doing.

To me, it is not all about the perfect voice or instrumentation - though there is something to be said for swift, clean and neat. Its about how it affects the listener/viewer. I personally like things a bit rough around the edges - the raspy, gravelly voice etc.

But I would hope most people could admit that Dave Grohl is one hell of a fantastic drummer - he and John Bonham are the best ever to me. Never cared much for Krist, he never seemed to me to fit and in far too much need of attention.

I hope when they are inducted that they are "done proud" and respectfully. Couple of ways to do that - keep Courtney out of it and don't bring up Kurt's supposed suicide.

There's way too much reasonable doubt and evidence to the contrary. But it shouldn't be dealt with on this stage. The fact that he is gone and with him the talent and potential he possessed is sufficiently accurate and sad to mark on this occasion. It should celebrate their accomplisments, contributions and the feelings they gave their audience which all contributed to their success.

Ironic that their induction may come in the year of the 20th anniversary of Kurt's death.

Posted by Carla on Wednesday, 04.24.13 @ 23:09pm


Nirvana will get in next year, but Soundgarden? I don't think they will be as popular with the voters the first time around on the ballot. Nirvana was a much, much bigger influence.

Posted by Robert on Monday, 04.29.13 @ 10:28am


No chance that Chad Channing is inducted with the band. He performed on one pretty good album that doesn't really make or break this group's Hall of Fame career. It will just be the trio that gets in.

Posted by Casper on Sunday, 05.12.13 @ 16:40pm


The release of the single "Love Buzz" in Nov. 1988 technically seems to make Nirvana eligible to be on the ballot. BUT - They didn't release the album Bleach or fully sign to Sub Pop until six months later, which I would think would make them more appropriate for the NEXT ballot in 2014.

My trouble with all this is that Janes Addiction's Nothing's Shocking was released in August 1988 and Daydream Nation by Sonic Youth came out the fall of 1988, which really makes 1988 their years, not Nirvana's. Nirvana was still opening up for Sonic Youth through 1990 and even in 1991, and SY got them hooked up with Geffen records. Dave Grohl wasn't in the band until around the Geffen signing.

I guess I'd really like to see both Janes and SY in the HOF before Nirvana, and I don't see anything wrong with waiting even until 2015 or 2016 to induct Nirvana -- 1991 was "the year punk broke" after all, thanks a lot to everything Sonic Youth did to help other bands.

Because, after all, "it's just another day in a daydream nation."

Posted by JDM on Monday, 05.20.13 @ 21:02pm


Nirvana. I don't even know where to begin. Probably my favourite band next to the Beatles and Led Zeppelin of course. You know, there's a lot of controversy over them. There's always haters. I mean, if you respect my music I can respect yours. I think Nirvana should be inducted. Not just because twy are one of my favourite bands. But for real reasons, that anyone would understand. They changed music in general. Kurt Cobain was talented in his profession. So were Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic. Not to mention Chad Channing and the line of drummers that came before Grohl. There music, it makes you feel something inside. It's almost melancholy for me. A lot of people think I shouldn't listen to this music. Not my parents, as they showed me what real music is. But they day I shouldn't listen o it because Kurt Cobain killed himself, and that it could lead to depression. But so what man, at least it makes me feel something that no other music can. Nirvana changed my life, and I'm not even old enough to have begun living it. Without nirvana, I don't know where I'd be today or who is be. I say, and I'm guessing a lot of people would agree with me on this one, that if Nirvana and it's sieving members, including their deceased one at that, do not get inducted, as they are eligible with Bleach coming out in 1989, and being eligible this year, I doubt the way we look and understand musc. I will be disgusted in our society. To me, music died when Kurt died. We should induct the last great band. For Kurt.

Posted by Grace on Tuesday, 05.21.13 @ 02:33am


Grace, I would never question whether or not Nirvana should be in -- they will be on the first ballot they're on. They meant so much to so many people, there's just no doubt, and I should have mentioned that on the first note. I'm just wondering over the timing. It's a stretch, I think, that "Love Buzz" makes them eligible for the ballot this year because Sub Pop put out the single in late, late 1988. Technically they're eligible, but really?

By the Hall of Fame's own 25-year rule, the HOF should be giving it up for Jane's and Nothing's Shocking and SY for Daydream Nation (a double record statement for the ages) on this next ballot. I'm worried the Hall of Fame will never let them all in at the same induction, and, of course, they won't. And I don't want to see Sonic Youth have to wait 100 years like Deep Purple and Stevie Ray Vaughn have been. Jane's has waited a couple of years now, and with Nothing's Shocking release in 1988, they suddenly become real hard to ignore.

I just hope the Hall remembers as you do that Bleach didn't get out into the world until 1989 - not 1988. But we all know they won't - and will jump at the chance to induct Nirvana ASAP and make as big a show as possible.

Posted by JDM on Tuesday, 05.21.13 @ 04:47am


Music didn't disappear after Nirvana. There are lots of bands out there worth checking out, even today. You just have to dig around.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 05.21.13 @ 05:29am


As you look at the reason for why to consider Nirvana you have to look back at the entire history of rock n rock. The face of rock n roll has taken on many images as it developed you need to look at each of those musicians that inspired those changes. We have jazz to blues to rock heavy metal punk hair bands and Nirvana took us to a new realm never before experienced or expressed. Curt spoke of feelings we knew but couldn't say, didn't know how to talk about or tell our parents. These were our raw emotions never before said all other rock spoke of such women abuse love hate anger but this was just us the voices in our head a total new voice with a loud drum beat from Dave & Chris cranking it out there on the side. There is no other influence that took music to the next step and the next age moving forward. Thanks Curt,Dave,Chris Nirvana they should be in the hall and give no invite to Courtney I don't want to see that b**ch

Posted by Cy on Friday, 05.24.13 @ 01:38am


YES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Happy on Thursday, 08.8.13 @ 12:52pm


okay nirvana should definetly get in they are one of the few bright spots in a very very shitty decade yes they might get overhyped but i think they are not the most overhyped band of the 90s i think that claim goes to radiohead and just to say all four major grunge bands will get in with some other bands from the 90s getting in not many though and Nirvana should definetly be a first ballot band but it might not happen deep purple should be in(first balloters too) and they are not in and there are a ton of other bands that elligble that are not in and should be so i think what some people are angry at is that some classic rockers are getting passed over for some bands that should not be fist ballot bands ( Guns n' Roses and red hot chilli peppers) i like nirvana i will say that but if you are angry at them for being popular or getting in before Kiss, Deep Purple and Priest is a little shortsighted and stupid those bands will get in eventually but i can not forgive people hating them for being popular that is the one thing that annoys the hell out of me.

Posted by Thomas on Tuesday, 08.27.13 @ 10:39am


Since Nirvana was short lived and they only made three albums and Chad Channing was on one of the albums, he could be included in the induction.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 10.5.13 @ 04:57am


http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/readers-poll-the-10-bands-who-should-enter-the-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame-in-2014-20130424/10-nirvana-0583117

Readers' Poll: 10 Bands Who Should Enter the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2014

Your picks include Chicago, Deep Purple and the Smiths

10. Nirvana

Artists are eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame 25 years after the release of their first album or single, meaning Nirvana are eligible next year because their single "Love Buzz" first appeared in 1988. However, not many bands get in on their first ballot; Metallica even had to wait a year.

Still, while nothing is certain, it seems quite likely that Nirvana are first-balloters. Who should induct them? Michael Stipe? Eddie Vedder? Neil Young? Patti Smith? Beyond that, will Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic perform a Nirvana song with a guest singer? Will Bleach drummer Chad Channing get inducted, too? Hopefully we'll get the answers to all these questions next year.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 10.5.13 @ 05:05am


NIRVANA

01. Kurt Cobain (1987–1994; lead vocals, guitar)
02. Krist Novoselic (1987–1994; bass guitar)
03. Chad Channing (1987-1990; drums)
04. Dave Grohl (1990–1994; drums, backing vocals)

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 10.5.13 @ 05:13am


Since Nirvana was short lived and they only made three albums and Chad Channing was on one of the albums, he could be included in the induction.

NIRVANA

01. Kurt Cobain (1987–1994; lead vocals, guitar)
02. Krist Novoselic (1987–1994; bass guitar)
03. Chad Channing (1987-1990; drums)
04. Dave Grohl (1990–1994; drums, backing vocals)

Posted by Roy on Friday, 10.11.13 @ 08:20am


While we're in the process of waiting for next year's nominees to be announced, I might as well put in my $0.02 for Nirvana.

Let me just say, I love their music. I mean, who wouldn't like 'Nevermind' and 'In Utero'? I remember first hearing 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' when I was age 10, and thinking, 'Is this some Guns 'n Roses spinoff band?'. Again, I was ten, and while I do consider myself a rock historian, I was too young to know about the differences of rock and its subgenres. Of course, I wasn't aware of the term 'grunge rock'. Who would have thought in 1991 just years later this band would be considered 'legendary' for its time? And like some of us, I remember when and where I was during the announcement of Kurt Cobain's death. By that time, if you were wearing flannel shirts, dying your hair like the Seattle grunge people, you were more than cool. Then it all died after awhile.

That being said, I do consider Nirvana one of my Top 3 most overrated bands of all time. (The other two, the Sex Pistols and Skynyrd) Those three bands have one thing in common: death. Getting back to Nirvana, I don't remember when so-called professional music critics started to hail Nirvana as legends, or 'the group that changed everything', 'rock and roll wasn't the same after Nirvana', etc. What really gets me is that people still believe hair metal died when Nirvana came out, and the myth that they invented grunge rock. Don't get me wrong, Nirvana helped bring grunge to the mainstream and probably opened the door for some punk bands (Offspring), but please, don't make these people poster children for changing rock and roll.

Posted by Jason Voigt on Friday, 10.11.13 @ 10:26am


Getting back to Nirvana, I don't remember when so-called professional music critics started to hail Nirvana as legends, or 'the group that changed everything', 'rock and roll wasn't the same after Nirvana', etc. What really gets me is that people still believe hair metal died when Nirvana came out, and the myth that they invented grunge rock. Don't get me wrong, Nirvana helped bring grunge to the mainstream and probably opened the door for some punk bands (Offspring), but please, don't make these people poster children for changing rock and roll.

Posted by Jason Voigt on Friday, 10.11.13 @ 10:26am
--------------------------------------------------
I do agree w/you that Nirvana obviously did not invent grunge.

I will say this, though: Nirvana's "Nevermind" hit #1 in early 1992. Several months later, Def Leppard hit #1 w/the album "Adrenalize".

After this, no 80's pop-metal band had a #1 album until the yr. 2007, when Bon Jovi hit #1 w/an album whose name I am forgetting right now. From what I understand, this album was not a traditional metal album, & it was being pitched towards the country audience (I cannot be sure on this, but I'll check about to find out, unless someone already knows).

If in fact the Bon Jovi album was a country album, then not a single pop-metal band, or pop-metal album, has ever - ever - hit #1 on the charts again. No offense, but that sounds pretty impressive if you're arguing that Nirvana got rid of pop-metal, or for that matter, that rock & roll was definitely different after they scaled the charts. :)

Posted by Cheesecrop on Friday, 10.11.13 @ 16:07pm


I don't know if you read Spin magazine (or maybe it was Blender?), but it had an issue put out a few years ago about R&R's greatest myths. Of course, one of them was about Nirvana killing hair metal. Their argument was that hair metal was already dead by the time Nirvana came about. I don't have the article on me at the moment, but I remember they stated a good backup of their claim.

Also, I hope those who read my above paragraph got my point, which was: critics and music fans alike gave Nirvana too much credit for what they had.

Posted by Jason Voigt on Saturday, 10.12.13 @ 19:12pm


Nirvana suffers a backlash of the media such as Rolling Stone treating them like The Beatles. They were a good band. Their Unplugged performance was excellent, showing a band that honed its craft before countless live audiences.

Do I think musically their albums were so spectacular? No. But again they were good, just not on the absurd level that magazines Rolling Stone always places them. (It's readers agreed, labeling Nirvana overrated in a recent poll).

I would agree that band's like Nirvana did not "kill" hair metal. Talk of one event or band killing another genre is always exaggerated, as with the claim, for example, that the British Invasion killed Motown. Rather it was a situation where hair metal was played out, and people were looking for something new. Popular music tend to be cyclical, and new musical trends will react to the current musical mainstream. The alternative rock scene that came into the mainstream just seemed so much more substantial and meaningful.

But even though I think Nirvana has gotten way too much credit, I also would not question their induction. That's because they made a real impact, and regrettably or not, contributed to the early 90s alternative scene becoming a big mainstream player. Bands that obtain significant mainstream success while contributing to the cyclical musical shifts you see every few years are always big in my book. I always valued that way over just being a critical darling, my own preferences aside.

Posted by astrodog on Sunday, 10.13.13 @ 09:16am


I'd say that Nirvana did kill off hair metal. But, at that point, it was more a "last nail in the coffin" deal, rather than blowing it away singehandedly.

Posted by GFW on Sunday, 10.13.13 @ 12:51pm


One thing that I vividly remember at the time is that when Nirvana, Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam started to break, they were lumped into Metal. They were played on Headbanger's Ball and Metal radio and covered in Metal magazines. Metal is what the industry was pushing at the time.

It wasn't too long after that everything became "Alternative", because of the Seattle bands. The industry hadn't really exploited the word Alternative at that point, so the definition was broadened to become more mainstream. The definition of Alternative was very different pre-Nirvana/Pearl Jam/Alice in Chains than it was after.

A lot of what was marketed as Alternative in the 90s would have been plain mainstream rock in the 80s.

Posted by DarinRG on Sunday, 10.13.13 @ 16:54pm


It would've been mainstream in the 80's, had they let it in/had it been accepted in the 80's.

One of the great things about the time Was the confusion. Even Ugly Kid Joe was perceived as perhaps being "alternative" or what have you. The Spin Doctors were perceived to be in the same boat as well.

I'll also say this about pop-metal: it was still around for a bit into 1992. You still had stuff like Firehouse's "Love of a Lifetime" on the radio, & some of the last stuff from Extreme, Trixter, etc. Some of the stuff was still there, though it was leaving pretty fast.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 10.13.13 @ 18:42pm


Chad Channing is mentioned in Nirvana's Rock Hall bio.

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 10.16.13 @ 08:26am


Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame Inductees Who Will Vote For Nirvana

Heart, Public Enemy, Rush, Beastie Boys, Guns N' Roses, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Metallica, RUN-DMC, R.E.M, U2, Van Halen

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 10.19.13 @ 20:31pm


If Nirvana does not make it in this time around, why? The question would become why did Metallica get in the first time around? Why is Metallica more popular than Nirvana. Beastie Boys and Red Hot Chilli Peppers were nominated twice before being inducted. Could that happen to Nirvana?

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 10.23.13 @ 14:23pm


If Nirvana does get inducted, who will induct them? Will it be Eddie Vedder again like he did with Neil Young, R.E.M., The Doors, and The ramones? And who will play with nirvana onstage? Paul McCartney again? What does the Nirvana fans think?

Posted by Luis Medina on Monday, 10.28.13 @ 17:26pm


I see that a lot of people are against Nirvana or don't see Nirvana personal importance in rock. To be honest,they were the last band to have a great effect on music culture. And its true that Kurt Cobain was the last great rock icon. We have not since seen an artist that had such a lasting effect on everyone in the last 25 years. Think about, everyone and I mean everyone still reference Kurt Cobain in one way or another. In my middle school and high school, and even my college, kids still wear nirvana and Kurt Cobain clothing and accessories. Everyone from any ethnicities love Nirvana. I see a lot of Asians, African American, Latinos and white people who just love Nirvana. I never seen anything like that ever, that showed so much love for an artist.

When their video for "smells like teen spirit" went on the air in MTV, nobody had seen such a video like that before. It had all the classic elements of a rock video, like girls in revealing clothes, guys rocking out and kids dancing the latest dance. But just the whole crazy aggressiveness and rebellion with pop melodies all at once was just something else. Here was a guy pissed off yet sarcastic and looked and dressed like the average American kid at that point. Everyone could relate to that. Yes, their music was nothing new. Bands like Husker Du and The Replacements had done the whole pop and punk hybrid first but it wasn't as great as popular as Nirvana was. The "Seattle movement" put the term alternative rock on the map. Before then, they were all known as metal bands. You would find them in metal magazines, radio, and Nirvana even won the award favorite heavy metal artist by the American Music Awards. When they blew up, a whole bunch of aggressive bands blew up to. The whole punk movement that started a decade earlier finally had gotten their dues. all those aggressive artist had their music heard when if it wasn't for The grunge movement, they wouldn't had gotten the chance in the first place. Its true, Nirvana didn't destroy hair metal but was the last nail on the coffin to finally put the hair bands asleep and kick start a new revolution in rock.

If people don't see this than, I'm sorry that your missing out on some good music. If it wasn't for these guys, bands like Green Day, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Weezer, The offspring, Rancid, Helmet, Radiohead, Muse, The Strokes, Arctic Monkeys, and so fourth wouldn't had the chance to have their music heard. This is why Nirvana deserves to be placed in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Posted by Luis Medina on Monday, 10.28.13 @ 17:55pm


I think they will get IN

Posted by Happy on Monday, 11.11.13 @ 12:37pm


Since Nirvana was short lived and they only made three albums and Chad Channing was on one of the albums, he could be included in the induction.

NIRVANA

01. Kurt Cobain (1987–1994; lead vocals, guitar)
02. Krist Novoselic (1987–1994; bass guitar)
03. Chad Channing (1987-1990; drums)
04. Dave Grohl (1990–1994; drums, backing vocals)

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 11.13.13 @ 07:32am


No doubt they will be on the ROF because there song and essence is still there.

Posted by Ginno on Wednesday, 12.11.13 @ 07:16am


Chad Channing is mentioned in both, the nominee and inductee bio for Nirvana. Nirvana only produced three albums. Channing was on one album. He will be inducted.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 12.17.13 @ 10:57am


Nirvana, number 1 with a shotgun slug and we all knew it. How many rock and heavy metal acts that were GOOD got stiffed for these hacks? They weren't even their era's best band out of Seattle, Washington.

Posted by Neckbeard on Friday, 12.20.13 @ 21:57pm


http://www.rollingstone.com/music/videos/courtney-love-says-nirvanas-rock-hall-induction-might-be-awkward-20140212#ixzz2t7dmBU4G

Courtney Love Says Nirvana's Rock Hall Induction Might Be 'Awkward'

Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremonies make strange bedfellows, with band members (and their significant others) putting aside their differences (or not) for one night to celebrate a group's achievement and legacy.

When Access Hollywood asked Courtney Love about her long-standing feud with former Nirvana drummer Dave Grohl, Love replied, "We're going to go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and I think we're all sitting at the same table." Love added that while it will be awkward, she'll say hello to Grohl, who has had a public war of words with the singer over the rights to, and use of, Nirvana's music for years.

In the interview, Love also discusses her new YouTube channel/reality show, her battles with sobriety and her relationship with 21-year-old daughter Frances Bean. Asked who or what is to blame for their past, public fighting, Love immediately replied, "She has a trust fund. And trust funds attract lawyers. And lawyers attract problems. And that's just the reality."

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 02.12.14 @ 10:35am


I don't think it's asking too much for Courtney and Dave to be grown-ups for one night. I still think Courtney would be the best person to sing Kurt's part on a performance with Dave and Kurt. Unfortunately, Rock Hall inductions don't have the most superb track record of hatchets being buried.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 02.12.14 @ 21:00pm


Hatchets get buried at these ceremonies. Only it's typically in someone's back.

Moving foward, these are the bands I would like to see inducted or at least nominated:

Moody Blues
T Rex
ELO
The Cars
Devo
b-52s
Joy Division/New Order
The Cure
Depeche Mode
Duran Duran
Kraftwerk
Iron Maiden

Time for the R&RHF to put away fear and loathing and stop ignoring genres and decades.

Posted by astrodog on Wednesday, 02.12.14 @ 22:33pm


I think that Courtney is going to induct them. Who do all y'all hope inducts them?

Posted by Karl Singleton on Sunday, 03.2.14 @ 21:10pm


"I think that Courtney is going to induct them. Who do all y'all hope inducts them?"

Neil Young

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 03.2.14 @ 21:48pm


Why in the freakazoid would they appoint NEIL YOUNG to induct NIRVANA? It doesn't make sense. Get someone from the 90's grunge scene to induct them. Examples: Eddie Veeder,Chris Cornell,Billy Corgan. Guys like that. Neil Young came LONG before Nirvana. And truthfully that would be like in 2012 asking PAUL MCCARTNEY to induct RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS. It just doesn't work. Two completely different genres and two completely different moods. Get a 90's grungeman to induct Nirvana

Posted by Karl Singleton on Sunday, 03.9.14 @ 10:59am


Wow, not only no sense of humor, but also doesn't even get the joke.

Posted by Philip on Monday, 03.10.14 @ 13:16pm


How WAS that a joke?

Posted by Karl Singleton on Monday, 03.10.14 @ 18:41pm


It was a very dark joke. Google "Kurt Cobain Neil Young."

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 03.11.14 @ 13:13pm


As an aside though, it wouldn't be uncharacteristic of the Hall to have someone like Young to induct a more contemporary act: the Boss inducting U2, Harry Belafonte inducting Public Enemy, Neil Young inducting the Pretenders, and that's not even mentioning what Chris Rock and Tom Hanks were doing inducting the RHCP and DC5 respectively. So yeah, if it wasn't for the dark humor behind it, it wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility for ol' Neil to do it. Still unlikely, but not impossible.

Posted by Philip on Tuesday, 03.11.14 @ 13:22pm


Well, here are some more examples of inductions that just won't work, because the artists aren't simalar:

Brian Wilson inducting ZZ Top in 2004
Chuck Berry inducting Tom Petty in 2002
Mick Jagger inducting Metallica in 2009
John Fogerty inducting Guns N Roses in 2012
Robert Plant inducting Green Day when it happens (Green Day's window opens next year)
Don Hennly inducting Pearl Jam when it happens (window opens in 2017)

If you have a reason why ANY OF THESE would work please comment.

Posted by Karl Singleton on Wednesday, 03.12.14 @ 21:53pm


Wow... just wow... are you really that dense? Did you even google what I suggested you look up so you could get the joke from earlier?

And your post shows that you missed the point of the tangent. The examples I gave were REAL ones that happened. Bruce Springsteen really DID induct U2. Harry Belafonte really DID induct Public Enemy. Neil Young DID induct the Pretenders. Chris Rock DID induct the RHCP, and Tom Hanks DID induct the DC5. They were unlikely presenters, but they REALLY happened.

But go back to the joke. Look it up.

Posted by Philip on Wednesday, 03.12.14 @ 22:23pm


First of all it was NOT a joke. It DEEPLY offended Neil. Why would he take the honor if someone wrote a note saying he f'd with you. I defenitly wouldn't do that

Posted by Karl Singleton on Thursday, 03.13.14 @ 19:57pm


What Kurt did was not a joke. The comment I made about Young inducting Nirvana in light of that knowledge, that was a joke. And a funny one. Very wrong, but still funny. Get a sense of humor.

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 03.13.14 @ 23:04pm


Chad Channing is being included in the induction.

Posted by Roy on Friday, 03.14.14 @ 06:43am


Weird Al Yankovic should be brought in to dress like Kurt Cobain and sing Smells Like Teen Spirit at the induction ceremony.

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 04.1.14 @ 08:37am


They are saying something special is being done for Nirvana at the ceremony. I'm guessing a hologram of Kurt Cobain, or a video of him singing with the other members of Nirvana actually performing along to the video. A Nat King Cole/Natalie Cole sort of thing.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 04.5.14 @ 08:47am


I know some will see it sacrilegious to even joke about it, but I always thought "Heart-Shaped Box" would make a great jingle for women's underwear. To wit: "HANES her WAY!"

Posted by Philip on Monday, 04.14.14 @ 22:34pm


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKAV57XuGHQ

Fan induction speech for Nirvana.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 05.17.14 @ 06:22am


I LOVED what they did with Joan Jett and Kim Gordon. But I'm waiting for The Runaways and Sonic Youth to be inducted!!!

Posted by BulmaPunkRocker on Sunday, 07.6.14 @ 22:09pm


I came up in the 70's with Zepp, Aerosmith, Bad Co, Cheap Trick, Foreigner, etc. Bands that incorperated melody, guitar solos and big chorus into there music. When the 80's broke, more emphisis was placed on the solo and sing along chorus. Many of the Hair Bands were equipped with vocalists with unlimted range and guitar virtuosos. Sure, there was plenty of bubblegum with bands like Poisen and Warrent. But bands like Motley, Ratt, Dokken, Dio, and Great White carried the torch. When everyone said no more big hair and spandex, the 90's broke. The first time i heard Smells like teen spirit i said no, oh no. Gone were the melodies, great guitar solos, and high energy. Following music for 40+yrs, i still dont get Nirvana. Yes, Groelh is a great talent and i like the Foo fighters, but Cobain had zero range, indistinguishable lyrics, and there songs were depressing.

Posted by Rock Authority on Thursday, 08.28.14 @ 20:04pm


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted. Basically, this sums up our policy.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.