Here Today... Gone To Hell!

ABC News reports that NIRVANA's iconic 1991 single "Smells Like Teen Spirit" beat out hits from MADONNA, BRITNEY SPEARS and U2 to be named the best pop song in 20 years by Britain's Q magazine.

In its November issue, which celebrates Q's 20th anniversary, the publication set out to identify the top 20 singles of the past two decades. Their picks range from pop sensations like BRITNEY SPEARS' "?Baby, One More Time", and OUTKAST's "Hey Ya" to THE PRODIGY's punk/techno mix "The Firestarter" and GUNS N' ROSES' hard-edged rock ballad, "Sweet Child O' Mine".

"The thing about 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', it was a watershed moment in rock music. It changed everything," said Q magazine deputy editor Gareth Grundy of the iconic NIRVANA hit. "It put heavy music back on the map in the early 90's, really, that combination of punk-rock anger and the heavy BLACK SABBATH 70's metal. It was something new. Sulky kids everywhere loved NIRVANA and continue to do so."

Read more at ABC News. http://www.abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2682023&page=1

I can not describe the way my blood boils when I see Nirvana in the same league and sometimes beating out GNR on some of these "all-time" and "best of" lists.....

well, Nirvana and GnR were both very important rock bands that have a lot of similarities. Its true that Nirvana gets credit for doing something that GnR got started: Ending Hair Metal. But whatever.

Um, are they forgetting how successful Metallica's Black album and GN'R's UYI albums were in the early 90's...? :o

For some reason the majority of people forget about the Illusions.  I never understand it and I kind of get pissed when people refer to GN'R as an 80's band.  They had some great fucking music in the 90's and probably some of the best music to come out of that decade.  They also had one of the longest tours in the history of music from 1991-1993. 

Who really cares though I guess??  As long as we still love the music they gave us and don't forget it then nobody else's opinion matters.  GN'R won't be an 80's band much longer when CD comes out and HOPEFULLY blows people away that aren't expecting it.

Nirvana sucks. "Hair Metal" killed itself. The timing was coincidental at best, and their punk-posteuring was just to cover their radio-friendly pop melodies, heavily being pushed by MTV at the time. If Kurt Cobain hadn't gone and killed himself, they'd be just another footnote, along with the whole corporate produced "Grunge" movement.

And yes, the Illusions are a masterpiece.

GNR and Metallica killed hair metal. I still don't know why Nirvana gets "credit" for it.

HAIR METAL IS DEAD????????? why the fuck didnt someone tell me!

Fuckin Mullet, no wonder people snicker when i walk by. :rant: :rant: :rant:

Nirvana deserves their due... but I hate how they get annointed as the "saviour" band of all things cool and meaningful.... AFD delivered a hard kick to the balls of the music industry and "changed the rules" etc. 4 fucking years before Nevermind... and that's just fucking fact.

Are you serious...?

If you took the best six tracks off both albums and made it one then, yes, that would be a masterpiece. But as it is, there is a lot of generic filler on there, and everybody knows this. The Illusions are not masterpieces as they currently are. As much as I love GNR, and Lord knows I do, "Nevermind" is a better record than either UYI in my opinion. Bring on the heat...  :nervous:

Really? How many stand-out songs does "Nevermind" have?

They're is really only about two or three songs from each of the Illusion albums which are worthless or filler. The rest are at least great songs on a par with many of the songs on Nevermind, and at Most, classic. There are at least 20 songs worthy of Nevermind.

Having said that I like Nevermind as well, but don't listen to it much anymore. SLTS, Come As You Are, Something in The Way, Territorial Pissings, Breed, all great songs. But all the songs on the Illusions are so different. They're my two favourite albums and they are masterpieces. There are so many songs on the Illusions which people never talk about which are in fact, classics, e.g. Dust N' Bones, Bad Obsession, Back Off Bitch, Double Talkin' Jive, The Garden, Don't Damn Me, Dead Horse, 14 Years, Breakdown, Pretty Tied Up, Locomotive, etc.

Add in the more popular ones like Coma, Estranged, November Rain, Don't Cry, Civil War, You Could Be Mine, and you've got two amazing albums.

To compare the two look at this way; take Don't Damn Me. Nobody outside GnR fanatics know this that well, it's considered an average GnR song. If GnR had put out the albums combined as one CD, it wouldn't have made it. But it's still better than most of the songs on Nevermind.

I agree that GNR and Metallica killed hair metal......  and am also annoyed by all the Nirvana credit given after the fact.

The funny thing is, Nevermind and Ten were both out BEFORE UYI and the Black Album.  GNR and Metallica were still the biggest bands in the world for a while after that.  Plus, I think what annoys me the most is that Nirvana was IMO the worst of the 4 Seattle bands from that era.  AIC and Soundgarden don't get nearly enough credit.

It's also funny how dated some of the Nirvana stuff sounds now - as opposed to Jungle & some of the other GNR classics.

We are talking about the classics of the past two decades, so please anyone, tell me why Nirvana should not be there? 'Cause grunge ran over 'hair-metal'?

Everybody knows this? Ever heard of something called "an opinion"? It is MY opinion that the UYI Illusion albums are far better than nevermind, and I don't give a shit what any so-called rock expert has to say. My opinion is as valid as the head-geek over at AMG, SPIN or NME.

Nirvana did not put heavy music back on the map. Metallica put heavy music back on the map.

That's a fact, that these freakin' Cobain ball lickers seem to forget...

I don't care what anyone says....... :rant:



Axl is  wayyyyyyyyyyyyy.........  more creative and talented than all of them. : ok: :beer:

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion.  If you don't like Nirvana, there's nothing wrong with that.  That's your opinion and your entitled to it.  But to say that Nirvana doesn't belong in as one of the most important bands, songs, albums, etc. is just wrong.  Were you asleep for 5 years in the early 90s?  How can you say the band would have been a footnote?  In Utero outsold UYI 1 before Cobain's death,  their unplugged performance was receiving heavy critical acclaim...again, before his death.  Regardless, Nirvana is here to stay. 

GNR and Metallica didn't kill hair metal.  Hair metal killed itself.  Hair metal was never good to begin with.  Oh sure some bands had some good material.  Cinderella, early Whitesnake, Def Leppard first two albums, etc. but on the whole, most of the music was pop versions of metal music...knock-offs of Van Halen, David Bowie, and Led Zeppelin.  Metallica defined metal.  They were the band that set the mold for true metal music in the 80s.  That is why they have survived. 

GNR...was not metal.  They are a rock band.  A hard rock band.  They were unfairly looped in with metal.  But what GNR had that most glam/hair metal didn't have...is range!  Their songs had depth and texture.  But despite all this, hair metal still stuck around for 5 more years.  It was just the mode that the country was in.  Maybe defined by the cowboy political environment...but alternative music, despite its underground following...wasn't selling a lot of albums.

Metallica and GNR both has massive hit albums in the midst of an alternative revolution.  Why?  Because both bands were talented beyond the confines of their genre.  Nirvana just opened people's ears more than anything to different genres.  Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins, RATM, NIN, and Soundgarden, AIC, STP all had equal hands in what happened.  Nirvana is given most of the credit because they were really the first. 

Were they first because they were great or great because they were first?  Well, that should really be the debate.

why have nirvana in the title of the thread :rant: :hihi:

well said.........but i still fucking hate cobain.. :rant:..that pussy.

Good post.
Yeah, you have to realize that as innovative as GNR truly was, the way they were different than the hair-metal of the 80s was in a classic way. GNR was a throwback in some ways to the great bands before - the bands the hair-metal was imitating. When you place the divide between GNR and nirvana, it's that GNR was the last of the Zeppelin/Aerosmith etc, and Nirvana was the first of the Pearl Jam/Sound Garden etc. The hair-metal hardly enters the discussion because even when we think they're fun, they're hardly respected like bands before or after them.
And remember GNR was a rock band in the full sense of the word and Axl was an absolute rock star of a frontman. Nirvana gets press because they were the opposite of that. The two bands definitely appealed to different sides in people.

What i think is telling is that GNR definitely changed the scene, making the hair metal instantly less cool - but when you talk about influence, they don't seem to have inspired imitation quite like Nirvana did. If anything GNR made it safe for talented classic rock bands to thrive. Nirvana ushered in something else (something which started kinda cool and ended with fred durst and kid rock (the nu-hair-metal-hip-hop-make-it-stop).
And now there's nothing.

I gues the title of this thread should change to Nirvana vs. Guns N Roses

No.....

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=37261.0



/jarmo

Really? How many stand-out songs does "Nevermind" have?

Every song off of Nevermind is a classic

in your opinion, in my opinion it's maybe the most overrated album ever, it's good but it aint that great

I hated Nirvana for ages due to the whole teeny-bopper popularity they gained when Kurt killed himself. So it was only recently that I could actually listen to their music without judgement, and I'd have to agree, Nevermind is a classic.

But back on topic, I don't think anybody is denying Nirvana's importance to rock music in general, but claiming that they were solely responsible for popularizing heavy music again in the early 90's is stretching the truth a little.

i'd agree, it's a completely over rated album. and if kurt hadn't shot himself in the face noone would put nirvana anywhere on these polls.

Nevermind is not a classic album? Who ever says that is just fooling himself. If you don't like the band it doesn't mean they can't be classic/good.

Alice In Chains especially. Rooster, Man In The Box, Would?, Again, Them Bones, No Excuses... I love them all to bits, whereas Nirvana.. I don't get where all the hype comes from.. None of their music appeals to me. Smells Like Teen Spirit is the most overrated heap of horse shit ever written, by any band!

Regardless, I was around then, and I remember it being like this from 1991-1993...

1. Metallica
2. Guns N' Roses
3. Nirvana

That's just how it was on the street. I'm not necessarily talking about album sales.

But for this article to say Nirvana re-introduced heavy music to mainstream, is completely false. GNR started the revolution, and Metallica carried that interest in harder music into basically re-introducing a mainstream audience to the heavy metal sound, that had made earlier fore-father bands such as Judas Priest & Iron Maiden so popular.

Nirvana did not re-introduce heavy music. Nirvana instead mixed a heavy metal sound with a punk attitude and created what we refer to now as 'alternative'. Like Axl said in his rant in Orlando in '92, at one time GN'R were alternative. Used to, any band whose sound was un-classifiable was alternative. Nirvana made it to where alternative became it's own format, with the 'grunge' sound. But it was gradual movement of the Seattle bands that made it a mainstay.

GN'R is a band among themselves
Metallica is a band among themselves
Nirvana was on the rocket when it took off. If Nirvana didn't change the musical landscape, Pearl Jam would've. If Pearl Jam hadn't, Alice In Chains would've, etc. These bands were already kicking around with their sound, before Nirvana ever came along. 'Bleach' sounds a whole lot different than 'Nevermind' imo. 'Bleach' sounds a whole lot more like something Goo Goo Dolls would do. Whereas 'Nevermind' was something new, yet people forget PJ's 'Ten' was released a shortly before 'Nevermind', yet had the same sound.

It was gradual progression, and Nirvana just happened to be the media darlings that got credit for it. David Geffen had to ask MTV as a personal favor to play the 'Jungle' video from GN'R, because MTV didn't want to market them. GN'R became huge, then suddenly MTV wanted everything to do with Guns. Nirvana on the other hand was another force-fed band into the mouths of kids, to say "this is cool,  so you should like it".

Nirvana is no different than bands today like Panic At The Disco, Avenged Sevenfold, or My Chemical Romance. Pearl Jam & AIC, those guys were the real deal in alternative...

1.  I will agree that Nirvana re-introducing hard rock into the mainstream is false.  That's just the media's distortion of what happened.  Also, the "alternative" label came from the media.  Because it is cool and hip to be "alternative" and not mainstream eventhough the mainstream was alternative.  Nirvana didn't call themselves alternative...infact Cobain hated the label as much as anyone.  If anything, Nirvana made mainstream punk music.  Butch vig just gave a glossy exterior to an already existing sound that wasn;t much different than bands like Jane's Addiction, Pixies, and Minor Threat.  Or in reverse, punkifying Boston and Journey...well, sorta.

2.  In the early 90s, Metallica and GNR were the big acts.  But you're forgetting others like RHCP and U2.  Remember RHCP headlined Lollapolooza that year...not Nirvana.  Nirvana didn't get their shot until 94...but, well, we know what happened.  They weren't enormous at the time.  Boys II Men and En Vogue dominated the charts (remember B2men's 13 week run at #1?).  Nirvana was an up-and-coming act in 91-92, but by 93 they had come into their own.  When their second album hit, the radio was playing every single song on the album.  They ignored the "label's radio songs" and played everything.  The last band that happened with was GNR, when UYI came out.  Nirvana has surpassed being a footnote before Cobain's death.  That's just fact.  People like to say Nirvana would have been a footnote had he not killed himself...but where is this assumption coming from?  Because they were only around for 3 years?  What about the Sex Pistols?  They were around for 1 year and are still relevent.  What about GNR?  they barely made it 5 years.  Nirvana would have been in the same boat as AIC, PJ, STP, Pumpkins, NIN, RATM, and Soundgarden.  All bands which are still heavily respected.

3.  To say Nirvana is no differnet than Panic at the Disco or Fall Out Fags is like saying GNR is no different than Warrant or Winger.  Seriously?!  Nirvana had 5 massive hits off Nevermind.  Even though they only shot one video, there were 6 heavily rotation singles off In Utero.  That's 11 major radio hits off only two albums.  Name one other artist who has ever done that?  Michael Jackson?  The Beatles?  The Rolling Stones? (all footnotes)

4.  Finally, back to my orginial statement...was Nirvana good because they were first or first because they were good?  Well, they weren't first...the Pixies had a verys similiar sound 5 years prior to Nirvana and had already flirted with a few mainstream hits.  Jane's Addiction headlined a sold out Lollapolooza in 91...six months prior to Nevermind.  NIN was already all over the radio.  Nirvana wasn't first.  U2 and REM were huge stars.  The alternative movement was already happening...because, besides GNR and Metallica, the rest of the hard rock scene sucked.  Nirvana was the best of the bunch.  At the time, there was a lot going on...but most of history is written in the present because it puts perspective on the past.  Today, Nirvana's music is musch stronger and more relevent than many of their peers.  outside of Pearl Jam, none of their peers even exist...that's why they are credited with the kings of alternative crown.

Your post was good up until I read:

That's just blasphemy. ?:rant: ?Skunk was pretty dead on in his post about GnR being the end of the Zeppelin/Aerosmith influenced bands, and Nirvana being the start of something new. You're right, bands like PJ & AIC were around already, and lingering in the background. Even Jane's Addiction & Chili Peppers had mainstream hit's already. However, for some reason (I think just luck/timing) Nirvana was chosen as the new "big thing" and that, you really can't deny (if you lived thru it). I think for that, is the reason why the 'Teen Spirit' was ranked #1. The author even says that in his article "The thing about 'Smells Like Teen Spirit', it was a watershed moment in rock music. It changed everything," ?For starters you people are arguing about 'Nevermind' the album as a whole, this topic is the song. Also, it's being compared to Britney Spears & Outkast "Hey Ya", if that doesn't explain why Kurt killed himself I don't know what does?! Man, that's like an insult to me. The ironic part is the song is totally about retarded crap like those 'pop songs' (hence 'Teen Spirit'?? What is it? anyone?) with quotes like "Here we are now, entertain us" means 'We'll we're here. What's going on? Is there ?a party? Anything? Anyone.. Hello?" Kinda like the Who's Baba O'Reilly (Teenage Wateland). An Anthem.

Anyway, it's more the change that took place which 'Teen Spirit' represents, not as much as the song itself. Nobody would argue the guitar work of Cobain is better than SCOM. Essentially Kurt just plays Boston's "More than a Feeling" in it. But before Kurt there were 'hair metal' bands on the radio. After him no new hair metal came out, instead bands like PJ, AIC, Soundgarden, and later Green Day, Offspring, Bush etc.. The public's interest in music completely changed, and bands like Poison, Motley Crue, and Skid Row were out in the cold.

You're right about Metallica, GnR, & Nirvana being the top 3 bands, but no one expected a 3 piece band from Seattle to be included in the top 3. The came out of nowhere to get to that position, and did so within a matter of months, if not weeks. I remember leaving college in December of '91 & a few of us heard the song, then by the time we came back in January '02 they were huge. And whoever says they became bigger after he killed himself is wrong. Maybe if you were 8 years old, but anyone over 17 knew he was the next big thing as early as '92. ?

1. "Smells Like Teen Spirit" Nirvana, 1991

2. "Hey Ya!" OutKast, 2003

3. "Sweet Child O' Mine" Guns N' Roses, 1987

4. "Unfinished Symphony" Massive Attack, 1991

5. "One" U2, 1991

6. "Live Forever" Oasis, 1994

7. "Bitter Sweet Symphony" The Verve, 1997

8. "Common People" Pulp, 1995

9. "There She Goes" The LA's, 1990

10. "7 Nation Army" The White Stripes, 2003

11. "Song 2" Blur, 1997

12. "Crazy" Gnarls Barkley, 2006

13. "Angels" Robbie Williams, 1997

14. " ? Baby One More Time" Britney Spears, 1999

15. "Personal Jesus" Depeche Mode, 1990

16. "Like A Prayer" Madonna, 1989

17. "Firestarter" The Prodigy, 1997

18. "Brimful of Asha" Cornershop, 1997

19. "Stan" Eminem, 2000

20. "I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor" Arctic Monkeys, 2006

this is the great list? cmon they could of chosen better songs, i dont particuarly like Eminem but he has done better songs than Stan. Hey ya? I honestly can't believe people would count that as the 2nd greatest song.

Yeah, it's a very crappy list.

I can't describe the way that my blood boils when any GNR song is a part of any "pop" lists...  ???

wow, this is a pretty mediocre list.  All the songs are good...but I will only include 1,2,3,4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 16, 19 as truly great songs of the last 20 years.

I mean...seriously...where's Metallica?  Cornershop gets a song over One, Enter Sandman and Unforgiven?

Enjoy the Silence is far more important than Personal Jesus.

Hey Ya! is a great song.  But for importance...Mrs. Jackson is a better choice.

Britney Spears in there over Nothin' But G Thang?

Robbie Williams gets a song over Beck?

The Verve gets a song rather than Radiohead's "Creep?"

Pulp over Johnny Cash's "Hurt?"

I can't believe we're getting so worked up over such a subpar list.

All music lists created by the media are shit.  I've never seen one within 1000 miles of worthwhile. 

None of them stand out because they are all great songs. Thats what makes a great album. Would you say every track on UYI1 is a great song...?

Greatest Rock album ever!!!!  :yes:

i can take that Outkast is ahead of GnR, but Nirvana?

over?ber lameness.
anger!!!1!!1! :rant:

I'm not gonna argue that Nevermind is a bad album, because it isn't.  It isn't my type of music, but it was certainly an important album. 

As far as grunge goes, I've always enjoyed Alice in Chains WAY more than Nirvana, and I do agree that their iconic status would be severely diminished had Kurt not shot himself.  An important band, but one whose impact is overestimated.  As someone already said, "hair metal killed itself."  And a great power vacuum opened and acts like GNR, Metallica, and Nirvana stepped in and took it in different directions.  Nirvana an important band?  Sure.  The Zeppelin of my time?  Uh-uh.  Not even close.

I was thinking just the opposite. The people who make these lists go too far in trying to be inclusive of all generes and cultures.

Yeah, I don't know how a song that has been around for a couple of years can qualify...there's the whole "test of time" issue, and that particular Outkast song hasn't met it.

I'm saying Nirvana's legacy is only what it is, because of MTV's overexposure of them.

To compare GN'R to Warrant or Winger is nowhere near the same thing. David Geffen had to BEG MTV to play the "Jungle" video. Guns EARNED their status, and EARNED their musical success. Unlike Nirvana, who were MTV darlings before people even knew who they were.

Once again, a large part of Nirvana's success is because MTV told kids that it was cool. Not because people made up their own minds.

That's the reason in 98% of all rock fans minds, Metallica & Guns will always reign surpreme in the long run. Metallica was the anti-rock band, and anti-success band while Cobain was still whining about getting his ass kicked in the middle school bathroom.

Your logic doesn't make any sense.  If GNR earned their success...then how does David Geffen begging for airplay support that theory?  Geffen paid MTV to play GNR.  Geffen paid MTV to play Nirvana.  It's called payola...it's how the industry works.

And it's not like GNR wasn't MTV's darling for 4 years.  You couldn't go more than ten minutes without seeing a GNR video.  In fact, when the band stopped making videos for AFD, MTV created their own video for "Knockin' On Heaven's Door."  And how many specials did MTV do on the band prior to the release of UYI?  GNR was MTV's favorite son in the 80s. 

Nirvana is fine, but Outkast with Hey ya beating Gnr makes me wanna puke!

Both Guns and Alice In Chains should be above Nirvana.. I'll even go as far as agreeing with those that said Metallica should be above them.. Nirvana's reputation far exceeds them..

I don't know what else to say. You either get what i'm saying or don't.

But using payola to get airplay whether radio or TV for Guns, is not the point here.

I'll say again, MTV was anti-Guns, even though they were building steam in rock circuits, same way with Metallica. MTV wanted to have nothing to do with them. Then when they played the Jungle video, it exploded, and their star sky-rocketed. MTV then wanted everything to do with Guns, because they were now a bonafide hit.

Nirvana on the other hand was marketed differently. Overexposure was their key, which is why their success is in large part to MTV cramming them down people's throats.

In 1987, you had to go out of your way for Guns, whereas in 1991 Nirvana was shoved down our throats and we were TOLD to like them. There's a big difference.

Other than that, I can't tell you anymore. If you want to stick on this GN'R & Nirvana is one and the same, you're wrong. Anybody that was around then knows that. MTV waited until GN'R was already popular to take interest. MTV made Nirvana popular. There's a difference.