NIRVANA, GUNS N' ROSES Classics Among Top Songs Of Past Two Decades

[freedom78]

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.

[destroier]

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

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

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.

[freedom78]

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.

[The Legend]

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.

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.

[acompleteunknown]

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. 

[KOK]

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.....

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

[Orgasmatron]

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..

[The Legend]

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.?

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.