Do you own Nirvana - Nevermind

[Passinwind]

Great post - I think about this all the time. Here's a comparison that a friend and I were talking about 10 years ago. Back when "Nevermind" came out, classic rock stations were playing Hendrix and Led Zeppelin, which was 15-20 years old at that time. Now classic rock stations are STILL playing Hendrix and Led Zeppelin, but they are 40 years old. Shouldn't they be oldies stations at this point?

They are oldies stations, same as the ones that play Smells Like Teen Spirit. A rose by any other name...

 

[JimK]

...it's not a "Do You Own ___________" thread until Passinwind checks in.

Lemme guess "0 for whatever" still, correct?

 

[Passinwind]

...it's not a "Do You Own ___________" thread until Passinwind checks in.

Lemme guess "0 for whatever" still, correct?

Yep, but as I posted already, I really liked this one when it came out.

 

[harleyman888]

no

 

[kevteop]

No but I've got Bleach. And Superfuzz Bigmuff.

 

[Milk]

I think an obvious conclusion made from all of these "Do you have" threads is that people get stuck on things when they are a certain age. People that were a certain age in the 60s and 70s have an affinity for that music. People that were a certain age in the late 80s early 90s have a similar affinity. I bet if you were to include age data for Nevermind and Fleetwood Mac's Rumors, they would be the exact inverse of each other.

I'm pretty much stuck in the early to mid 80's. The thing is, i was 2 in 1980 and 7 in 1985. Obviously i didnt listen to any music then.

In the early 90's i listened to current stuff, some grunge, some other stuff id rather not name.... There's no record i bought in the 90's (so between age 12 and 22) and released in the 90's that i still give a spin to except the early 90s Cure records. I do give Radiohead a spin here and there but the truth is, while i liked them ok in the 90's, i bought their records around 2000. Same for Pulp.

So what i'm saying is, people get stuck in music eras a lot sure, but not necessarily the one they were a teen or young adult in. For my tastes, the 90's was the worst decade of music since the beginning of rock (actually culturally in general i really hate it)... It's possible it's because i really hated my teens and would sooner forget those years though...incidentally...i had an idyllic childhood. Is it why i listen to music released in the 80's? Its quite a possibility. (even if back then i didnt actually hear most of that 80's music i like)

 

[skwee]

No. Not a Nirvana or grunge fan. I recognize the influence, but just don't dig it.

 

[Bassist4Eris]

Yes, but I am deeply ambivalent about Nirvana.

I have a musical split personality. The one we'll call the "left hand path" likes punk rock and other rebellious forms of anti-establishment bull****. This side considers Nirvana, whatever their merit, to be the beginning of the end for punk, indie rock, and rock music in general. This actually has nothing to do with the band per se, but rather their effect on the culture. Before Nirvana, there was an underground, and the bands knew they'd never "make it big", so they just did whatever they wanted to do. That's called "honesty". After Nirvana, there was still an underground, but now it was just a farm team for the major leagues. And rock and roll died its last gasp.

Then there's the other side of my musical personality, which we'll call the "right hand path", which is all about technique, sophistication.... yeah, at some point, I got the jazz bug. That side of me just hears a half-fast garage band.

Then there's the side of me that, secretly, late at night, when no one is looking, slips this disc in for a well-deserved, if rather guilty, spin.

In short, IMO, it's overrated, but still not bad.

 

[Milk]

Then there's the other side of my musical personality, which we'll call the "right hand path", which is all about technique, sophistication.... yeah, at some point, I got the jazz bug. That side of me just hears a half-fast garage band.

Then there's the side of me that, secretly, late at night, when no one is looking, slips this disc in for a well-deserved, if rather guilty, spin.

In short, IMO, it's overrated, but still not bad.

That's kinda depressing that this would have to become a guilty pleasure. Music is still just organized, hamornized noise. It need not be sophisticated or complex or clever to be good. I'm glad i never got the jazz bug.

 

[Bassist4Eris]

That's kinda depressing that this would have to become a guilty pleasure. Music is still just organized, hamornized noise. It need not be sophisticated or complex or clever to be good. I'm glad i never got the jazz bug.

My post was intended in a more-or-less humorous fashion. You also both ignored and redacted the first half of my post, which speaks of my love for punk rock, which makes your reply rather off the mark.

To boil it down in plain English with no irony: I am ambivalent about Nirvana and I always have been.

 

[Joebone]

I'm in my mid-50's, but loved this album when it came out, and still think highly of it.

Also a big fan of Alice in Chains.

Kind of meh on Pearl Jam, never dug Soundgarden that much, and knowledge of grunge tails off from there.

For the record, I'm not a rocker - jazz, Brazilian and latin jazz are my main jams. But it's hard to ignore the power of Nirvana and Alice and Chains - although the untimely and ugly deaths of each band's lead singer provide a sobering note. I remember seeing a documentary about Seattle street kids from the late '80's, and that scene did not look easy or good.

 

[bigsnack]

Great variety in the responses on this thread, which is interesting! Luckily I had been saved from hair metal by Faith No More a year or so earlier. I am 34, so this record (and the particular "movement" that it was a part of) completely molded my early teenage years. It literally blew the doors completely off of what was considered popular at the time, and entire portion of popular culture did a complete about face. Honestly I am so grateful that I was able to experience that, especially at the age that I did. For me, this record symbolized the beginning of a group of artists that I truly BELIEVED didn't care about fame. Maybe they did, but it appeared as though they didn't give a ****. It was a refreshing view, and to me it ushered in a whole new era of terrific music for the masses. I love and appreciate this record more now than I even did as a kid, and I don't think I will ever be able to completely express how much it meant to me at that time and beyond.

I would love for the youth of today to get the chance to experience such an abrupt cultural change again. Maybe they have, and I'm just too old to see it! That being said, I feel as though the internet launches people into the spotlight long before a true subculture can mature and become truly valuable.... I could just be yelling at clouds right now

Nevermind is my favorite Nirvana record by a mile... For some reason I had a hard time connecting with how intentionally abrasive In Utero was. Maybe I will go back and revisit it, since I haven't listened to it back to back in probably 5 years.

 

[Space Pickle]

I don't, but I think I will go buy this.

 

[Matt_T]

I was personally offended when Time had Cobain on its cover as the "Voice of a Generation." I must not have been the generation in reference.

 

[russpurdy]

Yes on both cd and vinyl. Unlike many "cooler than thou's" I love the slicker production of nevermind. There are a ton of subtle layering things going on that I didn't notice when I was younger.

 

[bassinplace]

Nope, I don't own it. I've really dug Nirvana since I first heard of them with the Nevermind album. I didn't get around to buying it then, though. I did buy Insecticide, Unplugged and In Utero when they came out. I love all those albums, but Nevermind to me just doesn't hold up to the rest of their catalog. I think it's thier weakest album. My faves are, in order from most to least are,

1. Unplugged
2. In Utero
3. Insecticide
4. Bleach
5. Muddy Banks of the Wiskah
6. Nevermind

I own all in the above list except for Nevermind.

 

[shawshank72]

I also believe the strength of nirvana is based more on the unreleased stuff.
Far superior to the albums.

 

[Lee Moses]

I think it might be more about lifestyle and outward appearance than material. I knew way more dudes and found it easier to relate to dudes that looked like:

and

than:

and

The "glam rock" craze had pretty much hit a brick wall by the time 1990 rolled around. Not many of the popular hard rockers by then were wearing makeup and spandex. Even Poison had dropped the makeup well before then. So it's not as if Nirvana exactly went out on a limb by wearing t-shirts, blue jeans, and leather jackets. Bands like Metallica were wearing the same thing at the height of the glam-metal craze.

You could definitely call Metallica counter-cultural for their time...Nirvana, not so much.

 

[ChopperDave]

Bands like Metallica were wearing the same thing at the height of the glam-metal craze.

You could definitely call Metallica counter-cultural for their time...Nirvana, not so much.

Yeah, and then they all cut their hair and grew goatees.

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Funny, that.

Besides, Metallica looked like that (your pic above) before the hair metal craze, too ... they didn't change for that (a good thing)--not until something heavy came along that was more popular. Then come the stylists ...

 

[TUEP]

I love Alice In Chains, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, some Mudhoney, Candlebox, and Mother Love Bone...but I was always ehhhh...so-so with Nirvana. No I don't own the album.