Nevermind has aged badly?

[Albert Tatlock]

Personally, I was too old for it to appeal to a rebelious streak, and never felt 'connected' to that sort of West Coast psyche. It was also at a time when I was slogging my guts out for a few years (i.e. the opposite of being a slacker) and not listening to much music, so the whole grunge movement sort of passed me by. Thus I was and am pretty much indifferent - like the raw power of some of the tracks, but never listen to it (I only ever had a cassette taped copy that's long gone now).

 

So, what does it mean to some of you now? Is their legacy really the likes of Blink-182?

Lights blue touch paper and retires ...

 

September 24, 2006 The Times

Feature: Sounds like has-been spirit

Fifteen years after its release, Tom Cox finds Nevermind has aged badly. Oh well ...

 

I don

[Synthesizer Patel]

I read both this and the McCartney articles yesterday in the Times, can't say I cared too much for either of them. Nirvana was the only grunge band I never liked much, and I agree that other albums have aged better, but that comment had some major flaws. 1. Superunknown was released in 1994, it was Badmotorfinger that was Nevermind's contemporary, and both those albums, especially Superunknown were hailed as high points in the scene. 2. Nevermind is not really all that Nirvana are about, he might be able to draw some lineage from that album to Blink-182, but you could equally take an album like In Utero and praise all the good that came from it. The article may have had more worth if it had come at it from the angle that Nevermind is not really all that the band were about. Oh, and 3. Pearl Jam's Ten has dated just as badly.

[Albert Tatlock]

One day we'll find a niche of musical knowledge where you're found wanting, but I think that day is some way off

[Synthesizer Patel]

Sorry for being a know-all; it's not very becoming, I know.

[embiggen]

I can't believe it's been around for 15 year! I'm so old

 

I still listen to it and I think it holds up. but look at the first line of the article, "I don't really care for Nirvana." so, what do you expect him to say?

[jimmyjimmy]

Exactly...

 

I'm sitting here trying to decide if any of those grunge albums I bought way back when have really aged terribly.

And I'm thinking "no".

 

I may not listen to them very often but it's still great stuff, and for the record I always thought Nevermind was terrific and still do.

[Analogman]

The music is cool, the production is to slick.

[mjpuczko]

i like in utero the best.

[muller]

i like in utero the best.

 

Me too.

[brokendowntele]

I never "got" Nirvana, and I never believed that they were important, despite critics telling me so. I found them neither innovative nor influential - just well timed and marketed.

IMHO - Overrated.

 

I always felt that they were like saying ,"Hey remember punk? That was fun! Well here it is again with more distortion."

[MrRain422]

Of course Nirvana influenced some shit bands. They also influenced a lot of excellent ones. For a few years, they were the most influential band in the world, and inevitably the results are going to come back mixed, when the scope of their influence is that broad.

 

As it is, I'm not certain that their impact actually was as great as it appeared it was in '92 or '95 or even more recently. But I think they still stand up as the most important band of the era, and I think that their music does hold up very well on it's own anyway. Has it aged badly? Maybe, but a lot of that might be that they were so important in defining the sound of that period, that it's become impossible to separate them from it. If they had made the exact some records, but without the same level of popularity, I don't think anyone would be talking about them aging poorly. It sounds dated to some now because Nirvana's music defined that era.

Edited September 25, 2006 by MrRain422

[c53x12]

I pulled Nevermind out for a recent road trip after leaving it on the shelf for about a year. It sounded pretty good to me! There's hardly a bad track on the record. "In Bloom", "Come As You Are", "Lithium", "Polly", and of course SLTS are all really good.

[Campaigner]

I've said it before, but there is no bigger sacred cow in music than Nirvana, and the sacred cow of their catalogue is 'Nevermind'. It's almost as though people will spit in your face if you voice displeasure about the band or album.

 

People will allow others to slag off The Beatles, because they will invariably bring up the Stones or The Who or The Kinks as being preferred and edgier. You can slag off the Sex Pistols as being nothing more than a catalyst whose music is far less significant than the music that its peers released (i.e the entire catalogue of The Clash, 'Cut the Crap' notwithstanding) and people could let it slide.

 

You can take the axe to Motown and say that it was nothing more than Berry Gordy peddling black music minus the soul to a white audience, and that the work of Atlantic and Stax was far better, grittier and rewarding and people may back down given the weight of evidence.

 

But people aren't allowed to slag off Nirvana. I think it was on this board where I was torn a new asshole because I dared to call 'Nevermind' nothing more than a good power pop record and Nirvana an average band who just happened to come across at a time where people were screaming for anything but what was on offer, and thanks to good timing and a crapload of David Geffen's money, happened to hit it big.

 

Needless to say they should always be marked with an asterisk and viewed in some sort of contempt for ushering in the whole 'alternative' music scene (which stopped being alternative once Def Leppard put out an 'alternative' album), something which music has yet to recover from unfortunately.

 

It's not a bad album at all - but it certainly shouldn't have been a watershed moment...

 

But that's just me

[M. (hristine]

Huh. Because of my age, I was not a part of the culture that Nirvana emerged from, but I always thought Cobain was a damn good writer and tunesmith.

[ponch1028]

Having grown up in Washington state and going through my teen years during the Grunge period, I'd like to chime in on my personal experiences and recollections (this still is opinion and not the gospel truth).

 

There were two kinds of grunge fans (and to an extent, Nirvana fans). The first were pure music lovers and disenchanted teens. The second were varsity football playing jocks who liked anything loud and aggressive (obviously blanket statements, since many crossover into multiple categories)

 

The music lovers tired of Nevermind quickly.

The jocks couldn't get enough of it. They are the ones that bought millions and millions of copies of it.

 

The music lovers (or followers of music) simply knew that the Pixies and Sonic Youth were making much superior music than Nevermind.

The jocks only knew music that was sold at K-Mart or Costco.

 

The music lovers did however, appreciate much of Nirvana's output other than Nevermind. They connected with the other music simply because it was good music and wasn't overproduced like Nevermind and didn't saturate the airwaves the way that the songs from Nevermind did at the time.

The jocks didn't really stick around after Nevermind because the other output from Nirvana didn't saturate the airwaves and wasn't as accessible to have the basketball or football team come out with it as their anthem. Eventually "Welcome to the Jungle" reappeared as the song of choice for our sports teams to make their entrance.

 

The music lovers recognized that In Utero and "Unplugged in NY" were superior albums to Nevermind.

The jocks probably never listened to either in their entirety.

 

The music lovers also were big into Alice in Chains and Soundgarden. Incidently, I remember a lot of my jock friends also having CDs of both groups as well. Perhaps those two bands over time will be recognized as the timeless center of the grunge era.

 

BTW - The music lovers couldn't stand the artificality of Pearl Jam's Ten. It came across as bombastic arena rock from the 70's, which really wasn't fashionable at the time. Never could understand how that album was categorized as grunge. It is what it is - mainstream rock. Personally, I think it has aged worse than Nevermind.

 

Anyhow, that's my recollection.

[quarter23cd]

How many people have you met who have said,

[mjpuczko]

ten has definitely aged bad. the rest of PJ's catalogue has not IMO. my friends call me stupid for saying Ten isn't PJ's best album.

[Analogman]

Courtney Love should send money to Blue Cheer every month.

 

 

David Eric Grohl (born January 14, 1969)

Kurt Donald Cobain (born February 20, 1967)

Krist Anthony Novoselic (born May 16, 1965)

[Albert Tatlock]

Having grown up in Washington state and going through my teen years during the Grunge period ... Anyhow, that's my recollection.

Nice reply - you gave the sort of perspective I was wondering about (that which I can only supply for the UK in the late 70s/early 80s).

[ction]

One Nirvava record that still sounds great...the "Sliver/Dive" single. I haven't listened to Nevermind in a couple of years, so I don't know how it has aged. I agree with any negative comments about the production though.

[Scalzunfield]

I don't think Nevermind has aged particularly well either but I still think it's a wonderful album that I never listen to.

 

However, this thread has reminded me that I own In Utero, so it's playing right now. Thanks.

[Campaigner]

Nice reply - you gave the sort of perspective I was wondering about (that which I can only supply for the UK in the late 70s/early 80s).

 

Just to add to my post above, my most abiding memory, not so much of 'Nevermind', but the whole Nirvana 'thing', was shortly after Kurt Cobain died, a good friend of mine at school who had recently broken his arm and still had his cast on, spent all his days writing hundreds of 'K's on his cast all in different sizes. Another guy I went to school with had actually carved a 'K' into his arm, and another had the date Cobain died tattooed on his ankle.

 

Didn't strike me as healthy fascinations then, and they seem even more stupid now.

[imsjry]

I never "got" Nirvana, and I never believed that they were important, despite critics telling me so. I found them neither innovative nor influential - just well timed and marketed.

IMHO - Overrated.

 

I always felt that they were like saying ,"Hey remember punk? That was fun! Well here it is again with more distortion."

 

You couldn't be more wrong, but oh well....

[aricandover]

You couldn't be more wrong, but oh well....

 

 

just because you disagree with his opinion, doesn't make it wrong.

[imsjry]

Aged badly is just another term for "you are older now". I mean, I can't get through Zeppelin IV anymore but why would it be any less of a album?? It just means I'm older, my tastes have changed, and I don't get stoned anymore.