who do you think will be the next Nirvana? or will there ever be a frontman as good as kurt cobain?

I think there are plenty of artists as good as Kurt Cobain.

The only thing that was really unique about Nirvana was that they enjoyed a high level of both critical and commercial success, which is kind of unique. You don't really see it that much in rock nowadays. You do see it in hip/hop-- with people like Kanye West, Missy Elliot, and Jay-Z well liked by both critics and the masses.

quote:

Originally posted by madfinger:
who do you think will be the next Nirvana? or will there ever be a frontman as good as kurt cobain?

Hopefully no one...I never liked Nirvana that much.

to be honest, i always thought pearl jam were better than nirvana ...and sometimes i think to myself 'what if eddie vedder had commited suicide instead of kurt? which band would be more famous then?' ...it seems if you kill yourself, you're bound to become legendary...the same thing is happening now with elliott smith.

i'm also annoyed that nirvana made the grunge scene so happening and kind of pushed shoegaze away ...i like shoegaze and noise rock a lot better than grunge.

I also think that 'in the aeroplane over the sea' by neutral milk hotel should be considered the best album of 'our time'.

or Kid A...

People have been searching for the next Nirvana since before Kurt Cobain committed suicide. It's a ridiculous assumption to think that another band will be like that. Why not just be looking for the next great band, doesn't that make more sense?

As for Neutral Milk Hotel and Pearl Jam being better than Nirvana....I think that's pretty subjective. I love Nirvana and I think Pearl Jam sounds like another boring classic rock band and Neutral Milk Hotel is alright but Jeff Mangum's voice is only appealing to some people, I am not one of them. On top of this, the assumption that grunge pushed shoegaze out of the way is also incredulous, I think My Bloody Valentine's Loveless is hands down better than any other record from the 90's or any decade for that matter but there is no way you can make shoegaze look cool to a majority of the public. It wasn't widely embraced in its prime and I don't think it ever will be. There is something esoteric about the genre that escapes the average consumer. Maybe it was the fact that most of those bands had no stage presence, stared at their pedals, pushed their vocals into the background of their recordings, etc. I love Slowdive, Ride, Chapterhouse, Swervedriver, and others but I'm just trying to put some perspective on things.

I agree with you that people should just be looking for the next great band, or rather bands. And yeah, it really is all subjective ..but i guess what madfinger meant is 'who will be the next band to be praised as much as nirvana?'. In my opinion that band will be Radiohed because they appeal to such a wide audience and new bands these days seem to be influenced by them.

Shoegaze was huge in the early 90s and it was the seattle scene that literally DID signal a change in record sales etc...so i don't think that was too much of an incredulous statement. It's just how phases work with people..i don't like it...and saying that loveless isnt widely embraced and never will be is ludicrous...it's already considered to be a classic..a masterpiece.

Okay I don't want to get into some ridiculous argument here about Loveless. I know that it's considered a classic, hell I just said that it's my favorite record of all time. Critical success does not mean commercial success, and with Nirvana that is exactly what we're talking about. Nirvana unseated Michael Jackson from the #1 spot on the Billboard Album Charts when Nevermind came out. It's difficult to get people in the general public to agree on the merits of My Bloody Valentine. They weren't a chart topping band, and their music is a little too heady for your average person to "get" sometimes. Nirvana beat people senseless with distinctive guitar riffs not elliptical patterns of swirling beauty. When you walk in some guitar shop whose riffs do you hear kids playing? Nirvana, not My Bloody Valentine. Just because every publication, Pitchforkmedia especially, ranks Loveless as a classic doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of people who still haven't even heard of My Bloody Valentine. I don't know if you are British or not, maybe that would make a difference about "shoegaze being huge" because in America artists like Slowdive and Ride could barely get their tours funded at the time. The third Slowdive record wasn't even released in America until just last year. Shoegaze was never huge unless you lived in Europe at the time. It was more like a loose collective of bands that played shows together and touted one another, the press literally hated most of those bands (My Bloody Valentine aside). Only in retrospect has shoegaze really come into it's own. Like I said before, I think the popularity of the genre's decline in the early 90's can easily be attributed to the music itself as much as anything else, but I won't completely deny that Nirvana played some part in that, albeit unwillingly.

Claiming that Radiohead is the next Nirvana is just weird, Radiohead is already a huge band and has been since at least 1997. They aren't "the next Nirvana" and are generally regarded on their own merits. When people talk about looking for the "next Nirvana", one of the distinct things about Nirvana is that they came out of nowhere really fast. Radiohead took three albums to produce the record that granted them the status that they have, and they had charting singles from The Bends and Pablo Honey, so they didn't come out of left field or anything. If you want to see the hype machine glorify some bands in their infancy, take a look at the British press, they are so quick to judge every shitty band that comes out "the next big thing" from Bloc Party and the Arctic Monkeys to The Kaiser Chiefs. Those bands don't sound like Nirvana, but they've got that same hype machine behind them.

By the way, I'm not trying to be an asshole or anything. There have been some excellent articles on the history of shoegazing within the past few years. There was an issue of Magnet magazine with Ride on the cover from 2003 I think that goes into great detail about the rise and eventual decline of the scene. Several things that are discussed are the points that I've brought up. The article was derived from conversations with most of these groups as well as Creation records (home to the majority of these bands at the time) label-head Alan McGee amongst others. It was reprinted in the booklet of a compilation called Feedback to the Future, which is a nice little collection of early 90's shoegaze tracks not including My Bloody Valentine (they couldn't get the rights to the songs). Regardless, I don't want to come off like some smug jerk, but I'm pretty obsessive when it comes to specific types of music and shoegaze is one of them.

This won't have much structure, but it's late.

Look, you are right in saying that more people know Nirvana than My Bloody Valentine, but I was basically just thinking out loud when i said Nirvana 'pushed' shoegaze out of the way ...i was merely wondering if shoegaze would've strived as much as grunge did if Nirvana hadn't come along. Let's talk about public views of the bands ...more people DO know Nirvana..but who gives a shit about what people know anyway?..most people are idiots ..i mean come on, most people would probably know green day as opposed to led zeppelin. So how about we discuss the impact that bands have on future music ...and that's what i was trying to put across when i said Radiohead are the next big thing ..simply because a lot of the new bands these days are influenced by Radiohead and i believe that this will become more of a trend as time passes. If you look back at what i actually wrote, i didn't say that Radiohead will be the next Nirvana ...i said that they will be praised as much as Nirvana. They already are praised as much. In regards to the 'who will be the next nirvana?' discussion ...i'm over that. That question is stupid.

But back to the my bloody valentine/shoegaze discussion ...I think as time goes by, loveless WILL get the recognition it deserves ...i base this on public views on the album and changing trends ...now you said that there are plenty of people that havn't heard it ..well yeah, thats true ..but of the people that HAVE heard it, what do you think the ratio of people who like it to people who don't like it would be? I think more people like it. And then you have Nirvana ...everyone has heard of nevermind ...but there's still mixed views about it ...and nowdays grunge isn't so big at ALL ...in fact, indie rock is coming back in a HUGE way ...so I think that a LOT of people would be thinking nevermind isnt that great as opposed to loveless.

As trends change, music from the past gets un-earthed and praised as classics. This WILL happen to loveless.

You are basically stating an opinion. We all have them, it doesn't make them fact or make wishes come true. As I believe I've stated, I'm not arguing against Loveless so you don't need to get on a soapbox. You should note that not only do I consider it a classic but I've stated that it is my favorite record. Just because you and I love the album doesn't change the fact that an album like Nevermind which has discernable riffs and vocals appeals not only to people who are into indie rock but also to morons, the average public, and any meathead that likes "rock" music. You aren't going to find the kind of macho, redneck assholes that Kurt Cobain feared were Nirvana fans listening to My Bloody Valentine. To cannonize Nevermind with that grunge movement is kind of erroneous at this point, the record seems to sidestep the pitfalls of groups like Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and has since been recognized by most critics worth their two cents as having nothing to do with grunge except being in the same place at the same time. You want to talk about indie rock making a comeback? It never left. What with other bands like Liars and Animal Collective covering Nirvana songs, I don't think the influence of Nirvana is waining now. Yes, things get dug up and praised as classics, but I've addressed that the public and critical opinions are often contrary. While critics are pointing out great records that have been missed, the public is still listening to groups like Nickelback, Staind, Hoobastank, Linkin Park, and others that seem content to retread the same ground over and over in the most overt and boring ways possible. By the way, I think far more people know Led Zeppelin than Green Day. Led Zeppelin is up there with The Beatles, Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, etc. as one of the most recognizable bands in history, Green Day have not yet reached that point, but it's really a matter of how time treats their music as to what kind of legacy a band ends up with. We could argue until the end of the earth, but seriously, why turn this discussion into something nasty?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jonathanbrisby,

ummmm Radiohead was the "next Nirvana". different style of music but generated the same amount of excitement in the music world and brought droves of people into the alternitive/Indie music world.

That is your opinion, not a fact. One cannot make fact opinion. In general Radiohead is considered on their own terms. As I've already stated, the success of Nirvana was extremely fast, Radiohead took three albums to achieve the same level of success, all on major labels. Pay attention. I've already addressed this above when someone else said the exact same thing.

If you're counting the success of "Creep" then that would also be erroneous. That was one hit off of an album that is generally regarded as the worst in the band's catalog. Nirvana had a stream of hits all off of Nevermind within the time span of one year, 1991-1992.

quote:

Originally posted by jonathanbrisby:
That is your opinion, not a fact. One cannot make fact opinion. In general Radiohead is considered on their own terms. As I've already stated, the success of Nirvana was extremely fast, Radiohead took three albums to achieve the same level of success, all on major labels.

Wasn't Nevermind Nirvana's third album? Interesting. Heh, just kidding...kind of.

Nevermind was Nirvana's second album, after Bleach. But with "Teen Spirit," you could say they became an overnight sensation and became famous very fast. I don't know much about Radiohead, but I think Nirvana's rise to fame could be considered fairly quick by rock music standards.

Incesticide threw me. There really is no reasonable comparison between Nirvana and Radiohead.

Theres no comparison whatsoever between Radiohead and Nirvana because Nirvana were essentially a straight ahead rock band, Guns N Roses without the sexism if you will, and Radiohead are like King Crimson with louder guitars.

quote:

Originally posted by Moon Pix:
Theres no comparison whatsoever between Radiohead and Nirvana because Nirvana were essentially a straight ahead rock band, Guns N Roses without the sexism if you will, and Radiohead are like King Crimson with louder guitars.

Yeah, strange comparison - though the voice of a generation tag has recently been directed perhaps in equal measure to Thom Yorke as it once was directed to Cobain - the difference of course is that Cobain immortalised himself with a shotgun and thank god Mr Yorke is still with us, well, in a alien/deep sea creature kinda way!