What's your opinion on Nirvana's influence on music? Did they make a much needed change, or kill rock and roll?

I think this is a matter of taste.

I'd rather have 2 or 3 really good chord progressions and a simple song structure to go with it than something more complicated that doesn't fit together as well.

Also, your opinions are wrong.

>something more complicated that doesn't fit together as well.

Is this why nirvana was able to come along and "kill" what was rock and roll and what it meant to be a rock star?

Really, they just demonstrated to record companies that "weird" music could suddenly become trendy make a shitload of money.

Also, 80s rock and roll sucked donkey anus.

Yeah, I'd rather have skillfully played and complex song that fits together well. Why settle? You should try Limp Bizkit instead. Now that's music.

>skillfully played and complex song that fits together well

That's what Acid Bath is for.

Nirvana paved the way for the rap takeover.

Nirvana killed guitar music.
Cobain took the alternative rock aesthetic and dumbed it down to appeal to the masses.

Nirvana's influence on music was pretty much localized to a splash in the rock genre, resulting in all that 90s alt-rock copycat sound with the rough vocalists and such. it wasn't significant, it didn't have the power to "kill rock", which was in actuality being murdered by electronic and R&B. rock was already dying fast, nirvana was one of the last big hits of rock.

Nirvana itself is one of my personal favorite rock bands. people who claim cobain is a bad guitarist, or a bad composer, legitimately don't understand music, don't play instruments and have no idea what they are talking about. you have to put it on a spectrum of relativity in order to mean anything close to objective. who played better? who played worse? who related to nirvana had better/worse music? originality? popularity? when you combine these things and compare them to other rock musicians, nirvana is actually pretty high up on the tables, I think you'd have to intentionally fudge judgements for it to come out any other way.

>Anybody that could strum a few chords could be a "musician"
was the question "what is the definition of a musician"? how is what you're saying remotely relevant?

>didn't encourage musicianship
what does that even mean? it sounds to me like you have arbitrary opinions of what "is" and "isn't" music. on top of that, what largely set nirvana apart and made them popular was cobain's focus on melody and counterpoint composition between vocals and riffs, of which he was much more talented than most singer/songwriters, who often compose melodies over chords instead of other complimenting melodies. even rush was less complex in their counterpoint composition than nirvana(sensible as they are largely percussion focused, but still a good comparison of talent).

the niggers were coming one way or another.

entry level to much cooler bands like Pixies, Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets, Melvins, etc.

>the niggers were coming one way or another

Nirvana basically ended what it meant to be a white Rock and Roll star. Flamboyant, cocky, etc. Blacks were just waiting in the wings.

>nirvana
>dumbed down
idk shit about musical composition complexity: the post

embarrassing, I didn't know Veeky Forums was so bad with interpreting music. nirvana is good bait, to be fair. sort of like how skrillex and abba are simultaneously talented musicians/groups and easy negative judgement targets.

so it's about celebrities, fame and identity for you and not about music?

nevermind, I'm in the wrong thread, I came here to talk about music.

Public image is part of music whether you like it or not.

OP asked about nirvana's influence, why not discuss all facets?

>muh rock stars
>muh glamor

Frankly, it's closet homosexuals that turned rock musicians into glorified male models in the first place.

Thank god Seattle killed that shit.

Incidentally, Nirvana were the Beatles of the 90s.

>popular
>contrarians hate them
>well liked by normies and patricians alike

public image isn't inherent to music. you're making a converse error in logic, here. celebrity, fame, and public image are things that music can be a part of, but music does not inherently contain these things. every buttfuck whistling to himself in the woods proves that claim wrong every second.

Nirvana is basically noise rock for retards.
They just took some edgy motifs from SY and Pixies and mixed them with a generic pop structure.

you're wrong.
>"What's your opinion on Nirvana's influence on music?"
>"influence on music?"
get that irrelevant shit about celebrities and pop culture out of here. we're talking about the history of music.

I'm not so sure. If nirvana did kill the rock star and allowed rap to take its place and rise to power, that's very infleuntual outside of just the influence of music.

you literally do not understand music if you are claiming that nirvana is noise rock drivel. cobain composed quite complex melodies and was skilled with contraposition compared to most contemporary and pre-existing rock.

I can show you what noise rock for retards sounds like, to help with your education.
youtube.com/watch?v=kYaRV6EwI3U

hey, you incorrectly cited the OP's post to argue what is relevant, I corrected you. if you want to talk about celebrities and cultural identity, that's not relevant to the OP's post, and I'm personally not interested in the discussion.

nirvana's influence on the development of rap music? I don't see the connection, other than both contain some angst and edginess here and there when it comes to lyrics, but whether they both rose in popularity simultaneously, or if one paved a way for the other, or had any connection whatsoever, baseless speculation.

>cobain composed quite complex melodies
top qeq
go pick a music theory book, cobain was an opportunistic hack that took advantage of the alt rock fad

also
>calling the gerogerigegege noise rock for retards
you don't know shit about yamanouchi or the japanoise ((scene))

>opportunistic hack that took advantage of the alt rock fad

You're thinking of Billy Corgan.

Nigga you're on Veeky Forums, not /mu/. If you wanna talk of their music fucking leave. Here we're discussing their influence, so their public image is a perfectly appropriate subject.

I don't know much about Kurt Cobain. Was he the original AIDS Skrillex?

>it's current year

Hole was an abomination.

I can't see him rolling with the actual SJW feminists.

He just enjoyed pissing people off way too much for that.

/mu/ maybe? Pretty sure these Veeky Forumstorians don't know jack shit about music

Isn't /mu/ a pitchfork circle jerk?

Pitchfork is widely mocked.

They were briefly influential and that was immediately after Kurt's death, which left a power vacuum, filled by buttrock.

Slint predates Nirvana

Rock and roll was long dead back in the 90's. Nirvana just gave rise to a zombie which nowadays has acumulated years of rotting.

Yeah, but I'm presuming a lot more people listened to Spiderland because of Nirvana getting all the plebs into alt-rock.

What about guns and roses?

>try to imagine Hendrix without solos

Are you a teenager? Jimi Hendrix has plenty of songs without solos.

He wouldn't be nearly as famous if he didn't have solos in any songs.

>machine gun
>no solo

Shudder.

Sure are a lot of faggots in here that would rather listen to Yngvie play finger exercises than actual songwriting. I bet you listen to fucking Dream Theather too, you retarded faggots.

>showing technical skills that complements the song is garbage!

Layla by Eric Clapton would beg to differ.

No, he wouldn't. Because he played psychedelic rock. In the case of Machine Gun you'd be removing half the song now wouldn't you faggot? Nirvana never set out to make that kind of music. You mad they don't have blast beats too?

He did more than psychedelic rock, even his blues stuff had solos.

>all rock music should follow the same formula!

My nasty infected dick in your ass wouls beg to differ.

That isn't the point. The point is Nirvana wasn't making the same kind of music as Jimi Hendrix. I just don't get being upset at the absence of a solo or other technical showcase in a Nirvana album. I like guitar solos. I play them for gods sake. But expecting solos in a Nirvana record would be no different to me than expecting one out of Tupac or Philip Glass. It just isn't what they set out to do, and it would sound out of place in their primitive angsty songs.

Well before Nevermind music on the radio was pure cancer. And then after Nevermind, music on the radio was cancer lite.

Fucking grunge and everything after follows the same formula and chords.

Right they don't need to be in every song, but nirvana's effects has crept and removed solos from a ton of music.

Except Smashing Pumpkins are top shelf.

kurt cobain was an MK-ultra drone programmed to destroy white american masculinity and his wife literally cuckolded him