Chefelf.com Night Life: Nirvana - Chefelf.com Night Life

Jump to content

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

Nirvana Fan boy thread

#31 User is offline   Heccubus Icon

  • Ugh.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 4,954
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Canada

Posted 18 November 2008 - 02:08 AM

QUOTE (blueoceans @ Oct 16 2006, 02:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Nirvana hit the spotlight, along came a bunch of other Seattle based grunge bands,.ala SoundGarden, Pearl Jam, and Alice in Chains. Almost makes you wonder if one of the other 3 bands aforementioned had released their first studio album before Nirvana, would they be regarded as the "break-through" alternative band,..would say, SoundGarden be held in this high esteem of being the grunge band that sank the hair metal scene rather than Nirvana? that is something worthy to ponder, isnt it class?

Sorry, I had to resurrect this to address something really, really fucking stupid here. And I know this person doesn't really check here anymore, and will likely never read this, but it's pissing me off.
Nirvana didn't release their debut first. In fact, they weren't even signed to a major label first.
Soundgarden's debut LP Ultramega OK was released in 1988. Bleach was released in 1989. Additionally, Soundgarden's major label debut, Louder Than Love (A&M Records) was released September 5, 1989, 2 full years before Nirvana's breakthrough Nevermind was released (September 24, 1991).
Your point = invalid.
Thank you.
0

#32 User is offline   civilian_number_two Icon

  • Canada's Next Top Model.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 3,382
  • Joined: 01-November 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:In Your Dreams
  • Interests:I like stuff.
  • Country:Canada

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:15 AM

LOL, yeah, I hate it when someone makes a long rambling post so fucking long and rambling that you miss something in it that normally you'd respond to. I'm surprised you decided to respond after 2 years, for the reason you mentioned (blueoceans will never see it), and for one other reason (why were you rereading so old a thread?), but of course your point is spot on. Nirvana were not the inventors of their sound; they were a part of somehting that had been going on for a while. So blue's concern that their popularity was due to some idea of their uniqueness or leadership is unnecessary. Their popularity stemmed from the gravelly voice and photogenic appeal of their frontman.
"I had a lot of different ideas. At one point, Luke, Leia and Ben were all going to be little people, and we did screen tests to see if we could do that." -George Lucas, in STAR WARS: the Annotated Screenplays (p197).
0

#33 User is offline   Heccubus Icon

  • Ugh.
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Head Moderator
  • Posts: 4,954
  • Joined: 30-October 03
  • Gender:Male
  • Country:Canada

Posted 18 November 2008 - 04:26 AM

Ah, I was just plucking around the music forums poking at old threads. I do that sometimes. Like I said, that misstep in reasoning was bothering me to the point that I felt a need to make the response I'd formulated public.
0

#34 User is offline   J m HofMarN Icon

  • Knows All The Girls Named Lola
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7,234
  • Joined: 24-May 04
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Rural Pahrump Nevada
  • Interests:Tyranny
  • Country:United States

Posted 22 November 2008 - 09:02 PM

Threadomancy of the first order!

Also, at least no members of Nirvana ever had any part in fucking Audio Slave.

Quote

I don't know about you but I have never advocated that homosexuals, for any reason, be cut out of their mother's womb and thrown into a bin.
- Deucaon toes a hard line on gay fetus rights.
0

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3


Fast Reply

  • Decrease editor size
  • Increase editor size