READER COMMENTS SECTION
Become a Certified Commentator today by following this link!
!!Before adding new comments, please check the GUIDELINES. Don't say I didn't warn you!!
Prog Man <firstname.lastname@example.org> (16.08.2002)
I hate this band... and I do not think that I must back up my statement with some sound arguments because it's useless. Suffice for me to say that these guys, and Kurt Cobain in particular, are overrated just like the 'myth' of Elvis Presley. Too much image and no substance. Enough said.
Kiel Pidgeon <email@example.com> (10.12.2002)
Why has it become "cool" to bash Nirvana now? Why must people take shots at Nirvana and Kurt in particular? It's fine not to like them, but "too much image and not enough substance" is funny it's such a stupid comment. Not many people that I have ever heard could write such beautiful and moving lyrics. Nirvana's music was and still is a blessing not a blemish on music. And it should be treated with as much respect as any great band's before or after. Good review, but if Nevermind, In Utero and Unplugged aren't great, nothing is.
Jon <firstname.lastname@example.org> (25.01.2003)
id just like to point out a lot of our rock dilletantes and young worshippers of 60's music confuse Nirvana with remarkable talent, and your reviews are quite typical. have a lolly. :)
Aaron Lenhardt <email@example.com> (06.02.2003)
David Dickson you obviously missed the whole point of the band Nirvana. They were not at all over rated. Dont compare them to your sixties hippies cause most of your idols probably died too. Shure Nirvana drew from influences like Black Sabbath and the Beatles.....So What !!! those are two great bands. You cant create music in a vacuum. Dont tell me your 60s freaks didnt have influences of their own. Curdt Cobain was the voice of his generation. He wore his heart on his sleeve. His music and words were beautifull and ingenious. Please dont review what you dont know or understand. Im not going to do a review on a band I know very little about.
I hate this band. Absolutely loathe them. They almost managed to destroy hard rock and metal forever. Thanks to these three miserable, depressed, flannel-wearing, drug addled souls we were treated to such wonders as: being uncool to be technically proficient on your instruments (witness the atrocious "solo" on "Smells Like Teen Spirit" as it just mimics the verse melody and was meant to serve as a giant fuck you to those who could actually solo), wall to wall depression anthems, and last but not least terrible concerts. Nothing like paying $30 plus a ticket to see a group of goateed guys dressed in flannel shirts and standing in place, showing no discernible emotion or desire to entertain the audience. As someone once said, I go to a concert to be entertained, not to see some guy who looks the guy who fills my car with gas just stand with a guitar at a microphone for an hour and a half. Gee, thanks guys, you brought so much to rock.
David Dickson <firstname.lastname@example.org> (20.01.2004)
Whoa, whoa, WHOA there, Aaron Lenhardt. When, on this site or any other, did I say that Nirvana were overrated? And when in God's name did I even WRITE about Black Sabbath? I think you definitely have me confused for someone else, dude.
Lindsey Eck <email@example.com> (29.09.2005)
Well, I disagree with several of the comments people have e-mailed you about this band. I think Kurt Cobain has an excellent voice, one of the very best of his era—expressive, with a great range and plenty of power. Also, while "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is a pretty simple song, that's not true of Cobain's stuff generally. Look at the complex set of chords that form the chorus to "Lithium," then a different set for the "yeah" part, then yet another set for the bridge ("I'm not gonna crack"). This is far from three-chord rock. Same for many of their compositions.
Tyler <Tj@kc.rr.com> (04.05.2006)
For the people who say that Nirvana "destroyed" the proverbial genre of Metal" or "Rock", you can suck a fat testicle. Let me tell you some things you probably didn't know.While you talk about how Kurt Cobain couldn't play the guitar, or that he had no "emotion" on stage, or even that he ruined good music, think about this: Cobain, for one, could play the guitar exceptionally well when he wanted to. He didn't though, because he didn't want to. He didn't have to play well because he wasn't FAKE! Nirvana didn't destroy rock music either. In fact, they made it better. 70's and 80's "rock" bands were fucking gay. They wore ounces of make up, gallons of hair spray, and tight leather pants for Christ's sake. Give me a break. Who wants to go see a bunch of fags jump around in tight pants, dress up like trannies, and sing about "rocking" all day. Their words meant nothing, and the people who made up these bands were DICKS! The rock world after the Doors became completely plastic. Literally. Glam rock had to die eventually or people would stop listening to the radio. Even today, all the music we hear on the radio is the same...totally cliche. But people don't know what good music is because they're IGNORANT. Here's a lesson on rock music. Old rusty blue's riffs in the sad, emotional songs gave life to the raw emotion of what "rock music" was supposed to have. Nobody captured that emotion better than former Nirvana front man, Kurt Cobain. He wasn't fake, he wasn't cliche, and he sure the fuck wasn't the destroyer of "Metal." I find it hard to believe that people can blindly say that Nirvana as a band, were untalented. That statement can only be said out of pure ignorance. Nirvana is overrated, true; however, so are fucking GLAM ROCK BANDS FROM THE 80's!!!!!! It is no lie or exaggeration to say the least, that Nirvana was the most INFLUENCIAL band of the 20th century. And it's no myth that Kurt Cobain was an exceptional songwriter and singer. Nirvana revolutionized music and paved the way for bands today to be what they are instead of fake. Cobain definitely left behind a wonderful legacy of music, and that's all he needs to be remembered for. Long story short...STOP BASHING ON NIRVANA!!!
David Dickson <firstname.lastname@example.org> (30.12.2002)
I think this is a decent debut album. It has its weak spots, true, but it's a great purveyor of greatness to come.
Ilya Grigoriev <email@example.com> (03.08.2005)
I sure had a hard time learning to love this album. I still don't. The angst is there, sure it is: you've got your paedophile rape ("Floyd The Barber") and your pissed-off anthem ("Negative Creep") and tons and tons of indecipherable lyrics that are first mumbled and then furiously SCREAMED and show Kurt trying oh-so-hard to be Frank Black. But there's a bright side to all that too: "Floyd" and "Creep" are both very enjoyable rockers that aren't ruined by Kurt's amateur guitar but instead work even more that way. "About A Girl" is pure Lennonesque (I'm sorry) bliss, the best pop song Kurt ever wrote. I enjoy "Love Buzz" as well. I never heard the Shocking Blue original (in fact I only heard "Venus" and that was kind of enough) but the bass-line is stupendous and there's even a SOLO for all you solo fans out there! So we're pretty much in agreement over this one. Except that I downright hate everything else on this album. It's generic grunge at its worst.So here's Nirvana at the crossroads: what to do? Invest in more accessible songs? Clean up the production? Get yourself a more solid drummer? Sell out? To whom? But cut them some slack. After all it took 'em over a year to answer yes, yes, yes, yes and Geffen. And the result wasn't bad or at least not as bad as it usually gets (what, you want an example? Just ONE??). In short: 6/10.
Jon <firstname.lastname@example.org> (17.12.2002)
Hee hee. Well, that explains his love affair with the Beatles, at least. A good insight into the mind of George. Uh, the album? Doesn't leave a very big impression... but maybe it does! Three and a half little asterisks from me--only because George used, hee hee, "zeitgeist" to describe Nirvana popularity. Never stop believing in your opinions, folks. They're like delicious raspberry jam.
Kiel Pidgeon <email@example.com> (19.03.2003)
I wonder what kept that last half a star off the score? You rave about the songs, and even though you bash their originality(which is ridiculous, but that's beside the point; we are talking about the album, not the band right?)you do say it captured you, right? Nevermind deserves a perfect score if for no other reason than it made rock music, even if for only a brief moment seem important again. Not to mention that every song rules. While I do agree with what you say about Nevermind's affect on the regression of music. It's not Nirvana's fault, they didn't know it was going to have the affect it did. They recorded a record, everybody realized there was something special going on and they wanted to see what it was all about. Once MTV and the record industry like you said "saw they could actually make money on teen angst in the same way they were earlier making money on all that "porn metal" of the Eighties" they took hold of it they called this new music "grunge"(and what is grunge anyways? Nirvana was a punk band. Punk is not about how you play, or even knowing how to play in some cases, punk is attitude)they repackaged and watered it down, then feed it to the masses. Nirvana didn't "sell out" the underground, MTV and the record industry did that.[Special author note: Kiel - not every album that "captures" me has to receive a perfect score. Likewise, it is hardly ridiculous to bash ANY album aiming at a perfect score for its lack of originality. And as for "making rock music for a brief moment seem important again" - who the hell will be interested in that information ten years from now? Give it a perfect score in 1991. In 2003, its perfect score is no longer perfect, not if we treat rock records on the same level as your daily newspaper, at least.]
Brian Adkins <Brian.Adkins@Enerwise.com> (05.12.2003)
Wow, I'm amazed that this album got more than a 3, you sure you didn't buy into all the hype in the early nineties? I think the lyric are nothing special, the music is obviously far from great and rarely can you understand a damn word he's saying and I think he has a horrible voice. I could care less about originality, I don't mind a band copying another band at all, as long as they're copying a good band. So as far as Nirvana having an "original" sound or not, who cares? The sounds coming out of my speakers and the message delivered by the lyric are important. And to me, my own personal opinion, the sounds make me wanna turn my stereo off before I get a headache and the message is not appealing to me. Especially considering that I just have to read the lyric because I can't hear anything being sang, or screamed.But on a positive note, when I'm in a pissed-off mood, the "noise" on this album makes me forget what I'm pissed about so maybe I'm just not in a pissed-off, negative mood often enough to truly appreciate. Or maybe I'm just an idiot when it comes to music. Who knows, not me, oh sorry, was that a Cobain line? Get the album though if you like your music hard and simple and don't like hearing the words to your songs.
David Dickson <firstname.lastname@example.org> (20.01.2004)
This album rules. Much much MUCH better than Bleach, though not quite the masterpiece In Utero is. However, if you're to like it as much as us '90's freaks do, you must keep one thing in mind: Nirvana are NOT an arena rock band. They are a PUNK band. They do not wank around trying to show off their talent--they slam around trying to show off how loud and angry they are. And believe it or not, that is a good thing, because few three-person bands have been able to slam quite as LOUDLY and ANGRILY as this one. I actually prefer the Smashing Pumpkins SLIGHTLY to this band, but I'd be hard-pressed not to admit that Kurt Cobain can out-scream just about any other '90's frontman in existence. Due to the presence of this sheer force, pretty much every song on the album rules--except when they try and slow things down, as on "Polly" and "Something in the Way". Plus, I think it would have been much more powerful-sounding without the glossy production. Still, Nevermind is, as of now, the best punk album I've ever heard. In Utero would take that crown, except it's more of a "metal" album than this one. I hate using the term "grunge"--it's more of a culture than a concrete musical style, anyway.
Bob Josef <Trfesok@aol.com> (01.07.2004)
I accidentally won a free copy of this album (it's a long story). Predictably, I absolutely loathed it on first hearing. Lousy musicianship, incomprehensible singing, and lyrics full of depression, angst, and anger unleavened by any sort of humor or humanity. (Naming one song after a powerful antidepressant is enough of a clue). After a while, though, I started to get it, somewhat. There are indeed many catchy hooks in the songs, and the band certainly delivers its music with a lot of energy. And Kurt really was trying to say something in his lyrics, although his yowling frequently obscures them, as you pointed out. Although I almost wish I didn't understand "Polly" and "Something in the Air", which are downright creepy and sick.Of course, this music wasn't aimed at people like me. However, I don't see why this morose stuff could be consistently entertaning, or offer anything uplifting. Nevermind is a time capsule of depression -- a moment in time that isn't a place I want to spend a lot of time in. Most of us would like to move beyond such a place. Too bad Kurt couldn't -- listening to this, one understands quite well what happened to him.
Divyang Thakur <email@example.com> (23.06.2005)
Yeah,well read your reviews about Nevermind and well all right you stayed away from the hype and all that shit and I heard them 6 months before so I did too and I don't find this in one way deserving of 4andhalf because hell it consists of "Territorial Pissings" which is just Kurt screaming to high hell and the second part of "Something in the way"is just as bad and the songs on the Bside don't even stick in my mind so technically according to my Rating system this should get a B+ and no more.But why see it technically?Music is not technical(not from the listener's point of view anyway)so why review it technically.I disagree with your listenability,adequacy thingy and more with 1.4,2.5 ratings.The ratings should be as imprecise as possible without sacrificing your point of view.