CaptainHowdy

Not at massive levels like "Smell like" you know, and "Pretty Hate Machine" I don’t think sold more than "Nevermind." Plus, if you allow me, I’ve never seen as many kids with Trent's face on their t-shirts as those with Kurt's... or am I wrong? The definitive consecration of N.I.N. to the general public (so to speak, they never really became a mass group) happened after '94.

Honestly, if you hadn’t brought up the red one, I wouldn’t have even mentioned it. Come on, don’t accuse me of things that don’t belong to me. As for the rest, they’re personal views; for me, Cobain and Nirvana were neither more nor less commercially exploited than others you despise for that reason. However, I contradict you on N.I.N.; they were only truly commercially discovered from "The Downward Spiral" onwards (that is, from '94), which is a different era. As for all the gossip you mention, honestly, none of that even belongs to me. Anyway, let’s revisit this later because we shouldn’t go too off-topic. Take care!

Certo! Inviami il testo che desideri tradurre e provvederò a farlo.

Tori Amos did that cover because she was interested in Cobain's human figure, who was undeniably a central character of that era, and I don't think it was for solely artistic reasons. In fact, I'm sure that musically, her artistic conception of what a song should be was quite distant (if you notice, her cover is so deconstructed that it seems like a different song... if I'm not mistaken, you called it awful... or something similar ;-) to give you an idea of the different kinds of subjective sensations).
You ask me to tell you why I think Nirvana were chosen by the media; after all, you already say it yourself: they were the right band at the right time, right because in "Nevermind" there was more than one song that lent itself well to "radio play," right because this apparent ease of listening was well blended with lyrics and attitudes that exalted that "pain as existential end," which was the common thread linking the artistic expressions of the States in the early '90s (and not only in grunge; I could mention "Pretty Hate Machine" by N.I.N., "Little Earthquakes" by Tori Amos, and "Slow, Deep and Hard" by Type O Negative to name three different genres, even among themselves). Then, because Cobain as a character lent himself well to iconization with that "damned" look, much more believable than Vedder or Cornell. The only one who could come close from this perspective was Staley, but AIC's music presented slightly more complex canons (at least how I see it), and those who had to sell were looking for more linearity, which Nirvana provided, along with other reasons that are beyond our knowledge because we will never fully know the truth about certain mechanisms (including those that led to poor Kurt's suicide).
Then, not out of the pleasure of contradicting you, but your response to Eldemasiado seems dictated more by the tone "Nirvana, an absolutely external group far from the prototypes of Showbiz" rather than a legitimate defense of Cobain & co.'s "artistically honest" roots. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but upon rereading it, I assure you I get that impression.
Ah, one last thing... I didn't mean to discover that there was something else before Nirvana (which at the time was underestimated by the media); it was just to bring it back to memory. I know you know... but since the discussion is public, it's always better to remember it...

Just in case, the honor would be all mine... and there must be a reason? Ok... let me think... because I'm a tremendously pop creature, does that work? Anyway, I would like your list of the worst names at this point...

or that you start to get old and become senile too ;-)

I speak from a musical point of view: "Nevermind," while a good album, is certainly not epoch-making, and the revolution you mention had already been set in motion by the bands you cite at the end of your comment (by the way, I think that review was just provocative, knowing Sanjuro). For the rest, you see Nirvana as advocates of simplification (in both positive and negative ways, because that phenomenon you mention didn’t only bring about positive things, quite the opposite... but that’s another discussion we may have elsewhere). I see them among many (and not even among the first... you mention the Pixies, for instance... ;-) ) who participated and, for some reason (certainly not musical, at least not for me), had more visibility. But this is my perception of things; I intervened not to impose an impossible universal truth, but because I didn’t understand this dichotomous attitude (and not just yours) of celebrating Nirvana's commercial success and yet almost renouncing it when uncomfortable truths are mentioned (apparently, I repeat, I see nothing wrong in thinking that poor Kurt took a look at his wallet every now and then; I’m not a slave to a certain romantic alternativeism, which is decidedly arbitrary... and I’m not saying that you are, clear, right?). Yet, it’s inevitably true that, on one hand, you proudly feel this comeback of the so-called losers (who, in the long run, turned out to be the true winners, contrary to all the proclaimed existentialist romanticism, and I’m talking about both critics and the public), but then you emit that this affects the sincerity of your idol’s intentions... but who cares, I ask? Are you convinced that the truth is on your side? Fine, but there’s no need to accuse anyone who doesn’t think like you of artistic blindness (or human blindness... this aberration often happens too) or lack of information... don’t you think? Then there are objective factors related to technique, history, and other factors, and I’m the first to nitpick about these things (I admit it), but honestly, regarding the statement "Nirvana without the media buzz would have become the generational icon they are now," I fear there’s very little objective evidence to guarantee any answer; I say no, but that’s my personal opinion. That said, I swear I won’t bring up Nirvana for a while (every 3-4 months should be fine, I’d say...) Bye!

I'm not so convinced that without the media explosion we would be here discussing it, at least not in these terms, and anyway I was speaking in general and not personally addressing you. The fact remains, however, that at the slightest criticism coming from outside the musical world (and as I already told you, from my point of view, all criticisms apply) you get heated. Then, honestly, you're exaggerating with the idea of changing tastes and perspectives of millions of people (sure, it did happen, but not in the methods you imply; the revolution was in the air and one way or another it would have arrived anyway, it comes around at regular cycles—I don’t think I need to mention punk). The problem is that with this saturation of information and digital content, they probably won’t come back again. Grunge was an important phenomenon (more so in terms of culture than music), and if you also drag in the '80s alternative scene, then you're already shifting perspective and making it clear that anyone who tries to associate the term Nirvana with the beginning of who knows what is making a mistake. As for the discussion about Myth, I'm absolutely convinced that if MTV had decided to elevate someone else, we would be talking about that person now because musically "Nevermind" isn't that fundamental album. It had two or three excellent tracks that were suitable for radio, and guess what, they were, but beyond that, it's not an epoch-making album at least musically. However, if you also mix in factors that go beyond this, then unfortunately everything has to be thrown into the sociological pot, including the media. This is obviously my reading (which comes from someone who has been listening to Nirvana since the time of "Bleach"). That's all.

Apologies accepted, I apologize too, I mistook you for someone else. Bye!

In a nutshell: it's how the Nirvana were managed that is unappealing, not their music (although, I repeat, I'm not a fan of it).