donjunio

What can I say, great musical taste!

The enchanting Vivis, getting better and better......by the way, the great Bo Diddley is also missing from the de-database! Who's taking care of that?

Oh dear Lewis, I just listened to it again today along with "stag." I think you and your friend festwca are absolutely right.

Well, "head like a hole" played quite a bit on MTV and "broken" even went platinum, anyway...

Yes, you remember that rather inelegant definition regarding the lovely Tori, and perhaps you've taken it to heart. It seems that the fans of the cornflake girl are even more heated than Nirvana's fans...joking aside, I contest the idea that certain things can be decided on paper. Just think that when Nirvana arrived in Rome on tour in October 1991, the executives at their Italian record label (BMG, associated with Geffen) didn’t even know who they were...what a way to create a musical phenomenon in vitro, I must say! Everyone has their own theories: there are even those who claim that grunge and Nirvana were a plot by the Republican right and big corporations to steer young white people away from the massive consumption of rap and hip-hop. By the way, it’s not like MTV was only playing Nirvana in heavy rotation. Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, and especially Pearl Jam followed suit, and their music videos were played non-stop, not to mention the Metallica of the Black Album and the Nine Inch Nails you mentioned. Cobain embodied the spirit of his time better than anyone else and knew how to tap into the collective imagination, which is why he became an icon, albeit reluctantly. MTV realized, late compared to many other media, what was happening and began airing the SLTS video, which until December 1991 had been confined to the metal ghetto of "headbanger's ball." Finally, how could I talk about "Nirvana as a band completely external and distant from the prototypes of Showbiz"? It was Cobain himself who would joke about himself (Teenage angst has paid off well...)...that said, I’ll stop here; it’s always constructive to discuss and engage in friendly debate. Bye, capt!

Regarding the dichotomy you refer to, you are not entirely wrong; it was an era of splendor and ambiguity, and certainly among these was the contradiction between musicians raised with an indie ethic and million (and unexpected) sales. This often caused a short circuit for sensitive artists who were unable to handle the overwhelming scale of their own icon and the "original sin" of a success that betrays their punk roots, often with moves reminiscent of Neil Young (like Pearl Jam at one point stopping making videos). Consequently, even the fans feel the effects, eh… joking aside, I don’t fully agree with you when you say, "to exalt the commercial success of Nirvana but then almost renounce it when uncomfortable things are remembered.” Simply, in hindsight, pros and cons are weighed, and an overview is sought. Personally, I much prefer those who, looking in the mirror, seek their own credibility amid a thousand difficulties, rather than those who brazenly pose.

"I see them among many (and not even among the first... the Pixies, for example, you mention them... ;-) ) who participated and who, for some reason (certainly not musical, at least for me), received more visibility." That they were among many, and that they surely weren’t the first, doesn’t seem like a great revelation. Kurt himself admitted that he wrote "Teen Spirit" by drawing on the style of "Surfer Rosa." If you want, tell us what you think that reason was; I simply shared my opinion. Cobain was the right man at the right time. He capitalized on the work of those who preceded him, but few others could have provided the decisive push. If Napoleon Bonaparte had been born 30 years earlier, he would have been at most a general in the ancien régime. Cobain had the ability to write songs that could transcend the limited circle of passionate fans, with catchy melodies and adding the spark of emotional instability and the restlessness of a writer who reflected his audience. Don’t you think that being able to write songs that could revive an idea of rock as a generational common denominator is a sufficient "musical reason," to use your words? Tori Amos herself, whom you love so much, probably thinks differently, considering she made a cover of "Teen Spirit," and even Herbie Hancock, not exactly a newcomer, interpreted pieces by Nirvana. As for the cultural impact of "Nevermind," I believe it’s redundant to add anything more.

I did not claim that Nirvana would have been a generational icon even without the media grandstanding. I simply stated, in response to eldemasiado, that this group has a cultural value, a history, and an artistic stature that makes it entirely independent of MTV's influence. Upon closer inspection, the beatification process of Cobain conducted by that network began after Cobain's death, particularly with the unplugged operation.

No Lewis, you shouldn't have done this to me... until "Vitalogy," Pearl Jam were amazing. This is a decent album that boasts two of their best songs ever: "Push me, Pull me" (with that vague industrial-tribal flavor and one of Eddie's best lyrics) and "Faithful" (with that fantastic tempo shift in the middle). Three and a half stars.

I don't believe there's any particular animosity from Nirvana fans (or at least that it's greater than that of supporters of other bands). On the contrary, I suspect that it's more common within these pages for worn-out arguments to persist ("there was much better music back then," "those who listen to Nirvana have pimples," or just read the famous review by SanJuro to encounter a plethora of clichés, with the inevitable mention of Zappa) against the Cobain band.
Regarding the historical significance of that change, alternative and grunge would certainly have become significant phenomena, but without Nirvana, there wouldn't have been THAT earthquake. Like it or not, it was "Nevermind" that brought rock back to the center of pop music, with its insidious and penetrating melodies and Cobain's ability to become a generational leader. When you say, "I'm fully convinced that if MTV had decided to elevate someone else, we would now be talking about that other person," I obviously disagree. Firstly, because I don’t believe everyone had the ability to write songs that could transcend the narrow indie world, songs that were frank and universal enough to encapsulate the spirit of an era and the emotions of an entire generation of outcasts. Secondly, because I obviously don’t think that certain phenomena can be planned on paper (Geffen thought they would sell at most half a million copies).
If you claim to have followed Nirvana since the days of Bleach, you know very well where they came from, in what cultural context they were formed, and that the Northwest of the USA was the furthest thing from a success-oriented image one could imagine. MTV began heavily airing Nirvana's videos only when Cobain and company were already famous, through the channels I described in the response and Eldemasiado: in October 1991, MTV was primarily showcasing videos by Michael Jackson and Guns N' Roses. The industry is ruthless, and it seizes all phenomena. So should we repudiate the Beatles for making a fundamental contribution to the growth of the UK GDP in the '60s (and for this they were made baronets)?
When you talk about alternative and grunge, you know very well that at the time there was a musically omnivorous generation, epitomized by the Lollapalooza festival, which listened to various genres, and Nirvana cleverly capitalized on those tendencies (from the Pixies to Dinosaur Jr) and became the main standard-bearers of what would become the "alternative nation." They certainly didn't invent that genre, but they found themselves at the top of the wave, both due to the historical context and their undisputed merit. By the way, my favorite band from that period is Jane's Addiction. Without getting too heated, I greet you!