Personally, I think Nirvana is overrated - I've always thought that and I was a fan. Read nodeerforamonth's first post - they were already pretty much split up before Kurt ended himself. As another member said, I'm always going back to old PJ for random listens as well - I love PJ and it still blows me away as to how many people think Ten is their best album (but hey, if ya like it ya like it) - even Vedder said himself that they would be losing a lot of fans when Vs. came out becuase it would be a style that not many would like but that the band loved and if you were paying attention throught the years, they have kept that same style ever since Vs. up until their newest release which is a completely different sound (took me a while to fully appreciate it).

Nirvana
Pearl Jam
STP
Alice in Chains
Smashing Pumpkins
Soundgarden
Rage Against the Machine
Beck
Faith No More
Tesla
Cake

First, that's a decent number of mainstays for one genre in a 5 year period, especially considering most ushered in a new genre.

Second, your argument is fallable anyway. There are many more genres and sub-genres of music for people to choose from today than there ever was 25+ years ago. Makes it a big harder for so many groups in one genre to hit it big. Also one hit wonders from that era are more memorable for the same reason. There were probably just as many one hit wonders from the 90's but they got lost in the mix with so much music to choose from.

I disagree with that, just depends on what you like. Has little to do with talent. I really enjoy Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Nirvana, STP, and others from that era.

It also is worth mentioning, that the 90's and media really brought a ton of new sounds about, and you couldn't pin a label on the decade like you sometime could in the past. At the same time Nirvana was big, so was Dr. Dre and Snoop.

Talent and memorable don't always go hand-in-hand, you could argue that a lot of music lacks talent but still finds a home. Musically speaking, Nirvana were not amazing musician, but had a knack for writing tunes that hit home to many people.

Music is rarely about talent. More about attitude, scene (culture), and emotion IMO.

Nirvana will always be bigger than pearl jam imho.

Well, Snoop & all those rap boys wouldn't have a career if they were not able to sample those 70's & 80's beats that the babes like to dance to. And that list of bands that was posted that came out of the 90's, well correct me if I'm wrong but there isn't one damn guitar god like in the other 4 decades. The 90's was the end of music as it was known since it all started in the 50's.

This is what I gathered out of the few books I've read. I prefer Nirvana over Pearl Jam, and don't think that would have changed any. I think Nirvana would have degenerated into crap before imploding, whereas with Kurt's suicide, they went out with a bang (literally).

Matter of opinion.

I personally say the lowest point for music was the "hair metal" days.

At least the 1990's brought some respect back to rock after hair metal died.

Who were the great rock superstars of the '80s? Okay, there's Guns 'n' Roses, U2, and REM. Maybe The Smiths. But also Duran Duran, White Snake, Cyndi Lauper, Ratt, Huey Lewis and the News, Poison ... shall I go on?

Only if you go by what's played on the radio or MTV. But I'll take Cat Power, The Dresden Dolls, Rilo Kiley, Bright Eyes, Air, and Kathleen Edwards over most of the bands from the '70s and '80s.

I knew if I kept reading this thread long enough, I'd find a post that made sense - thanks!

Nirvana was clearly on the road to irrelavence when kurt offed himself.

...and 15 years later, Pearl Jam has AT LEAST 5 excellent albums under their belt.

There's a lot of hate for Nirvana around here.

If Cobain wouldn't have blown is head off then he'd still be a loser. Sorry, but blowing you head off and leaving your child behind is unforgiveable.

That being said, I do not think Nirvana would have made the long haul such as Foo Fighters and Pearl Jam. These are bands that push themselves artistically. They try to change their sound as they evolve as an artist. To think that a band would remain static with what they were creating is a problem a lot of bands have. Their sound is the same and they become 'dated' like Nirvana was becoming before his death. Others have said it, I do not know anyone who listens to Nirvana but I know a few who listen to Pearl Jam. I am not a fan boy by any means but their work as artists has evolved. Good or bad I'd rather have a band evolve then stay static with their sound.

Clearly.

I don't think having a "guitar god" equates to anything.

Nirvana > Pearl Jam

I think a line in the Faith No More song "Star AD" best describes how I feel about Cobain..."And when you die, you'll become something worse than dead, you'll become a legend".

I've wanted to ask this question and figure this thread is a decent place to ask.
I personally thought the early 90's rock scene was really good, with such bands as Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Smashing Pumpkins, Rage Against the Machine, Stone Temple Pilots, Red Hot Chili Peppers,Alice in Chains, Pantera Bush,Tool,Nine Inch Nails...etc. and was the last era of 'good' rock music.
After the 'grunge era' rock seems to have died outside of a few bands/genres (System of a down,Coheed and Cambria,and Prog and metal scene has improved lately).
Am I wrong is there good rock music still and I cant find it because I really need some good rock music to listen to.

Duran Duran, White Snake, Cyndi Lauper, Ratt, Huey Lewis and the News, Poison still and will continue to have their oldies played on radio, in popcorn movies and no doubt sampled or remade, remixed by so-called artists of today or that came from the 90's.
Which is lot more that can be said about 90's musical artists or sure we will have in the next decade a NIRVANA tribute cd by flavor of the month artists. But that does not count.

If Cobain had lived and kept Nirvana together, they would still be fairly successful through touring. They certainly wouldn't be relevant except with loyal fans. Cobain was very talented and gave music a shot in the arm just when it was needed, but he wasn't anymore of a genius than Axl Rose. Genius gets thrown around too much with musicians. Can't we just say that they are very good at what they do? Also, In Utero was a boring follow-up to Nevermind, so I think that Nirvana might have been on the decline. A few years after Nirvana left, grunge kids migrated to nu-metal like Korn and The Deftones. The music scene changes constantly and bands don't have staying power anymore.

Nirvana > Pearl Jam, so yes.

Pearl Jam would be bigger. Although I liked Nirvana in general, I never saw them as anything special. Kurt was not a musical genius, they just hit at the right time. I think the Foo Fighters continued success shows you who the real talent in that band was.

Pearl Jam, aside from No Code, hasn't released an album I haven't liked. I can only listen to Nirvana on occasion these days. I don't think they would have evolved with the times with Kurt at the helm.

I think Dimebag is your missing 'guitar god' of the 1990s.

Everything about your post made me laugh. You, sir, are a comedic genius!

If the Foo Fighters are "pushing" themselves artistically I wonder what verbs you would use for bands that are really doing that. All* bands change their sound. It doesn't mean that's artistic progression. Could be boredom or willing to cater to whatever sound is "in" right now. (I'm not saying that's what FF and PJ are doing/did).

* A band that hasn't changed their sound: Cake.

I think Cobain's death has made Nirvana more important then they were. I would suspect Pearl Jam would have better albums just based upon what they have released thus far, Yield No Code etc. all excellent albums, but who's to say really I guess.

According to this story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070716/...new_classics_6

Nirvana's 'Nevermind' album sold over 143,000 copies last year in the U.S.
Not bad for an "overrated", non "relevant" band that has no "staying power".