slashadler Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I've been looking at the best songs of all time from "Rolling Stone Magazine" and they rate it as #9 for the best song of all time. That to me seems wrong. Is it really that good of a song and i'm just missing it or should it be way further down the list? Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bill Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I voted yes, however it is a cultural icon of the early 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slashadler Posted December 10, 2009 Author Share Posted December 10, 2009 I voted yes' date=' however it is a cultural icon of the early 90s. [/quote'] Yes, But it does not deserve to be in the top 10 of all time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cruznolfart Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I have an idea that, in the long run both this song AND the alleged Cobain influence on Rock will be found to have been overrated. No disrespect intended to aficionados of Cobain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Plains Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I wouldn't say so. That one song essentially lead to the whole Seattle scene. I don't think Rolling Stone rates just the songs, themselves. They also look at the affect those songs had on the music world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surfpup Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Hmmm... tough call. A few thoughts... On one hand it gave some tired hair bands a kick in the ***. Although I think some of that is revisionism. As critics look back they seem to have decided that Nirvana - and that song specifically - was the spearhead of a musical coup. Meanwhile there were better bands, IMO, with better guitar players... Soundgarden and Alice in Chains spring to mind. Cobain was not much of a guitar player. However, Butch Vig is one h*ll of a producer! The fact that Cobain made Fender Mustangs desirable (and expensive) is mind boggling. Before Cobain they were $200 pieces of crap. After Nevermind, they were $800 pieces of crap. I watched it happen. I also don't buy him as the "songwriter for a generation" that his wife claims he was. He did capture the teen angst thing well, but... meh.... All that said, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was one h*ll of a song and it has held up well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChanMan Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 I've always thought this was a much better version (with subtitles for Thundergod): [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NFekCIcHs8[/YOUTUBE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Bill Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Yes' date=' But it does not deserve to be in the top 10 of [u']all time.[/u] After I read Are Nine's and Surfpup's post, I can see why RS rated it as such. The song wasn't rated as much for it listening value but for its overall contribution to Rock. Smells Like Teen Spirit was a major contributor to the fall of the "Hair Bands" which I despised. I always felt that Grunge saved hard rock as a whole. STP, Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam was god send in my book. They were such a breath of fresh air and Nirvana was a major part of that change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corrosion of conformity Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Whoops...I accidentally voted "yes". I meant no. This song is not overrated. Nirvana was/is a key influence to many modern bands, and no matter what any of you say, Kurt Cobain was a damn good guitarist. It wasn't his style to show it off. Smells Like Teen Spirit is a classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Shred, how old are you? were you into this kind of music when that song came out? the reason I ask is there is a big difference between living it and knowing about it. I am a huge Beatles fan but I did not live that era, I am a huge Metallica fan and I lived that era. Different perception. The song Smells Like Teen Spirit did not blow me away as it is not technically proficient in any way but it gave me a quiet sense that things were about to change and I just did not even know how right I was. Just Like Guns and Roses when Appetite for Destruction came out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jantha Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Well said, Surfpup. I was going to type the same thing, but you said it better... saved me the typing hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AXE® Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Greatest song ever written . Really! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shnate McDuanus Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 On its own merits, it's a fine song. Memorable, enjoyable, compelling. What it meant for culture was something completely different. It might not have been the definitive start of the fall of the "Hair Bands," but it was certainly the indicator that things were changing. And yeah, I'm of the opinion that Kurt wasn't a great guitarist technically--but he was great in that he served his songs well with his playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky4 Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 No, it's not overrated. I think the timing of the song has a lot to do with it. Like stated before, it saved rock. Nirvana was basically a punk band. You don't have to be a good musician, just have good ideas. Melody and rage. Waaaaaaay better than make-up, spandex, mousse, and sappy ballads. On another note, I don't put much into polls. Revolver as the best rock album of all time? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeVeeWee Posted December 10, 2009 Share Posted December 10, 2009 Hmmm... tough call. A few thoughts... On one hand it gave some tired hair bands a kick in the ***. Although I think some of that is revisionism. As critics look back they seem to have decided that Nirvana - and that song specifically - was the spearhead of a musical coup. Meanwhile there were better bands' date=' IMO, with better guitar players... Soundgarden and Alice in Chains spring to mind. Cobain was not much of a guitar player. However, Butch Vig is one h*ll of a producer! The fact that Cobain made Fender Mustangs desirable (and expensive) is mind boggling. Before Cobain they were $200 pieces of crap. After Nevermind, they were $800 pieces of crap. I watched it happen. I also don't buy him as the "songwriter for a generation" that his wife claims he was. He did capture the teen angst thing well, but... meh.... All that said, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was one h*ll of a song and it has held up well. +1 brother! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DWP37 Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Hmmm... tough call. A few thoughts... On one hand it gave some tired hair bands a kick in the ***. Although I think some of that is revisionism. As critics look back they seem to have decided that Nirvana - and that song specifically - was the spearhead of a musical coup. Meanwhile there were better bands' date=' IMO, with better guitar players... Soundgarden and Alice in Chains spring to mind. Cobain was not much of a guitar player. However, Butch Vig is one h*ll of a producer! The fact that Cobain made Fender Mustangs desirable (and expensive) is mind boggling. Before Cobain they were $200 pieces of crap. After Nevermind, they were $800 pieces of crap. I watched it happen. I also don't buy him as the "songwriter for a generation" that his wife claims he was. He did capture the teen angst thing well, but... meh.... All that said, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was one h*ll of a song and it has held up well. [/quote'] Sonic Youth turned me on to Mustangs and Jazzmasters. I've got a '66 or '67 Fender Mustang and it's been one of my mainstays for years. I love it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brundaddy Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Overrated. As so many cultural icons are. As we used to say, "Nuke Seattle!" (a great line from the movie War Games) Along with Nirvana came all kinds of craptastic down-tempo mush like Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, Metallica's stylistic sellout ... all in all a rotten musical movement imho. And no, I don't disagree that the hair metal sucked too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoConMan Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Overrated. As are the Fender Mustangs. Was Nirvana a "good" band? Sure, and they found their audience so there was something there to draw such a following. But to get as big and be as revered as Cobain is? I'm afraid I still don't get it. Now, Dave Grohl and the Foo Fighters I get.... I disagree (slightly) with BrunDaddy. Pearl Jam had a good first album, some good songs on the second album, a couple on the third as they slipped... Alice in Chains has some tunes that will stand the test of time, if only a couple. Same goes for Soundgarden in my opinion, a few of their songs still make the fur stand up on my arms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MojoRedFoot Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 I feel that Nevermind is overrated. Yes, it got them the attention. I still think In Utero is a better album by far and it does not get the attention it deserves. I can still listen to that album and not feel like a kid. I don't mean to offend anyone but Nevermind I just kinda outgrew if that makes sense. I really can't listen to it anymore. Not because it was so popular, it just seems sooooo dated and stuck in that time period to me. In Utero was different. That's my $.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.