Nirvana C/D

None of this was meant as a personal attack, Aaron, I was just drunk at the wheel and thinking out loud. I do think it's disingenuous to deny that some of Nirvana's influence is based on the glamour of suicide. Same with Joy Division, The Doors, whoever. Of course that doesn't detract from their relative merits as bands, but it is a factor in the way they are treated by some people. I don't think it's patronising to say that it tends to be those who come to the band after they've stopped...a kind of distance lending enchantment to the view.

As for the canon, well, knee-jerk hipsterism is a silly game to play, but has it occurred to you that not everybody thinks, say, The Beatles or Nirvana are that interesting? And I think people tend to react exaggeratedly against things that they're told they must agree are important or good. I've seen people on ILM make strong and interesting cases for the reassessment of just about every band I've ever loved, hated or been indifferent to. It's not a question of right and wrong answers, it's a question of the skill of the argument.

The point of canons is to keep chipping away at them, isn't it?

I thought this was the point...

http://www.nps.gov/hafe/jpeg/cannon-fire.jpg

but has it occurred to you that not everybody thinks, say, The Beatles or Nirvana are that interesting?
NO

some of Nirvana's influence is based on the glamour of suicide
YES

that doesn't detract from their relative merits as bands, but it is a factor in the way they are treated by some people.
YES

knee-jerk hipsterism is a silly game to play
YES

The point of canons is to keep chipping away at them, isn't it?
NO

It's not a question of right and wrong answers, it's a question of the skill of the argument.
NO

'It's not a question of right and wrong answers, it's a question of the skill of the argument.'
Why is it not that?

:::sigh::::

On Mudhoney: "Touch Me I'm Sick" was a good song. That's all I can say about them.

Awfully big of ya.

Because it makes not a lick of difference to the history of popular music if some pudwapper on ILM makes a strong and interesting cases for the reassessment of the Beatles, Nirvana etc. NONE ZERO ZILCH NADA.

True, that.

I assume you enjoy the company of pudwappers, Aaron, else why bother coming here?

History isn't a series of established facts, it's a series of changing responses to stuff that mightn't've happened the way people want to remember it.

Also, "people just pretend to not like the same things as me cos they think it makes them cool" isn't really a strong or interesting argument about anything, is it?

If you think I'm about to have the same debate I had with Alex last night with you, you're crazy. Read that discussion again. I'm not gonna deal with this again.

but has it occurred to you that not everybody thinks, say, The Beatles or Nirvana are that interesting?

The Beatles and Nirvana changed ideas about popular music in their respective decades. If that at the very least is not interesting to you, what are you doing following pop music in the first place??????

Listening to stuff I like.

And wapping my pud to it.

x-post

Once AGAIN: I'm talking about media perceptions and subjective hipster (READ: KNEEJERK) reactions to them here.

This is not about you, but it will be if you keep pushing it...
Fuck it, give me 5 non-media/success overexposure related reasons you actually like Mudhoney better than Nirvana. I'm seriously interested in knowing why. Be sure to be strong and interesting about it.

Oh for cryin' out loud. NIRVANA DIDN'T "CHANGE IDEAS ABOUT POPULAR MUSIC". They merely co-opted someone else's formula and went to the bank with it. They did it well, yes, but in NO WAY IMAGINABLE was their impact comparable to the Beatles'.

:::sigh:::

Aaron, you've got to be more careful, then, as your generalizations certainly create that impression.