Top 10 Reasons Why is Nirvana is Overrated
We all know Nirvana, right? They've left an undeniable impact on the music scene, especially during the early 1990s. Now, before anyone starts throwing rocks, let's: Nirvana is a good band. They've produced some fantastic songs and undoubtedly had a significant influence on the alternative music movement. However, there's an ongoing discussion about whether they might be just a tad overrated. That's what we're here to explore in this list - reasons why some music lovers believe Nirvana's acclaim might be slightly exaggerated. So, grab your headphones, keep an open mind, and let's venture into this exploration of Nirvana's place in the music pantheon.His guitar-playing skills were very basic. I didn't even need his confession to come to this conclusion. The solo to Smells Like Teen Spirit is one of the easiest solos of all time.
Even Chad Kroeger from Nickelback is a better guitarist than he was.
Yes, even though they have other songs that are good too.
That's true, and it's so illogical to regard a band as the best just for one song.
I don't see how constant mumbling makes him a great singer. People are probably more impressed with his grungy look than anything else he did. Ozzy isn't a great singer, but even he's much better than Kurt!
Layne Staley and Chris Cornell are so much better that I'd say they're in a different league - a whole other level of vocal skills.
True. Cornell was miles better, and Staley and Vedder were both better. Even Weiland probably had a better voice than Cobain did.
Pearl Jam uses more complex arrangements in most songs than Nirvana could have attempted.
In terms of musicianship, all three of the other bands from the Big Four of grunge were actually better. Strange, eh?
Alice In Chains' songs are better.
Because Kurt isn't a great guitarist, the songs are really simple.
Sure, it's their best album, but the other two are worse. Bleach feels like a dull Melvins cover album, while In Utero is filled with lame attempts at grit and throwaway "experimental" songs. Alice in Chains was the better band with far superior albums, hands down.
Nevermind is a good album, but why do people treat it like it's the best grunge album? It's not the best grunge album or even the best Nirvana album. In Utero makes Nevermind look like garbage.
I love the clean sound of Nevermind, but In Utero is much more interesting and better.
And it's also literally their only good song.
They're still a good band, but plenty of others are better - excluding Pearl Jam. I don't like Pearl Jam for some reason. I can't get into them.
Alice in Chains, Soundgarden, and Pearl Jam are better than Nirvana.
The Newcomers
Sadly, this judgmental trope repeats itself throughout history.
It's just like with Hendrix. While Hendrix was really good at guitar, he wasn't the best. If Cobain were still alive, nobody would say he's the best.
Exactly, and that's why they shouldn't be in the top ten of the greatest bands of all time.