However, Radiohead > Nirvana Musically, sure... but again, you're determining this opinion on hindsight. I still maintain no Nirvana, no Radiohead as you know/appreciate them. That's the truth. Nirvana took the power back for the individual/band. No joke.
However, Radiohead > Nirvana
...maybe it's something I am just missing I think Nirvana was a time and a place to fully appreciate. I understand every part of you argument. But what's lost is Cobain didn't make music for critics. He made music for himself. When that became a movement, he made it for those fans. He knew his own limitations and didn't stray to far from that. For a tiny blip in time, Nirvana has had more impact on the music scene than just about anyone since The Beatles. Again, it's generational and the phrase "Guess ya had to be there" applies. I, personally, don't get all the fuss over The Beatles. I think their early stuff is very simple (I was playing there stuff as early I was playing Nirvana), I don't think it's "ROCK" but pop on guitar and I think their early lyrics were overly trite and simplistic. But I can't deny their impact... In Nirvana's case, they can't be "overrated" when critics called them average at best. No album until In Utero registered amongst critics.
Agree to disagree, dude. I'm not crazy about them, and really can't see how anyone is. But since there are a lot of people who love Nirvana, maybe it's something I am just missing.
