Nirvana song named best of past 25 years

VH1 named Nirvana's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" the greatest song of the past quarter-century on its list of the "100 Greatest Songs of the Past 25 Years."

While no one performer or group dominated the countdown, which was chosen by a panel of VH1 executives, several had two songs featured.

Michael Jackson had the second-highest song, "Billie Jean," and was at No. 40 with "Beat It." Eminem reached No. 4 with "Lose Yourself," while his "My Name Is" was No. 85. Madonna's "Like a Virgin" was No. 10 and her "Ray of Light" was No. 100.

Rounding out the top 10 were "Sweet Child O' Mine" by Guns N' Roses, "One" by U2, "Walk This Way" by Run-D.M.C., "When Doves Cry" by Prince, "I Will Always Love You" by Whitney Houston and "Every Breath You Take" by The Police.

GLOVE commentary:
IF THAT IS THE LIST, THEN WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP THE LAST 25 YEARS WAS!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/06/11/vh1.greatest.songs.ap/index.html

Wonder what the guidelines were? Which songs brought in the most advertising dollars?

The more of these lists that I see, the more I hate them.

What a shame. I am I the only one who fails to see what the big deal with Nirvana is?

not at all. i think people put the whole early 90's rock/grunge movement on them, when in fact they were just one of many bands. nirvana just made it big commericially and was a media darling. i think mother love bone had more influence and credibility in the movement.

then again maybe my argument doesn't hold water since mother love bone then kinda turned into pearl jam a couple years later.

and whitney houston? for what? she didn't even write the damn song! it was dolly parton!

Originally posted by keithstg:
What a shame. I am I the only one who fails to see what the big deal with Nirvana is?

Originally posted by Jaguär:
The more of these lists that I see, the more I hate them.

me too!!!!

Originally posted by keithstg:
What a shame. I am I the only one who fails to see what the big deal with Nirvana is?

Nope, you're not the only one.

Originally posted by Joy Monster:

Originally posted by keithstg:


What a shame. I am I the only one who fails to see what the big deal with Nirvana is?

Nope, you're not the only one.

In fact….I'd bet we're the silent majority!

Originally posted by keithstg:
What a shame. I am I the only one who fails to see what the big deal with Nirvana is?

Some people hadn't been exposed to "underground" or "alternative" rock, so Nirvana and their ilk having commercial success made more people aware of something other than glam or classic rock. Kind of like marijuana can serve as a gateway drug into the harder stuff, commercially successful bands like Nirvana exposed some people to bands that they otherwise never would have heard.

Nirvana < almost all of their stated influences.

Originally posted by larkjr:
Nirvana &lt; almost all of their stated influences.

ooh, ooh, will the lead singers of these "influenced" bands blow their brains out too please?

Originally posted by keithstg:
What a shame. I am I the only one who fails to see what the big deal with Nirvana is?

Ask the radio stations that were about to go out of business because they didn't play the big hair bands if they see what the big deal about that Nirvana song is….

I, for one, say cheers to that song and so will many scholars down the road for it's impact - not necessarily it musicianship. With the deregulation of radio, if it weren't for that song great stations like KROQ in LA would have gone bankrupt for certain.

It changed the music industry forever.

no matter how many times i hear the opening riff of "smells like teen spirit" it still sends chills down my spine…

This Nirvana argument reminds me of the email debate I've had over Liz Phair's "Exile in Guyville." With the new album coming, and sucking so supremely, I was really saddened. A friend took the opportunity to state that Guyville was the most overrated album of the 90s for blahblahblah reasons, mostly dealing with "the music/songs just aren't that great."

In the end, my P.O.V. was that it's *influence* is not debatable. Okay, it's not the Stones or Beatles, but she opened a lot of doors to real women singing real songs, whether they're pretty or not. Maybe Janis Joplin or others did this as well, but she certainly raised the awareness to a newer generation.

So, what's interesting in light of the Nirvana discussion (which I agree with), is that an album or artist's influence may have little to do with the music itself. It's where that artist shifts the (I won't say paradigm, I swear I won't say paradigm) spectrum of *popular* music.

Now that I'm finished, I hope this makes sense to someone but me!! :cool:

boy there is a lot to say on this thread…

i'll start with my objection to thinking that more people don't see the big deal about Nirvana is probably the majoirty. Your wrong.

If them being seen as the forefront of that scene (or media darlings, is the term I think was used) that doesn't make them less artistic. Just more successful. I have issues with bashers of popular people/groups/etc…. You KNow sometimes things are popular because their good.

on another note, lists like these do annoy me at times and sometimes i like them ….i think its most important to look at what criteria was used to create these lists and who are they focused towards….the list in question comes from VH1. Therefore it is supposed to suck and come from popularity, instead of complete merit. VH1 is smart enough to put some weight towards merit, but what kind of list would it be it every song was b sides and non singles for the casaul music fan…it would be off-putting and if you've ever watched VH1, you'd know that casaul music fan is there core audience.

I guess then that it would depend on what you think of the modern rock format that the success of Nirvana's single created. I think it is pathetic, from ridiculous imitators like the Offspring on down the line.

I looked at KROQ's playlist and consider it complete trash.

They may be responsible for kids wearing flannel shirts tied round their wastes, but they were still FUCKING SHITE! The only talent out of that band was Grohl, who is a bloody genius, and I'm not a great fan of his music, but the man is talented…the other two were just in a band that were in the right place at the right time.

Originally posted by larkjr:
I guess then that it would depend on what you think of the modern rock format that the success of Nirvana's single created. I think it is pathetic, from ridiculous imitators like the Offspring on down the line.

I looked at KROQ's playlist and consider it complete trash.

Very good point – I wonder how the timing of Nirvana and all its influence coincides with the debilitating decline of modern rock radio in the U.S. Back in the late 80s, WHFS was a wonder. I can't listen to a minute of it now, and haven't been able to for about….5, 6 years?? Maybe longer. I'd rather listen to DC101 (which is why I don't listen to the radio).

Would be interesting to dig into this 'coincidence.'

And Mankie's right, as is often the case (from what I've seen so far!). Grohl is really quite brilliant. Brilliant. And I *do* like his new music. But damn that man can do anything, and enjoy himself (and be funny) while doing it.

i have to completely disagree with the statement that dave grohl was the only talent in nirvana, i think that is pretty ridiculous, especially since grohl came after some of my favorite nirvana songs…(this is not to take away from grohl's talent, he's great)

i think instead of looking at the decline of modern rock and somehow placing blame on nirvana, it is probably more worthwhile to think of where modern rock would be if nirvana hadn't had left us, instead of having 2nd rate nirvana wannabe's trying to live up to a rock icon that they'd never live up to because of the history of it we'd have the real thing continuing to push the envelope and making the other bands work harder.

After Nirvana broke, there was a sense to me of excitement, something new in the air. Perhaps now there was a possibility that great format-busting music could emerge from the underground en masse to be heard by anyone on their radios. This didn't happen, the â??alternativeâ? stations behaved like all other stations, demanding that everything fit within their narrow format definition, and playing the same songs from bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam over and over again, 12 times a day. (I mean, didnâ??t we already own these albums?) Not to blame station programmers, they are just responding to advertisers and teenagers demands.

So really, Nirvana didnâ??t change anything, and thatâ??s why I tend to evaluate them like any other band, based on the merits of their music alone. Which is to say, they weren't bad, for music on the radio.

Originally posted by larkjr:
So really, Nirvana didnâ??t change anything, and thatâ??s why I tend to evaluate them like any other band, based on the merits of their music alone. Which is to say, they weren't bad, for music on the radio.

I think, in the end, radio just plain sucks. If I were an eleven year old girl again, I might feel differently (but would be back to "sucks" by 14!)