Nirvana is, without a doubt, one of the greatest bands in music history. I know alot of people who like these guys, but just recently I realized just how much I adore this band. What they contributed to music was huge, their impact was amazing and their music was innovative, creative and downright beautiful.

Some people told me about other bands that rised after Nirvana's success like Soundgarden, Stone Temple Pilots, Pearl Jam, Faith No More, Alice In Chains and Radiohead. Lots of people on the internet say that these bands were overall better than Nirvana, because of their deeper and meningful music...I was reading that like...FUCK YOU!

These bands are nothing, NOTHING compared to Kurt Cobain and his little group! Radiohead is probably the only band of those that could stand a chance, but still fail. Stone Temple Pilots, Faith No More and Alice In Chains are just bad, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden have only one or two good songs and Radiohead is, actually, a great band. I just don't get why certain people say this...

But enough of that, let's talk about the reason I made this topic: "Smells Like Teen Spirit"!

This song is, unquestionably, one of the greatest, most influential and innovative songs in rock n' roll history. What this song, and this song alone, has done is something that has never happened before since Bob Dylan. This song is, in my opinion, the next "Like A Rolling Stone". That song changed everything, just like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" did.

Now some people can say that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" changed things for the worse, because it brought alternative rock to the mainstream, gave birth to Grunge and inspired inumerous bands after it's release, from Pearl Jam to Green Day. It's not about changing it to a worse music scenario, that's basically subjective, it's about changing everything. The reason why the song is widely acclaimed is the fact that the song had an impact like no other. Nirvana literally came with that song and said: "Fuck you all, this is how music is from now on!". One of the only songs to ever have that power over a generation.

There are also people who complain about Kurt's simple guitar work, non-sensical lyrics and pitched voice. Well then, let me tell you a few things about that:
."Smells Like Teen Spirit" is one of the greatest guitar songs of all time. It's not about simplicity, it's about the overall quality. Kurt came with a guitar sounding like no other, and he also brought power-chord riffs that defined the genre;

.The lyrics are not supposed to have any kind of specific meaning to them. People try to put alot of meaning into Kurt's lyrics, but the truth is that the song is just an anthem for apathetic kids. Those lyrics defined the Generation X. No matter how non-meaningful you think this song is, the fact is that the lyrics are some of the greatest of the 90's, if not the greatest (please don't say "One");

.Kurt's voice is perfect for these kind of songs. True, voice is important for a singer, but the fact is that you're not a good singer if I can't feel your emotion and feelings while your singing. Steve Perry may have a great voice, but he will never be a better singer than Kurt Cobain because he put his whole heart into his lyrics and singing. This wasn't just in "Smells Like Teen Spirit", but also "All Apologies", "Heart-Shaped Box" and "Rape Me". Believe me, I could go on and on...

In conclusion, the song is for sure a top 10 of the greatest songs of all time. It's Nirvana's best song by far, but that doesn't mean I don't like other songs. I absolutely love "All Apologies", "Rape Me" and "Lithium", but the truth is that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is my personal favorite of them. The song grew on me like no other.

You may like Nirvana and prefer another song, but "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is undeniably their greatest achievement!

Did you know the first line is "Load up on guns, bring your friends"? NEver realised that. Behind the music there really are great lyrics and pure emotion which comes through.

I like Radiohead more though.

Agree


Disagree

Really, to call all of those other bands either bad or not up to par with Nirvana and to say that we're simply wrong if we disagree is downright condescending. I happen to like all of those bands listed (especially Radiohead), much better than Nirvana. I understand that you want people to appreciate Nirvana and "Smells Like Teen Spirit," but that doesn't mean you have to insult others to get your point across. All you have to do is say that you love the song; there's no need to be foul-mouthed at people who disagree.

For example:

I happen to love "One." It's probably one of my favorite songs of the '90s and a song that I believe is infinitely better than "Smells Like Teen Spirit." You can disagree, and I can (sort of) understand why you like "Smells Like Teen Spirit" better (influence mainly, the sound I've never quite understood). I can tell you that "One"'s guitar work, as simple as it is, is phenomenal, Bono's voice really soars above the song, and the lyrics, even though they can be seen as simple and trite, are quite heartfelt. My opinion, only though.

I understand that you want to promote the music you like, and that's fine, but please try to keep it civilized - there's no need to insult the intelligence of others.

Smells Like Teen Spirit is their most 'Important' song, but I don't consider it their best. Nirvana are great for their mood and their energy, and they were definitely the first anti-80s-gloss apathy band to break through to mainstream. (Although bands like Pixies and Sonic Youth paved the way for them to do it.)

Who told you Pearl Jam and Soundgarden were more 'Deep and meaningful' than Nirvana? Both good bands, but what has either one of them ever done that's deep and meaningful? You could make an argument for Jeremy, but it's not as meaningful as In Bloom or All Apologies.

I for one can't stand the lyrics of One. At that point U2 were well into their self-glorifying period.

The one thing I don't like about SLTS is that it's a combination of the Pixies loud to soft and uses a firr inspired completely by More than a Feeling. Aside from that, it's great.

And I second the notion of Nirvana over Radiohead!
Nevermind runs circles around OK Computer!

I quite like "Smells Like Teen Spirit", but I also like a lot of the other bands that you lambasted, such as Faith No More, Radiohead and Stone Temple Pilots.

I understand that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was a watershed release, and it deserves to be highly praised. It's just that I sort of like a lot of the hair metal it killed more.

I'm a huge Nirvana fan. Radiohead wins out though for sheer number of great releases.

Nirvana has two 5 star studio albums, and a 4 star studio album. Nirvana also has a classic live album.

Radiohead has four 5 star studio albums and two 4.5 star studio albums.

Ultimately, I just can't argue those numbers. If Cobain had lived, he might be a top 5-top 10 on AM; But he didn't.

It'd be interesting to see Cobain in the late 90s, mining a more sophisticated sound the way bands like Radiohead, Wilco, Mercury Rev and The Flaming Lips were.

As for the other bands mentioned, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden are less alternative and indie, and more 70s arena rock. Their lyrics are more straight forward, and less surreal. Both bands are probably better in the sense of technical playing (better guitarists) but neither have Kurt's knack for melody and his Lennonesque primal scream.

I just don't like Faith No More or STP.

Man, am I the only one who agrees that Kurt Cobain is one of the greatest guitarists ever?

Lots of people argue about his "too high" placement on RS's list of 100 greatest guitarists, at #12...but not me, I totally agree with that placement!

I just don't get why is Kurt such an underatted guitarist. RS is the only one who acclaims him as a guitarist...

Hats off to Jonathon, who’s made the most salient point in this discussion.

It’s fascinating to speculate about what artists (or athletes, actors, politicians…) could have accomplished if they hadn’t died young.

For my money, Cobain’s suicide is the greatest loss in rock history. I look at the other canonical rock star deaths, and I see nobody else who clearly would have gone on to do more great, innovative work. I think the best argument might actually be for Buddy Holly, but so few 50s stars managed to get over the hump of the 1964-5 watershed that I’m doubtful about what might have been. Jimi was never going to top the three albums he released in 1967-68. Janis? Morrison? Please.

Kurt Cobain had an intuitive grasp of the structure of pop songs that almost none of his peers could match—and he knew how to bend, distort and break that structure to suit his purposes. He was constantly pushing himself to expand his palette—and yes, I’m in the camp of people who think that, as great as Nevermind is, In Utero is much more accomplished. I can’t speak to his musicianship as a guitarist (I don’t give a rat’s ass about musicianship), but he was obviously very good, and had a very distinctive style.

“Smells Like Teen Spirit” is indeed one of the great songs in rock history—no question. But, had Cobain lived, I think he could very well have topped it, and we might now be discussing “SLTS” as his “I Want to Hold Your Hand,” compared to all the groundbreaking, mindblowing work on Nirvana’s fifth album in 1996 (yes, I’m serious).

There is zero question in my mind that Radiohead is the finest band of the last 20 years, and that Nirvana might—might—be a distant second.

But could Nirvana have rivaled or eclipsed Radiohead if their career had lasted another eight or ten years? Absolutely.

(I leave it as an interesting thought experiment to ponder what we’d think of Radiohead if Thom Yorke had blown his own head off after OK Computer—and he was not a happy man in 1997-99.)

It should also be remembered that Nirvana wasn’t a one-man show. Novoselic was a very good bassist, and Grohl’s work since 1993, while it may not have set the world on fire, is certainly impressive.

I will agree with schleuse, Cobain and Buddy Holly were the biggest losses in music history.

I still say Nevermind beats out OK Computer, though.
(And Radiohead does not have a song that comes close to SLTS)

I'd add Otis Redding to the list. He died in 1967 at the age of 26, just months before "(Sittin' On) The Dock of the Bay" would cement his legacy. Since he's post-1965, I think it's safe to say he would have been very successful even competing with the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan and other 60s greats.

I agree with Moonbeam's sentiment here...I grew up in the 80s, and the music Cobain gave the metaphorical finger to was music I liked!

I enjoyed reading TheTopListsGuy's essay on SLTS. He merges the testosterone filled rage of a 15-year-old with the musical perspective of...a 15-year-old (so I'm guessing you're 15, TTLG) But I'm not saying that to be derogatory. I think those of you who were too young to follow music in the early 1990s can discover that music with an objectivity and passion that I cannot.

But I think a high school/college age music aficionado discovering Nirvana probably experiences something similar to what we felt in high school (the late 1980s) when we were listening to Led Zeppelin. LZ was old news by the late 1980s, so listening to their music was kind of like finding buried treasure.

One type of question that I've often considered...what would Kurt Cobain have done if he grew up in the 1960s? What would Led Zeppelin sound like if they formed in 2000? If Elvis started his career in 1998, would he have been more popular than Britney?

Pearl Jam and Soundgarden had plenty of meaningful moments. I'd agree that Nirvana is the best of the three (with PJ a close second), but the hyperbole that's been attached to them is largely due to Kurt's untimely death.

I'm an 18 year old who can't stand today's music, so I prefer to be stuck to buried treasure xD

The biggest loss in music, to me, will always be Jimi Hendrix. After doing 3 perfect albums, he had one hell of a career ahead of him. He could have invented even more guitar tricks & techniques to use. He was a top 5 artist of all time, to me...

But here's my top 5 biggest losses in music:

1. Jimi Hendrix
2. Buddy Holly
3. Bob Marley
4. Kurt Cobain
5. John Lennon (oh come on, he could have done great music...)

Buddy Holly's death was terrible. One of the greatest artists in history, the same goes to all on the list too.

I agree that Hendrix was a huge loss, but he had arguably already peaked with his first three albums. Band of Gypsies had its moments, but it was a far cry from any of the first three. Cobain and Holly were still at the top of their game. Bob Marley and John Lennon were far past their creative peaks.

Excellent post! As I'm sure everyone knows I'm a huge Radiohead fan, but I also think Nirvana is the only band of the last 20 years to come close. Really though, Cobain had such an intuitive grasp of music that he probably could have gone on for a decade producing great albums, changing his style for each one. The stylistic shift between the alt-rock masterpiece Nevermind and the grease fire-esque punk slaughter of In Utero is certainly one of the great master strokes in music history. After stripping his sound to the basics on In Utero, a Nirvana record with bells and whistles seems like almost the next logical step.

Also, luckily for us, Thom Yorke didn't blow his brains out. Had that happened, who would have thought that something like Kid A was even possible. Who makes "The Best Album Ever" and then follows it up with a completely different, yet even better album?

Thanks for the nod, I agree with many of your points...I mean let's look at where many of the better artists of gen x who were late bloomers were when Kurt Cobain died:

Radiohead- Was best known for an album full of Nirvana meets U2 rip offs. They were working on the Bends, but no one knew that yet.

Wilco- Jeff Tweedy was the bassist of Uncle Tupelo and widely considered the sidekick to the more talented Jay Farrar.

The Flaming Lips- They were a likeable enough band, but they were ultimately considered one of the lesser groups to come out of the 80s underground movement.

If all of those bands artists could make really heady masterpieces in the late 90s and early 00s, when they were relatively minor during the early 90s, than it's easy to believe that Cobain, who was already being touted as an all-time great, could've done amazing things.

Cobain in interviews hinted that he wanted to drop the Pixies formula for the next album, that his voice was starting to go (Which you can hear on their final shows) and that he wanted to create music with new depth; it's a shame he never gave us the chance to hear what he was planning.

I always imagined something like the MTV Unplugged album but with all new songs, and some noise...kind of like In The Aeroplane Over The Sea.

I hate when bashers say that Kurt would never have half the popularity if he didn't shot himself...seriously, fuck those guys...

Kurt Cobain is the closest we get of a "new" John Lennon, in my opinion. He may not have been as good as John, but that's why I said closest. Aside from Bob Dylan, John Lennon is the SINGLE greatest mind in music history...

I'd put Frank Zappa ahead as well,60 odd albums in 25 years of recording playing just about every genre that has been invented...

Jonathon and schleuse, both of you are discussing the hypothesis of Nirvana after 1994 from an artistic point of view, and in those terms I totally agree with your sentiments. Cobain was churning out consistent songs at a decent rate, and was showing a marked development from album to album, whilst only having released a relatively small catalogue in the grander scheme of his apparent potential.

And when we compare, as schleuse has done, the similarly untimely deaths of other musicians, we see that Cobain pretty much stands alone as a great artistic loss. Hendrix may well have had more great songs in him in 1970, but seemingly lacked the focus to have ever been able to put them out there; his lifestyle and musical career were both spinning out of control, and it seems appropriate to suggest the sort of urgency and indulgence in his music which he showed in his earlier years could never have been more than fleeting anyway. L.A. Women suggests that by Morrison's death, The Doors had moved away from the explosive freakiness that made the first two albums so compelling. Had he lived, I'll say it would have been their Automatic for the People - a more populist hurrah before a steady decline from their earlier peaks. Barely any need to mention Lennon; Double Fantasy indicates that he was headed dangerously for a commercial eighties sound. The sugar worked perfectly on DF, and arguably made a more poignant soundtrack to the months after his death. But several more albums like Milk and Honey and his credibility would have been somewhere nearer McCartney's.

But your point is that the artists above had essentially exhausted their creative juices when they died, whereas Cobain hadn't, and so had he lived Nirvana would inevitably have only gotten bigger and better. Yet that's not necessarily true. Let's look at his death from a personal point of view. It was pretty obvious that in 1994 he could have written another album in a few days, but the fact is, he didn't want to. Artistically, he could have carried on and expanded, but mentally, as his suicide note implies, he was exhausted. He could probably write better songs than Teen Spirit, but he couldn't record them and release them for a record company who couldn't care less about the artistic value of what they were putting out. There was also clearly an inner conflict between the desire to be released from the shackles which bound him to a certain type of music, and the reluctance to betray fans and others who had given him adulation for innovating grunge. In addition, he had become disillusioned from his dream world where all music could blend and could be taken in itself for what it was as opposed to the reality ruled by capitalism and commercialism. Even if he had lived on, he could have done a complete u-turn in music direction instead of developing and adding to the foundations he had already laid, or just walked away altogether (although music being his life was, in my opinion, the reason for the suicide).

I've thought about this quite a lot as well. Imagine if the Beatles came around with in the midst of 90s alternative rock, surely they would be regarded, well, tame? Or if Bob Dylan released Blowin in the Wind today, in an age of NMEish indie pop? Tomorrow Never Knows and LARS are well regarded because they're quite avant-garde and they broke barriers. If they were released today, they can't possibly be seen as breaking barriers, because those barriers aren't there today. Or the one that scares me most, is if VU were around during the late 80s, with peers like Sonic Youth, MBV, Pixies. Would they have the 4th best album of all time. Should the context in which an album is released matter when considering an album's greatness. The fact the VU were surrounded by simpler more poppy sounds certainly helped cement their legendary status.

God, after realizing how much I love Nirvana...and after listening to Lady Gaga, I've realized just how much Kurt Cobain is missing to this world...

He was, dare I say, the greatest musical mind of the last 25 years...there I just said it...

Fascinating insight into Kurt Cobain's evolution, Guy (you obviously know more about him than I do). Thanks.

Well it's just speculation from bits I've picked up from reading his Journals and various articles. Of course, no one can really say why he committed suicide or what would have happened if he hadn't. I was just presenting a different perspective to the very interesting hypothetical discussion you were having.

His last two songs are quite good; "You Know You're Right" and the solo recording "Do Re Mi". Neither point in a new direction, but I wouldn't necessarily count him out.

It's a shame; whenever I hear You Know You're Right it seems empty because it sounds like the opening track of an album that was never finished.

Does anyone else find it extremely interesting that RYM gives Nirvana no special treatment and sluffs them off as average, and on AM they are considered all-time greats?

I tend to fall in the middle.

Anyway, on topic. There is certainly something special about SLTS that I can't put a finger on. Looking at the song objectively, it's not that special. No aspect of that song wasn't done before by someone else. I guess it's just that the deliverer was something special, someone who had pent up emotions that drove his music to new heights, and sadly ultimately led to his death.

But to acknowledge the RYM-side of my viewpoint, Nirvana as a whole doesn't crack my top 30 artists of all time.

Looking back now, I don't have the same optimism that many of you feel about the fate of Cobain. If anything, he was heading for a Brian Wilson-style mental breakdown. I certainly could see Nirvana end up much like the Beach Boys, with a formerly lesser member (Dave Grohl) basically picking up the slack for the deranged genius, and putting out alot of excellent material. Almost all of the first Foo Fighters album had already been written at this point, alot of those would have eventually become Nirvana songs.

Have you heard Cry Of Love? Fantastic stuff on that, not as good as his best two albums, but better than the stuff he'd done since.

And even if Hendrix never put out another great album, he'd have been possibly the greatest live act in the world for the last forty years, and he'd still be touring.

I would personally add the family Buckley to that list.

Also, to talk about fortune non-losses. Bob Dylan nearly died in 1967. And if he hadn't almost died, he might have overdosed or totally destroyed himself before pulling his act together.

There is a lot of rich discussion above everyone. I can't respond to it all, but I have some thoughts.

I'm of the same generation as Larry, I think. Nirvana hit as I was entering college. I spent high school delving into the 60's and 70's music of the prior generation, and had nothing but disdain for just about all of the contemporary music I had heard, from hair metal to rap to the latest pop hits. As I've said before on these boards, I knew there were kids with that strange Black Flag symbol on the back of their jackets, and people I respected kept telling me to listen to R.E.M., but I was happy stuck in the past.

When Nirvana hit, I was aware that it was something different, becoming aware enough of history to recognize the possibility of a fundamental sea change in mainstream popular music... but it did not grab me. Frankly, I'm still left with more admiration than love. But I was at the point where my explorations were about to go farther afield. I discovered Sly Stone (who I will come back to in a bit) and George Clinton. I discovered Duke Ellington and Ella Fitzgerald. And I was trying to wrap my head around this noisy album my roommate kept playing called Goo.

Goo was the last stand for narrow-minded, blocked off Schwah. I refused, and refused, to recognize aesthetic value in such cocophony. Finally, as slightly more accessible but like-minded artists came into my purview over the next few years (Pavement, PJ Harvey, and numerous lesser acclaimed acts), I got it.

And for some reason, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, et al. were not engaging me. Granted, I enjoyed them enough that I could turn on MTV again without cringing. But my problem with Nirvana is that rage too often is the dominant mood. I know that is a reductive, selective, and unnuanced reading of Nirvana's music. But it is what my ears hear when I listen to Nevermind. It's punishing to me in a different way than Goo had been. Sonic Youth challenged me to hear music in a different way. Nevermind too often forces me to respond to the music in a particular and narrow way.

I still will take Stephen Malkmus any day of the week over Cobain. I know that he never did and never will have the impact of the "Lennon of our generation." There is a slyness and fun with him and the other artists I really enjoy that I never really heard in Cobain. That's also why I like the Pixies a good deal more than Nirvana.

*/*

Now onto the issue of premature deaths, an evergreen topic for us amateur rock historian.

First, I don't think there many more vocal proponents of Otis Redding than me on these boards (other than otisredding, of course). To me he is the voice... the perfect soul singer. That voice was an amazingly expressive instrument. And of course he wrote a lot of his own material. There is no doubt that he did have lots more great work in him, and it would have been interesting to see if he might seek to work apart from Steve Cropper and the Stax house band. But I don't know if he had the kind of versatility to have a career that could evolve and change. I don't see him ever producing a What's Going On, an Innervisions, a Super Fly. And in time (although, given how quickly he was taken from us, it would have been a long time), his voice would no longer be the instrument it once was. So despite my love for him, I wouldn't put him at the top of the greatest losses.

Buddy Holly is a strong choice. However, I am not a big fan of some of his final recordings, and am worried about the direction he was heading. I don't particularly like "I Doesn't Matter Any More" "Raining In My Heart," and "True Love Ways." and hope he wouldn't have turned to more of those schmaltzy arrangements.

I know he doesn't count, but I always considered Sly Stone a "what if we didn't lose him to drugs" candidate. Granted, I haven't heard any of his five post-Fresh albums. Maybe one of them is a hidden gem? There's some video floating around of him lucidly performing some of his old hits in the early to mid 80's. But all that aside, he is a casualty who we sadly lost in the mid-70's and will never get back.

SLTS bacically gave the finger to hair metal and MJ, both of which dominated the charts in the 90's. But, Nirvana weren't the first do it, if you think about it. GNR belw every other hair metal band out of the water back in '87. Axl Rose once said that most other rock bands were "too fuckin whiumpy to have any sentiment of emotion, unless they're in pain."

I, as a historian, dare not venture in 'what-if' history. It just makes no sense, at all. Although, admittedly, it can be quite fun and thus tempting. But also... rediculous.

Lennon, Hendrix, Cobain, Holly, Redding, Buckley, Buckley, Joplin, Jones, Morrison, Johnson, Allman, Bonham, Moon, Curtis, Vaughan, Shakur, Presley, Marley, Drake, Cooke, Bloomfield, etc., etc.
R.I.P. and thank you for your music.

Now Drake still might have had some awesome music in him, as for the others.. I doubt it on most accounts.

Schwah: "I still will take Stephen Malkmus any day of the week over Cobain"

Me: Yeah man.

Listyguy, I don’t think GnR were doing the same thing as Nirvana. As you note yourself, they actually WERE a hair metal band—and a very good one, probably the best in their genre.

Slash is an amazing guitarist, and from 1987-1991, GnR recorded two albums’ worth of very good songs (unwisely stretched over three albums). But their music, even then, was fundamentally conservative. It wasn’t groundbreaking in 1987, and it wouldn’t have been groundbreaking in 1977, either. Like a lot of great (and not-so-great) rock ‘n’ roll, they were new wine in old bottles, sold partly on attitude and aggressiveness (as Axl’s “too fuckin’ wimpy” line shows).

Being musically conservative isn’t a bad thing, necessarily—just ask the Strokes, the Hives, the White Stripes, et al. But it’s very different from what Nirvana was doing.

Nirvana represented the popular flowering of the American indie rock that had been around but mostly unnoticed for about a decade when Nevermind came out.* The indie ethic which Nirvana and their predecessors embodied—do-it-yourself, experimentalist, anticommercial—is fundamentally different from where GnR were coming from (for starters, let’s not forget that GnR was something of a “supergroup” of musicians from the L.A. metal scene). I don’t mean this as a knock, but GnR didn’t push any boundaries. Nirvana did.


* - R.E.M. was the other American indie band that achieved huge popularity, although not quite on Nirvana’s level. But their path was very different—they recorded and toured relentlessly throughout the 80s, gradually building their audience. This was intrinsic to their identity and their appeal—it was fun to see their popularity increase year to year, each album outperforming the one before.

R.E.M. was a very slow burn compared to Nirvana, who were a much more explosive band (in every sense of the term) that seemed to emerge suddenly and from out of nowhere.

Not Jeff Buckley?

I also strongly think that Hendrix would have had as diverse and multi-phased a career as Dylan. I mean, if Dylan had died in that motorcycle accident, would we be saying 'Oh, he had nothing left in him after Blonde on blonde'?

Or, Neil Young and Keith Richards could easily have been on that list.

Or Ian Curtis for that matter?

I did say "most accounts", but I'll grant you that Curtis still might have had some good stuff in him. Hard to say since the only thing that's available after Closer is the shitty Still. The New Order material obviously proved that the rest of the band also had a lot of talent, but I don't know if you can assume that they would've been better with Curtis. Buckley on the other hand I'm not so sure of, Sketches has nothing that comes even close to the level of some of the things on Grace in my opinion.

I would also argue that neither Curtis' nor Buckley's output ever had the same overall quality as Drake's material—with the single exception of "Love Will Tear Us Apart"—and Drake's last album was definitely not indicating a decrease in quality. Again, though, I know that that's an opinion that's not shared by most.

You can hate Nirvana...just please don't mention them in the same breath as Pearl Jam.

To me that's like mentioning Tom Petty in the same breath as The Clash.