View Full Version : Nirvana... V2?

December 14th, 2012, 6:58 PM
A few days ago surviving members of Nirvana reunited to perform a comeback gig with a new front-man to replace Cobain. Who was this elusive front-man you ask? None other than the former Beatles member, Paul McCartney (more information linked here (http://metro.co.uk/2012/12/12/paul-mccartney-to-replace-kurt-cobain-at-nirvana-reunion-gig-3312907/)). So basically... what? Three days have passed since this happened and I still can't understand it. McCartney's similarity to Cobain's style of music is... questionable at best. I couldn't tell whether this ended up being wonderful or just pure rubbish since the whole concept is so confusing, so what do you think? Do you think McCartney was the right choice to do justice to Cobain's legacy? What did you think of the whole event? Do you think the band should reform for good with McCartney as their new front-man?

December 14th, 2012, 8:28 PM
I wasn't a big fan of Nirvana to begin with. Nevermind was a good album, but I wasn't really a fan.

Can't say it'll sound the same, but I'm ambivalent. We'll see how it turns out.

Harley Quinn
December 14th, 2012, 8:36 PM
The only thing Paul McCartney has in common with Nirvana is that he's from a band which has a member who, amongst other things, was famous for dying. I can hardly imagine Sir Paul rocking it out to Rape Me back in the 90's when Nirvana was at their highest point of popularity, I can hardly imagine him doing so today.
Him being the front-man for the band is a certainly questionable choice, one that I feel is rather ludicrous. Should Nirvana come back for good? They'd never attain the notoriety they once had back in the day and I daresay that many fans, plus it's legion of wannabe fans, would not be pleased about this at all. Still, if they were to come back, I'd prefer someone who isn't a relic from the 60's and 70's to lead the band in their glorious return to the grunge world they so created.

Where is Sydian when you need her?

Sassy Milkshake
December 14th, 2012, 9:37 PM
With a band as big as Nirvana, I don't feel like it's appropriate to replace Cobain, let alone replace him with Paul McCartney. It's not going to be the same, obviously, and I'm not going to say Kurt and Paul are polar opposites, but they're pretty different. Sure fans including myself are always glad to have bands come out with new music. But I feel like the change is going to be too drastic.

And is Grohl still with the Foo Fighters or did they break up?

December 14th, 2012, 10:09 PM
Just how high was Dave Grohl when this was being thought up?

Nirvana. Paul McCartney. NIRVANA, AND PAUL. MCCARTNEY.

Just what. lol.

Harley Quinn
December 14th, 2012, 10:37 PM
Just how high was Dave Grohl when this was being thought up?

"Guys...guys.....guys...listen to me....-laughs-...listen to me...ok...I say we get Paul McCartney to be the front-man....YEAH!!!! I KNOW RIGHT!!!! HE IS SO THE EMBODIMENT OF GRUNGE!!!!"

December 15th, 2012, 4:23 PM
Paul McCartney's so old and his voice is really, well, bad now so it kinda does work since it's just Nirvana and no one can honestly claim that Nirvana was great because Kurt Cobain had golden pipes. I saw the performance on TV and it wasn't that bad. I mean, it wasn't anything special, but there are many worse people who they could play with.

Anyway, Nirvana should just do what Queen does now and be "Nirvana + ______" for whoever they get to do their lead vocals.

December 16th, 2012, 12:55 PM
So this is the Twilight Zone, is it?