Lord no

Charles Murray once proposed that the number of artistic works since 1950 that would survive 200 years was close to zero. He suggested that, each time you think of a contender, you have to ask yourself, "Seriously?"

Steve Sailer points to a list of possible exceptions from The Man Who is Thursday. Pop music is my only real area of expertise here -- and the list includes Nirvana. Seriously?

Nirvana added absolutely nothing to pop music. Did they write some catchy songs? Sure. But they didn't break out of the pop mold, and their kickstarting the "grunge" movement was sheer luck. Other bands with similar sounds had been around for years. If you had to pick a grunge band whose work would endure, and I'm not saying any of theirs will, you'd have to go with Alice in Chains (much better vocal harmonies) or maybe Soundgarden (cool use of time signature shifts).

Excepting drummer Dave Grohl, Nirvana members couldn't play their instruments. Allowing that they had some decent vocal harmonies here and there, their compositions lacked innovation and depth. Mindlessly catchy songs come and go. They were an OK band, but they've been overrated since their breakthrough.

Through their toned-down image and dirty sound, they offered an escape from hair metal -- much as Green Day's happier, brighter sound offered an escape from Nirvana a few years later -- and without that lead-in their appeal disappears. People who lived through that era (me included) will always like hearing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" on the radio, but in 200 years we'll all be dead, and the thrill will be gone.

Mentioning Nirvana in the same breath as The Beatles, Bob Marley and Bob Dylan? Seriously?