https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kemivUKb4f4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbgKEjNBHqM
lmao
>>65066015
The In Bloom video makes no sense.
The Weezer song has some 1950's context so it's fitting that they're in a 1950's themed video.
Who wore it better?
They're completely different jokes though. I would argue that Nirvana is parodying more the early 60s such as the Beatles appearing on Ed Sullivan whereas Weezer is going for a 50s nostalgia vibe with the whole Buddy Holly thing and Happy Days references.
Completely different sources of inspiration. Besides, Cobain was a fucking hack who didn't have an original idea in his goddamn life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1U1Ue_5kq8
>>65066015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgvGjAhvIw
Its fairly common....
>>65066015
>YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAHHHHHHHHH
>I'M THE ONE WHO
>LOOKS JUST LIKE THE BEATLES DID ON THE ED SULLIVAN SHOW
>>65066384
is this the greatest pop song of the 2000s
>>65066668
I like this meme because its assumptions are true...so yes it is
>>65066147
>>65066262
Evidently Kurt wanted the whole video to be shot with them wearing the dresses haha
>>65066828
>DUDE DRESSES ON A MAN, SO SUBVERSIVE LMAO
It was kind of lame back then, but some bands still do it now which really makes me cringe.
>>65066873
It's cringey as hell now, but it was genuinely subversive back then.
>>65066962
Rock stars have been dressing like chicks since Little Richard.
It wasn't subversive at all.
>>65066015
>lets do an early 60s throwback
Oh yeah, Nirvana totally invented that, first ones in history.
>>65066358
You're implying your favorite artists aren't just stealing other people's ideas?
>>65067103
Little Richard wearing a campy dress and a mainstream punk rock band wearing a girly dress isn't the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhF8yi5J3kQ
Just gonna put this here.
>>65067520
Yes it is, it's all just men in chicks clothing.
What's being subverted? Rock has always been androgynous.
>>65067570
Breddy good senpai.
>>65067570
plumbers don't wear ties
