[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<b><font color="green">The Fairy King wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]rogerette_13 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]R.I.P Kurt, his music ROCKED and he totally deserved the Legend status. He's an inspiration and anyone who says otherwise should definatly go away and sit and listen to the Greatest Hits and then come back to me. [/QUOTE]
I know most of his hits and i say he doesn't deserve the legend status.[/QUOTE]
Ditto
I've heard both 'Nevermind', 'Unplugged', and some songs from 'In Utero' and 'Bleach', and I still don't think they deserve it. Perhaps almost.
Once again, Nirvana was a very good band but in many ways they were lucky for being the first ones to widely expose the sound of the Seattle grunge scene.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] <font color=green>Linda Of The Valley wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It was also 12 years ago that the Rwanda massacres were going on. Guess who's going to be in the newspapers today?
Two years ago was the tenth anniversary of both events. The front page of my local newspapser had a big picture of Kurt, and there was a corner article on page 14 commemorating the massacres.
The media makes me sick.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the media's really about what the mass public finds interesting, not about what an esoteric group of people personally find interesting. To be honest, neither really interests me, but it's a lot easier to poke fun at Cobain.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] <font color=green>Linda Of The Valley wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]billycat wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Nirvana, but I'll agree that they along with The Doors are extremely overated.
Somehow we never saw Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison being forced to re-invent the sound of their albums.
Would they pull it out successfully, or rather stuck to fade into obscurity?
Nobody knows for sure what would have happened.[/QUOTE]
While I do enjoy Jim Morrison I would admit that he gets over-rated quite a bit. The Doors as a band is another story.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Jim Morrison is unbelievably over-rated. Loads of people go around with t-shirts of him and they don't even know many songs by him and The Doors.
The Doors themself though, as you said, are a different story.
Anywho, I don't understand this whole 'bash Kurt Cobain' cos I think he was a legend. And for those who know nothing about him and simply say 'ooh, he didn't spell Freddie right' - please get a life.
R.I.P Kurt[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how you don't understand the whole 'bash Kurt Cobain' thing. You don't question the bashing of rap, do you? Just as mainstream rap is comprised of talentless gimps making undeserved millions with unwarranted popularity, so the same could be said about Kurt Cobain.
Cobain? A legend? Yeah, I guess. Then so are the New Kids on the Block, the Backstreet Boys, and *NSYNC. Let's not forget about Britney Spears. And I guess 50 Cent is a legend in the making. How privileged I feel to have lived and to be living in a time when such legends are being born.[/QUOTE]
Sorry dude, but I have to strongly disagree with you on that one.
I agree that Nirvana was overated (taking the fact that some critics put them in the same level with Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Queen) but putting them at the same level with contemporary mainstrem rappers and fabricated bubblegum pop stars is just dumb.
Nirvana was a very good band, and the fact that one band opens the door to a movement that totally changes the whole music scene takes a lot of talent. The general public agreed that it was time for a new sound despite of the high popularity of hair rock by the early 90s. There's no denying that 'Nevermind' was an incredibly well crafted album that introduced a new rock genre to an audience that heard nothing but hard rock anthems and power ballads.
The irony of all of this is that unlike many artists who dream of making it big, and having tons of money, Kurt Cobain seemed happy enough being part of the underground Seattle music scene and never inteded to become part of the mainstream or become the kind that follows trends.
All of sudden Nirvana starts to spread by word of mouth, and one of their biggest fans before hitting it big happened to be Axl Rose (who even wears a Nirvana cap on the 'Don't Cry' video). Nirvana signs with David Geffen and from the moment that 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' video hit MTV everybody liked it.
One of the reasons why Nirvana became so popular was because people were already fed up with the whole R
Two years ago was the tenth anniversary of both events. The front page of my local newspapser had a big picture of Kurt, and there was a corner article on page 14 commemorating the massacres.
The media makes me sick.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the media's really about what the mass public finds interesting, not about what an esoteric group of people personally find interesting. To be honest, neither really interests me, but it's a lot easier to poke fun at Cobain.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] <font color=green>Linda Of The Valley wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]billycat wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Nirvana, but I'll agree that they along with The Doors are extremely overated.
Somehow we never saw Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison being forced to re-invent the sound of their albums.
Would they pull it out successfully, or rather stuck to fade into obscurity?
Nobody knows for sure what would have happened.[/QUOTE]
While I do enjoy Jim Morrison I would admit that he gets over-rated quite a bit. The Doors as a band is another story.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Jim Morrison is unbelievably over-rated. Loads of people go around with t-shirts of him and they don't even know many songs by him and The Doors.
The Doors themself though, as you said, are a different story.
Anywho, I don't understand this whole 'bash Kurt Cobain' cos I think he was a legend. And for those who know nothing about him and simply say 'ooh, he didn't spell Freddie right' - please get a life.
R.I.P Kurt[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how you don't understand the whole 'bash Kurt Cobain' thing. You don't question the bashing of rap, do you? Just as mainstream rap is comprised of talentless gimps making undeserved millions with unwarranted popularity, so the same could be said about Kurt Cobain.
Cobain? A legend? Yeah, I guess. Then so are the New Kids on the Block, the Backstreet Boys, and *NSYNC. Let's not forget about Britney Spears. And I guess 50 Cent is a legend in the making. How privileged I feel to have lived and to be living in a time when such legends are being born.[/QUOTE]
Sorry dude, but I have to strongly disagree with you on that one.
I agree that Nirvana was overated (taking the fact that some critics put them in the same level with Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Queen) but putting them at the same level with contemporary mainstrem rappers and fabricated bubblegum pop stars is just dumb.
Nirvana was a very good band, and the fact that one band opens the door to a movement that totally changes the whole music scene takes a lot of talent. The general public agreed that it was time for a new sound despite of the high popularity of hair rock by the early 90s. There's no denying that 'Nevermind' was an incredibly well crafted album that introduced a new rock genre to an audience that heard nothing but hard rock anthems and power ballads.
The irony of all of this is that unlike many artists who dream of making it big, and having tons of money, Kurt Cobain seemed happy enough being part of the underground Seattle music scene and never inteded to become part of the mainstream or become the kind that follows trends.
All of sudden Nirvana starts to spread by word of mouth, and one of their biggest fans before hitting it big happened to be Axl Rose (who even wears a Nirvana cap on the 'Don't Cry' video). Nirvana signs with David Geffen and from the moment that 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' video hit MTV everybody liked it.
One of the reasons why Nirvana became so popular was because people were already fed up with the whole R
I really hate this forum sometimes. Not to be mean, but how is every other forum in the existence of the internet capable of keeping posts in a thread in chronological order?
Actually, I don't care what the fucked did he feel, what did he try to tell the others with his shitty music.
His music sucked.
He didn't know how to play, he didn't know how to sing, he knew nothing at all.
I guess he knew he sucked, and couldn't believe how stupid everyone was to believe he was a genious.
Now he's dead but I'm alive and I can take a shit on every nirvana record in the world, and I will, just get me some records.
His music sucked.
He didn't know how to play, he didn't know how to sing, he knew nothing at all.
I guess he knew he sucked, and couldn't believe how stupid everyone was to believe he was a genious.
Now he's dead but I'm alive and I can take a shit on every nirvana record in the world, and I will, just get me some records.
well lets compare these two groups for a moment...
New Kids: masterminded by Maurice Starr who also created boy band New Edition a few years earlier from the same basic formula. The New Kids image and music was already there before anyone had actually been selected to be in the group
Nirvana: formed the band based on their own ideals. Created Nirvana on their own just for the sake of writing songs, performing live and just because that's what they felt like doing.
---
New Kids: wrote none of their own music. Didn't play one lick on or off stage. Questionably even sang all the stuff on their records. Often lip synched on stage.
Nirvana: Wrote all the songs. Played and sang every note on and off stage
---
New Kids: had their entire image strictly calculated to be as safe and family valued as a Disney movie.
Nirvana: genuinely lived the lives they portrayed in their music
---
New Kids: all their songs were written by people who were hired to do just that. People who wrote pop songs for a living. People who were already in the industry writing for commercials and tv shows
Nirvana: wrote all their own music based on their own personal experiences
---
New Kids: mainly a 12 to 17 year old audience who eventually grow up and mostly forgot about them. Their music has mostly been forgotten just the same
Nirvana: audience demographic ranging from young teens to people in their 30's and 40's. Still gets radio play on a near daily basis.
so anyways, you can love or hate either band all you want but try not to confuse the reality of what went into these groups to achieve what they did. Even the New Kids had one guy in need of massive therapy after a few years in the spotlight.
...and if you want to blame anyone for the hordes of boy bands that came later then blame Maurice Starr for inventing the formula for all the other greedy artistically void bastards in the music biz.
New Kids: masterminded by Maurice Starr who also created boy band New Edition a few years earlier from the same basic formula. The New Kids image and music was already there before anyone had actually been selected to be in the group
Nirvana: formed the band based on their own ideals. Created Nirvana on their own just for the sake of writing songs, performing live and just because that's what they felt like doing.
---
New Kids: wrote none of their own music. Didn't play one lick on or off stage. Questionably even sang all the stuff on their records. Often lip synched on stage.
Nirvana: Wrote all the songs. Played and sang every note on and off stage
---
New Kids: had their entire image strictly calculated to be as safe and family valued as a Disney movie.
Nirvana: genuinely lived the lives they portrayed in their music
---
New Kids: all their songs were written by people who were hired to do just that. People who wrote pop songs for a living. People who were already in the industry writing for commercials and tv shows
Nirvana: wrote all their own music based on their own personal experiences
---
New Kids: mainly a 12 to 17 year old audience who eventually grow up and mostly forgot about them. Their music has mostly been forgotten just the same
Nirvana: audience demographic ranging from young teens to people in their 30's and 40's. Still gets radio play on a near daily basis.
so anyways, you can love or hate either band all you want but try not to confuse the reality of what went into these groups to achieve what they did. Even the New Kids had one guy in need of massive therapy after a few years in the spotlight.
...and if you want to blame anyone for the hordes of boy bands that came later then blame Maurice Starr for inventing the formula for all the other greedy artistically void bastards in the music biz.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME] <font color=green>Linda Of The Valley wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It was also 12 years ago that the Rwanda massacres were going on. Guess who's going to be in the newspapers today?
Two years ago was the tenth anniversary of both events. The front page of my local newspapser had a big picture of Kurt, and there was a corner article on page 14 commemorating the massacres.
The media makes me sick.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the media's really about what the mass public finds interesting, not about what an esoteric group of people personally find interesting. To be honest, neither really interests me, but it's a lot easier to poke fun at Cobain.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] <font color=green>Linda Of The Valley wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]billycat wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Nirvana, but I'll agree that they along with The Doors are extremely overated.
Somehow we never saw Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison being forced to re-invent the sound of their albums.
Would they pull it out successfully, or rather stuck to fade into obscurity?
Nobody knows for sure what would have happened.[/QUOTE]
While I do enjoy Jim Morrison I would admit that he gets over-rated quite a bit. The Doors as a band is another story.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Jim Morrison is unbelievably over-rated. Loads of people go around with t-shirts of him and they don't even know many songs by him and The Doors.
The Doors themself though, as you said, are a different story.
Anywho, I don't understand this whole 'bash Kurt Cobain' cos I think he was a legend. And for those who know nothing about him and simply say 'ooh, he didn't spell Freddie right' - please get a life.
R.I.P Kurt[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how you don't understand the whole 'bash Kurt Cobain' thing. You don't question the bashing of rap, do you? Just as mainstream rap is comprised of talentless gimps making undeserved millions with unwarranted popularity, so the same could be said about Kurt Cobain.
Cobain? A legend? Yeah, I guess. Then so are the New Kids on the Block, the Backstreet Boys, and *NSYNC. Let's not forget about Britney Spears. And I guess 50 Cent is a legend in the making. How privileged I feel to have lived and to be living in a time when such legends are being born.[/QUOTE]
Sorry dude, but I have to strongly disagree with you on that one.
I agree that Nirvana was overated (taking the fact that some critics put them in the same level with Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Queen) but putting them at the same level with contemporary mainstrem rappers and fabricated bubblegum pop stars is just dumb.
Nirvana was a very good band, and the fact that one band opens the door to a movement that totally changes the whole music scene takes a lot of talent. The general public agreed that it was time for a new sound despite of the high popularity of hair rock by the early 90s. There's no denying that 'Nevermind' was an incredibly well crafted album that introduced a new rock genre to an audience that heard nothing but hard rock anthems and power ballads.
The irony of all of this is that unlike many artists who dream of making it big, and having tons of money, Kurt Cobain seemed happy enough being part of the underground Seattle music scene and never inteded to become part of the mainstream or become the kind that follows trends.
All of sudden Nirvana starts to spread by word of mouth, and one of their biggest fans before hitting it big happened to be Axl Rose (who even wears a Nirvana cap on the 'Don't Cry' video). Nirvana signs with David Geffen and from the moment that 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' video hit MTV everybody liked it.
One of the reasons why Nirvana became so popular was becau
Two years ago was the tenth anniversary of both events. The front page of my local newspapser had a big picture of Kurt, and there was a corner article on page 14 commemorating the massacres.
The media makes me sick.
[/QUOTE]
Well, the media's really about what the mass public finds interesting, not about what an esoteric group of people personally find interesting. To be honest, neither really interests me, but it's a lot easier to poke fun at Cobain.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME] <font color=green>Linda Of The Valley wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]billycat wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME]I like Nirvana, but I'll agree that they along with The Doors are extremely overated.
Somehow we never saw Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison being forced to re-invent the sound of their albums.
Would they pull it out successfully, or rather stuck to fade into obscurity?
Nobody knows for sure what would have happened.[/QUOTE]
While I do enjoy Jim Morrison I would admit that he gets over-rated quite a bit. The Doors as a band is another story.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Jim Morrison is unbelievably over-rated. Loads of people go around with t-shirts of him and they don't even know many songs by him and The Doors.
The Doors themself though, as you said, are a different story.
Anywho, I don't understand this whole 'bash Kurt Cobain' cos I think he was a legend. And for those who know nothing about him and simply say 'ooh, he didn't spell Freddie right' - please get a life.
R.I.P Kurt[/QUOTE]
I don't understand how you don't understand the whole 'bash Kurt Cobain' thing. You don't question the bashing of rap, do you? Just as mainstream rap is comprised of talentless gimps making undeserved millions with unwarranted popularity, so the same could be said about Kurt Cobain.
Cobain? A legend? Yeah, I guess. Then so are the New Kids on the Block, the Backstreet Boys, and *NSYNC. Let's not forget about Britney Spears. And I guess 50 Cent is a legend in the making. How privileged I feel to have lived and to be living in a time when such legends are being born.[/QUOTE]
Sorry dude, but I have to strongly disagree with you on that one.
I agree that Nirvana was overated (taking the fact that some critics put them in the same level with Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Queen) but putting them at the same level with contemporary mainstrem rappers and fabricated bubblegum pop stars is just dumb.
Nirvana was a very good band, and the fact that one band opens the door to a movement that totally changes the whole music scene takes a lot of talent. The general public agreed that it was time for a new sound despite of the high popularity of hair rock by the early 90s. There's no denying that 'Nevermind' was an incredibly well crafted album that introduced a new rock genre to an audience that heard nothing but hard rock anthems and power ballads.
The irony of all of this is that unlike many artists who dream of making it big, and having tons of money, Kurt Cobain seemed happy enough being part of the underground Seattle music scene and never inteded to become part of the mainstream or become the kind that follows trends.
All of sudden Nirvana starts to spread by word of mouth, and one of their biggest fans before hitting it big happened to be Axl Rose (who even wears a Nirvana cap on the 'Don't Cry' video). Nirvana signs with David Geffen and from the moment that 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' video hit MTV everybody liked it.
One of the reasons why Nirvana became so popular was becau
See, I agree with what you all are saying, except for the fact that you are searching here and there for the talents that you find admirable in a musician. I agree with you guys, I much prefer these traits, but to be involved in a famous boy band would be just as difficult as being involved in a famous grunge, metal, or punk band. In fact, among just these four genres, each requires a separate set of skills in order to reach success. Granted, as grunge, metal, and punk are much more similar, they require similar sets of skills, as songwriting, live performance, etc. Talent is surprisingly subjective, and I'm not to say you're wrong, but rather that there are many more aspects to consider than what you have already.
However, defining legendary status really has nothing to do with talent. It's really about iconic presence. Eddie Van Halen is a legend because his name is synonymous with the guitar. Of course, it became synonymous due to his amazing skill, but we all can agree that he wasn't "the best." But it really doesn't matter HOW his name became synonymous with the guitar...what really matters is that it IS synonymous to the instrument. Thus, boy bands revolutionized the music industry for almost an entire decade. Sure, everything was highly calculated, and the involvement of the bands were questionable...however, the icons - the bands themselves - are what is going to be pinpointed as the driving force of the movement. I'm not saying they are legendary, but if there were ever a scale measuring legend-status, they would be pretty on par with Cobain.
As for arguing that being in a grunge band can potentially require very little talent, I can just as well as I can argue that being in a boy band requires little talent. Take Nirvana's biggest hit, "Smells Like Teen Spirit." A simple, boxy four-chord progression that any ten-year old could come up with on his dad's acoustic guitar...the single notes C, F, C, F repeated endlessly - a tune a cat could probably make eventually if you put it in a room with an electric guitar...a "solo" or "bridge" or whatever, that any beginning guitar player could nail almost immediately...a bassline that simply mimics the roots of the progression...lyrics that most people can't even understand, let alone appreciate any poetic merit within...the drums seem pretty standard, although simple at the verses - yet are probably the most impressive instrument of the entire piece. Vocals are weak at best.
Please keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Not to be rude, but the only one in this entire thread who has yet to make a coherent point is you, Linda.
However, defining legendary status really has nothing to do with talent. It's really about iconic presence. Eddie Van Halen is a legend because his name is synonymous with the guitar. Of course, it became synonymous due to his amazing skill, but we all can agree that he wasn't "the best." But it really doesn't matter HOW his name became synonymous with the guitar...what really matters is that it IS synonymous to the instrument. Thus, boy bands revolutionized the music industry for almost an entire decade. Sure, everything was highly calculated, and the involvement of the bands were questionable...however, the icons - the bands themselves - are what is going to be pinpointed as the driving force of the movement. I'm not saying they are legendary, but if there were ever a scale measuring legend-status, they would be pretty on par with Cobain.
As for arguing that being in a grunge band can potentially require very little talent, I can just as well as I can argue that being in a boy band requires little talent. Take Nirvana's biggest hit, "Smells Like Teen Spirit." A simple, boxy four-chord progression that any ten-year old could come up with on his dad's acoustic guitar...the single notes C, F, C, F repeated endlessly - a tune a cat could probably make eventually if you put it in a room with an electric guitar...a "solo" or "bridge" or whatever, that any beginning guitar player could nail almost immediately...a bassline that simply mimics the roots of the progression...lyrics that most people can't even understand, let alone appreciate any poetic merit within...the drums seem pretty standard, although simple at the verses - yet are probably the most impressive instrument of the entire piece. Vocals are weak at best.
Please keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about. Not to be rude, but the only one in this entire thread who has yet to make a coherent point is you, Linda.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Thus, boy bands revolutionized the music industry for almost an entire decade. Sure, everything was highly calculated, and the involvement of the bands were questionable...however, the icons - the bands themselves - are what is going to be pinpointed as the driving force of the movement. I'm not saying they are legendary, but if there were ever a scale measuring legend-status, they would be pretty on par with Cobain.[/QUOTE]
Boy bands never revolutionazed the music industry. It was actually the music industry that revolutionized itself because boy bands are not made of musicians trying to sell their work. Record companies were the ones who fabricated these kids along with the image that they expected to sell.
As far as I'm concerned, David Geffen never created Nirvana because they were already made musicians before receiving a record contract.
On the other hand, Maurice Starr created New Edition along with New Kids On The Block, and then 10 years later Lou Perlman created Backstreet Boys and N*SYNC.
Are you still going to tell us that they're still in the same level of musicianship?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
As for arguing that being in a grunge band can potentially require very little talent, I can just as well as I can argue that being in a boy band requires little talent. Take Nirvana's biggest hit, "Smells Like Teen Spirit." A simple, boxy four-chord progression that any ten-year old could come up with on his dad's acoustic guitar...the single notes C, F, C, F repeated endlessly - a tune a cat could probably make eventually if you put it in a room with an electric guitar...a "solo" or "bridge" or whatever, that any beginning guitar player could nail almost immediately...a bassline that simply mimics the roots of the progression...lyrics that most people can't even understand, let alone appreciate any poetic merit within...the drums seem pretty standard, although simple at the verses - yet are probably the most impressive instrument of the entire piece. Vocals are weak at best. [/QUOTE]
Isn't Deep Purple's 'Smoke On The Water' a song that mainly consists of a simple riff as well? I can also name a handful of all time rock classics, that also consist of a very simple instrumental intro with a basslines and drum beats that simply go along with the intro sound.
What can we say about 'We Will Rock'? Even a 5 year old could have easily come up with that "stomp-stomp-clap" sound, but does it take away any merit from being one of the most recognized songs of all time, and the main icon of what a sports anthem is?
Let's not talk about the lyrics because after all, we are all fans of a band that didn't particularly write smart and inspiring lyrics, except for Brian May.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Please keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
We sure will, because you really don't know what you're talking about.
Thus, boy bands revolutionized the music industry for almost an entire decade. Sure, everything was highly calculated, and the involvement of the bands were questionable...however, the icons - the bands themselves - are what is going to be pinpointed as the driving force of the movement. I'm not saying they are legendary, but if there were ever a scale measuring legend-status, they would be pretty on par with Cobain.[/QUOTE]
Boy bands never revolutionazed the music industry. It was actually the music industry that revolutionized itself because boy bands are not made of musicians trying to sell their work. Record companies were the ones who fabricated these kids along with the image that they expected to sell.
As far as I'm concerned, David Geffen never created Nirvana because they were already made musicians before receiving a record contract.
On the other hand, Maurice Starr created New Edition along with New Kids On The Block, and then 10 years later Lou Perlman created Backstreet Boys and N*SYNC.
Are you still going to tell us that they're still in the same level of musicianship?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
As for arguing that being in a grunge band can potentially require very little talent, I can just as well as I can argue that being in a boy band requires little talent. Take Nirvana's biggest hit, "Smells Like Teen Spirit." A simple, boxy four-chord progression that any ten-year old could come up with on his dad's acoustic guitar...the single notes C, F, C, F repeated endlessly - a tune a cat could probably make eventually if you put it in a room with an electric guitar...a "solo" or "bridge" or whatever, that any beginning guitar player could nail almost immediately...a bassline that simply mimics the roots of the progression...lyrics that most people can't even understand, let alone appreciate any poetic merit within...the drums seem pretty standard, although simple at the verses - yet are probably the most impressive instrument of the entire piece. Vocals are weak at best. [/QUOTE]
Isn't Deep Purple's 'Smoke On The Water' a song that mainly consists of a simple riff as well? I can also name a handful of all time rock classics, that also consist of a very simple instrumental intro with a basslines and drum beats that simply go along with the intro sound.
What can we say about 'We Will Rock'? Even a 5 year old could have easily come up with that "stomp-stomp-clap" sound, but does it take away any merit from being one of the most recognized songs of all time, and the main icon of what a sports anthem is?
Let's not talk about the lyrics because after all, we are all fans of a band that didn't particularly write smart and inspiring lyrics, except for Brian May.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Please keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
We sure will, because you really don't know what you're talking about.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Mr.Jingles wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Thus, boy bands revolutionized the music industry for almost an entire decade. Sure, everything was highly calculated, and the involvement of the bands were questionable...however, the icons - the bands themselves - are what is going to be pinpointed as the driving force of the movement. I'm not saying they are legendary, but if there were ever a scale measuring legend-status, they would be pretty on par with Cobain.[/QUOTE]
Boy bands never revolutionazed the music industry. It was actually the music industry that revolutionized itself because boy bands are not made of musicians trying to sell their work. Record companies were the ones who fabricated these kids along with the image that they expected to sell.
As far as I'm concerned, David Geffen never created Nirvana because they were already made musicians before receiving a record contract.
On the other hand, Maurice Starr created New Edition along with New Kids On The Block, and then 10 years later Lou Perlman created Backstreet Boys and N*SYNC.
Are you still going to tell us that they're still in the same level of musicianship?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
As for arguing that being in a grunge band can potentially require very little talent, I can just as well as I can argue that being in a boy band requires little talent. Take Nirvana's biggest hit, "Smells Like Teen Spirit." A simple, boxy four-chord progression that any ten-year old could come up with on his dad's acoustic guitar...the single notes C, F, C, F repeated endlessly - a tune a cat could probably make eventually if you put it in a room with an electric guitar...a "solo" or "bridge" or whatever, that any beginning guitar player could nail almost immediately...a bassline that simply mimics the roots of the progression...lyrics that most people can't even understand, let alone appreciate any poetic merit within...the drums seem pretty standard, although simple at the verses - yet are probably the most impressive instrument of the entire piece. Vocals are weak at best. [/QUOTE]
Isn't Deep Purple's 'Smoke On The Water' a song that mainly consists of a simple riff as well? I can also name a handful of all time rock classics, that also consist of a very simple instrumental intro with a basslines and drum beats that simply go along with the intro sound.
What can we say about 'We Will Rock'? Even a 5 year old could have easily come up with that "stomp-stomp-clap" sound, but does it take away any merit from being one of the most recognized songs of all time, and the main icon of what a sports anthem is?
Let's not talk about the lyrics because after all, we are all fans of a band that didn't particularly write smart and inspiring lyrics, except for Brian May.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Please keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
We sure will, because you really don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
You're arguing the wrong things. I never said that boy bands were on any level of musicianship above anyone. I simply said that when you are considering impact and legend-status, they are equivalent to such bands as Nirvana.
"Smoke on the Water" and "We Will Rock You" are simple too. It doesn't take much talent to create such. That's all that I was saying. Any simple riff can become great if it's in the right place at the right time. If Queen's legacy were based on that simple percussive line, or if Deep Purple's greatness was due to that one riff - then I will say that they do not deserve to be legendary.
You're thinking I am making arguments that I'm not...it's this simple, and I will summarize:
A) Kurt Cobain is not a musical legend. He wrote "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and died. Period.
B) It is arguable that Nirvana was not a good band.
I can't
Thus, boy bands revolutionized the music industry for almost an entire decade. Sure, everything was highly calculated, and the involvement of the bands were questionable...however, the icons - the bands themselves - are what is going to be pinpointed as the driving force of the movement. I'm not saying they are legendary, but if there were ever a scale measuring legend-status, they would be pretty on par with Cobain.[/QUOTE]
Boy bands never revolutionazed the music industry. It was actually the music industry that revolutionized itself because boy bands are not made of musicians trying to sell their work. Record companies were the ones who fabricated these kids along with the image that they expected to sell.
As far as I'm concerned, David Geffen never created Nirvana because they were already made musicians before receiving a record contract.
On the other hand, Maurice Starr created New Edition along with New Kids On The Block, and then 10 years later Lou Perlman created Backstreet Boys and N*SYNC.
Are you still going to tell us that they're still in the same level of musicianship?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
As for arguing that being in a grunge band can potentially require very little talent, I can just as well as I can argue that being in a boy band requires little talent. Take Nirvana's biggest hit, "Smells Like Teen Spirit." A simple, boxy four-chord progression that any ten-year old could come up with on his dad's acoustic guitar...the single notes C, F, C, F repeated endlessly - a tune a cat could probably make eventually if you put it in a room with an electric guitar...a "solo" or "bridge" or whatever, that any beginning guitar player could nail almost immediately...a bassline that simply mimics the roots of the progression...lyrics that most people can't even understand, let alone appreciate any poetic merit within...the drums seem pretty standard, although simple at the verses - yet are probably the most impressive instrument of the entire piece. Vocals are weak at best. [/QUOTE]
Isn't Deep Purple's 'Smoke On The Water' a song that mainly consists of a simple riff as well? I can also name a handful of all time rock classics, that also consist of a very simple instrumental intro with a basslines and drum beats that simply go along with the intro sound.
What can we say about 'We Will Rock'? Even a 5 year old could have easily come up with that "stomp-stomp-clap" sound, but does it take away any merit from being one of the most recognized songs of all time, and the main icon of what a sports anthem is?
Let's not talk about the lyrics because after all, we are all fans of a band that didn't particularly write smart and inspiring lyrics, except for Brian May.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Please keep telling me I don't know what I'm talking about.[/QUOTE]
We sure will, because you really don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE]
You're arguing the wrong things. I never said that boy bands were on any level of musicianship above anyone. I simply said that when you are considering impact and legend-status, they are equivalent to such bands as Nirvana.
"Smoke on the Water" and "We Will Rock You" are simple too. It doesn't take much talent to create such. That's all that I was saying. Any simple riff can become great if it's in the right place at the right time. If Queen's legacy were based on that simple percussive line, or if Deep Purple's greatness was due to that one riff - then I will say that they do not deserve to be legendary.
You're thinking I am making arguments that I'm not...it's this simple, and I will summarize:
A) Kurt Cobain is not a musical legend. He wrote "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and died. Period.
B) It is arguable that Nirvana was not a good band.
I can't
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE]
You're arguing the wrong things. I never said that boy bands were on any level of musicianship above anyone. I simply said that when you are considering impact and legend-status, they are equivalent to such bands as Nirvana.
"Smoke on the Water" and "We Will Rock You" are simple too. It doesn't take much talent to create such. That's all that I was saying. Any simple riff can become great if it's in the right place at the right time. If Queen's legacy were based on that simple percussive line, or if Deep Purple's greatness was due to that one riff - then I will say that they do not deserve to be legendary.
You're thinking I am making arguments that I'm not...it's this simple, and I will summarize:
A) Kurt Cobain is not a musical legend. He wrote "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and died. Period.
B) It is arguable that Nirvana was not a good band.
I can't see how you can argue that I don't know what I'm talking about. You are merely misconstruing my statements, all which make perfect sense and have yet to be rebutted.[/QUOTE]
I think you're arguement is rather odd. Songs like Smoke on the Water and We Will Rock You were essentially tools in helping those bands become so huge. Without those songs in their catalogs it's hard to say that they would still be rememebered with such a high regard or that they would have even gotten big enough to be remembered by that many.
I can see your point here but it's hard to make much sense of your arguement if you won't at least admit that Nirvana wrote more than one song...haha
but really though, what difference could it possibly make to anything if certain people want to think Kurt Cobain was a legend. If they feel inspired by him then why is that wrong? you're not required to agree or anything but why can't you just let people be happy with that? Come on, some people think very little of Queen and would think you were a little ridiculous for liking them so much but we all know that they just don't understand because we know more about them and relate to it in a way that maybe they just don't, for whatever reasons.
I assume you really do know there are far more than one Nirvana song "heh" but that comment makes it sound like you have very little insight into what they have done, and you can't honestly say that every Nirvana songs sounds just like that one if that was your point. They certainly didn't make some of the most ambitiously well crafted music I've ever heard but I like what it says and how it comes across to me. I appreciate it and can relate to some of it. It seems a lot of other people do as well. Many simple hate it. Oh well.
Apparently like you said Nirvana just happened at the right time and people were just ready for something like that. It happened to be them and now they are what they are. Many other rock stars have died during their careers but not all of them have lived on in the same way as Cobain. Maybe it is because of the media or because of the way he died but whatever the reasons it did all start with the music. Whether you like the music or not is another story...
You're arguing the wrong things. I never said that boy bands were on any level of musicianship above anyone. I simply said that when you are considering impact and legend-status, they are equivalent to such bands as Nirvana.
"Smoke on the Water" and "We Will Rock You" are simple too. It doesn't take much talent to create such. That's all that I was saying. Any simple riff can become great if it's in the right place at the right time. If Queen's legacy were based on that simple percussive line, or if Deep Purple's greatness was due to that one riff - then I will say that they do not deserve to be legendary.
You're thinking I am making arguments that I'm not...it's this simple, and I will summarize:
A) Kurt Cobain is not a musical legend. He wrote "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and died. Period.
B) It is arguable that Nirvana was not a good band.
I can't see how you can argue that I don't know what I'm talking about. You are merely misconstruing my statements, all which make perfect sense and have yet to be rebutted.[/QUOTE]
I think you're arguement is rather odd. Songs like Smoke on the Water and We Will Rock You were essentially tools in helping those bands become so huge. Without those songs in their catalogs it's hard to say that they would still be rememebered with such a high regard or that they would have even gotten big enough to be remembered by that many.
I can see your point here but it's hard to make much sense of your arguement if you won't at least admit that Nirvana wrote more than one song...haha
but really though, what difference could it possibly make to anything if certain people want to think Kurt Cobain was a legend. If they feel inspired by him then why is that wrong? you're not required to agree or anything but why can't you just let people be happy with that? Come on, some people think very little of Queen and would think you were a little ridiculous for liking them so much but we all know that they just don't understand because we know more about them and relate to it in a way that maybe they just don't, for whatever reasons.
I assume you really do know there are far more than one Nirvana song "heh" but that comment makes it sound like you have very little insight into what they have done, and you can't honestly say that every Nirvana songs sounds just like that one if that was your point. They certainly didn't make some of the most ambitiously well crafted music I've ever heard but I like what it says and how it comes across to me. I appreciate it and can relate to some of it. It seems a lot of other people do as well. Many simple hate it. Oh well.
Apparently like you said Nirvana just happened at the right time and people were just ready for something like that. It happened to be them and now they are what they are. Many other rock stars have died during their careers but not all of them have lived on in the same way as Cobain. Maybe it is because of the media or because of the way he died but whatever the reasons it did all start with the music. Whether you like the music or not is another story...
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]billycat wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You're arguing the wrong things. I never said that boy bands were on any level of musicianship above anyone. I simply said that when you are considering impact and legend-status, they are equivalent to such bands as Nirvana.
"Smoke on the Water" and "We Will Rock You" are simple too. It doesn't take much talent to create such. That's all that I was saying. Any simple riff can become great if it's in the right place at the right time. If Queen's legacy were based on that simple percussive line, or if Deep Purple's greatness was due to that one riff - then I will say that they do not deserve to be legendary.
You're thinking I am making arguments that I'm not...it's this simple, and I will summarize:
A) Kurt Cobain is not a musical legend. He wrote "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and died. Period.
B) It is arguable that Nirvana was not a good band.
I can't see how you can argue that I don't know what I'm talking about. You are merely misconstruing my statements, all which make perfect sense and have yet to be rebutted.[/QUOTE]
I think you're arguement is rather odd. Songs like Smoke on the Water and We Will Rock You were essentially tools in helping those bands become so huge. Without those songs in their catalogs it's hard to say that they would still be rememebered with such a high regard or that they would have even gotten big enough to be remembered by that many.
I can see your point here but it's hard to make much sense of your arguement if you won't at least admit that Nirvana wrote more than one song...haha
but really though, what difference could it possibly make to anything if certain people want to think Kurt Cobain was a legend. If they feel inspired by him then why is that wrong? you're not required to agree or anything but why can't you just let people be happy with that? Come on, some people think very little of Queen and would think you were a little ridiculous for liking them so much but we all know that they just don't understand because we know more about them and relate to it in a way that maybe they just don't, for whatever reasons.
I assume you really do know there are far more than one Nirvana song "heh" but that comment makes it sound like you have very little insight into what they have done, and you can't honestly say that every Nirvana songs sounds just like that one if that was your point. They certainly didn't make some of the most ambitiously well crafted music I've ever heard but I like what it says and how it comes across to me. I appreciate it and can relate to some of it. It seems a lot of other people do as well. Many simple hate it. Oh well.
Apparently like you said Nirvana just happened at the right time and people were just ready for something like that. It happened to be them and now they are what they are. Many other rock stars have died during their careers but not all of them have lived on in the same way as Cobain. Maybe it is because of the media or because of the way he died but whatever the reasons it did all start with the music. Whether you like the music or not is another story...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I pretty much actually agree with what you said. In fact, considering the subjectivity of "legend-status," I suppose that it can be arguable that Nirvana was legendary. But likewise, the opposite is just as arguable. That's all I'm saying, really. It was just a response to a comment similar to, "I don't understand why someone would bash Kurt Cobain." I simply responded, "Well, here's why..." I suppose it's slightly silly, since I can pretty much conceive of a reason to bash anyone and anything - but that's just my sense of humor.
You're arguing the wrong things. I never said that boy bands were on any level of musicianship above anyone. I simply said that when you are considering impact and legend-status, they are equivalent to such bands as Nirvana.
"Smoke on the Water" and "We Will Rock You" are simple too. It doesn't take much talent to create such. That's all that I was saying. Any simple riff can become great if it's in the right place at the right time. If Queen's legacy were based on that simple percussive line, or if Deep Purple's greatness was due to that one riff - then I will say that they do not deserve to be legendary.
You're thinking I am making arguments that I'm not...it's this simple, and I will summarize:
A) Kurt Cobain is not a musical legend. He wrote "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and died. Period.
B) It is arguable that Nirvana was not a good band.
I can't see how you can argue that I don't know what I'm talking about. You are merely misconstruing my statements, all which make perfect sense and have yet to be rebutted.[/QUOTE]
I think you're arguement is rather odd. Songs like Smoke on the Water and We Will Rock You were essentially tools in helping those bands become so huge. Without those songs in their catalogs it's hard to say that they would still be rememebered with such a high regard or that they would have even gotten big enough to be remembered by that many.
I can see your point here but it's hard to make much sense of your arguement if you won't at least admit that Nirvana wrote more than one song...haha
but really though, what difference could it possibly make to anything if certain people want to think Kurt Cobain was a legend. If they feel inspired by him then why is that wrong? you're not required to agree or anything but why can't you just let people be happy with that? Come on, some people think very little of Queen and would think you were a little ridiculous for liking them so much but we all know that they just don't understand because we know more about them and relate to it in a way that maybe they just don't, for whatever reasons.
I assume you really do know there are far more than one Nirvana song "heh" but that comment makes it sound like you have very little insight into what they have done, and you can't honestly say that every Nirvana songs sounds just like that one if that was your point. They certainly didn't make some of the most ambitiously well crafted music I've ever heard but I like what it says and how it comes across to me. I appreciate it and can relate to some of it. It seems a lot of other people do as well. Many simple hate it. Oh well.
Apparently like you said Nirvana just happened at the right time and people were just ready for something like that. It happened to be them and now they are what they are. Many other rock stars have died during their careers but not all of them have lived on in the same way as Cobain. Maybe it is because of the media or because of the way he died but whatever the reasons it did all start with the music. Whether you like the music or not is another story...[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
I pretty much actually agree with what you said. In fact, considering the subjectivity of "legend-status," I suppose that it can be arguable that Nirvana was legendary. But likewise, the opposite is just as arguable. That's all I'm saying, really. It was just a response to a comment similar to, "I don't understand why someone would bash Kurt Cobain." I simply responded, "Well, here's why..." I suppose it's slightly silly, since I can pretty much conceive of a reason to bash anyone and anything - but that's just my sense of humor.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Musicman wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I pretty much actually agree with what you said. In fact, considering the subjectivity of "legend-status," I suppose that it can be arguable that Nirvana was legendary. But likewise, the opposite is just as arguable. That's all I'm saying, really. It was just a response to a comment similar to, "I don't understand why someone would bash Kurt Cobain." I simply responded, "Well, here's why..." I suppose it's slightly silly, since I can pretty much conceive of a reason to bash anyone and anything - but that's just my sense of humor.[/QUOTE]
that's cool. I understand. You do make some good points even if I don't fully see things from your perspective. In the end though I would guess a lot of it is just up to personal opinion. It's unfortunately that Cobain had to die when and how he did because for anyone who was interested it kind of just left whatever he was trying to say or do hanging up in the air and now no one will ever know where it was all supposed to go. It does leave a somewhat frustrating and easily exaggerated trail of mystery around him.
I pretty much actually agree with what you said. In fact, considering the subjectivity of "legend-status," I suppose that it can be arguable that Nirvana was legendary. But likewise, the opposite is just as arguable. That's all I'm saying, really. It was just a response to a comment similar to, "I don't understand why someone would bash Kurt Cobain." I simply responded, "Well, here's why..." I suppose it's slightly silly, since I can pretty much conceive of a reason to bash anyone and anything - but that's just my sense of humor.[/QUOTE]
that's cool. I understand. You do make some good points even if I don't fully see things from your perspective. In the end though I would guess a lot of it is just up to personal opinion. It's unfortunately that Cobain had to die when and how he did because for anyone who was interested it kind of just left whatever he was trying to say or do hanging up in the air and now no one will ever know where it was all supposed to go. It does leave a somewhat frustrating and easily exaggerated trail of mystery around him.
20 years now since his passing
http://time.com/#50739/kurt-cobain-anniversary-nirvana/
9 Musicians Remember Curt Cobain.
http://time.com/#50739/kurt-cobain-anniversary-nirvana/
9 Musicians Remember Curt Cobain.
Hard to believe it's been 20 years.
R.I.P.
R.I.P.
Kurt Cobain was genius, and Nirvana a legendary band. Who cares about playing best or worse? Ramones weren't great musicians, but nobody can compuse such a bunch collections of great songs. Or The Clash or...you know.
I want to remember also Layne Staley from Alice In Chains and Mad Season, 12 years. Great, great bands. The last good rock movement being in the charts.
I want to remember also Layne Staley from Alice In Chains and Mad Season, 12 years. Great, great bands. The last good rock movement being in the charts.