Is Nirvana an overrated band? (and other ones)

[Phil B.]

Fair enough but if lack of technical proficiency = automatic overrating once a band becomes popular the are some serious stones that keep a rollin by that no one seems to have a problem with...

I agree. Since Hendrix was brought into this, I think the thread (as off topic as it is going) is open game. True, Hendrix had some bad "trips/concerts". So did Stevie Ray and a bunch of other performers. The thing is, when you compare a band that has been touring since roughly 1964 (The Stones), to a band that toured less than 5 years, you muddle the objectivity. The Stones are not performing in a vacuum, they are still alive. Ossified, but alive. Who can say what direction Jimi and Stevie would have taken if they were granted 25 more years...
I certainly don't consider most of Jimi Hendrix's concert stuff "garbage", but I will agree he had bad concerts. Just like the Stones have had.
*Shrug*

Oh, and as to Cobain....not vastly talented, but certainly passionate, and that goes a long ways.

 

[Riff Raff]

I agree. Since Hendrix was brought into this, I think the thread (as off topic as it is going) is open game. True, Hendrix had some bad "trips/concerts". So did Stevie Ray and a bunch of other performers. The thing is, when you compare a band that has been touring since roughly 1964 (The Stones), to a band that toured less than 5 years, you muddle the objectivity. The Stones are not performing in a vacuum, they are still alive. Ossified, but alive. Who can say what direction Jimi and Stevie would have taken if they were granted 25 more years...
I certainly don't consider most of Jimi Hendrix's concert stuff "garbage", but I will agree he had bad concerts. Just like the Stones have had.
*Shrug*

Oh, and as to Cobain....not vastly talented, but certainly passionate, and that goes a long ways.

Now this I agree with. The little imperfections can make the music better. Being technical does not always mean better like so many people make out it does.

 

[Lynch]

The little imperfections can make the music better.

imperfections make music better? wuh?

I'd love to see an explanation of this statement. Not trying to be an ass, but I really don't get this. I have never done anything in my life nor watched, listened to or seen anything in my life where something was done just right and I thought to myself "that was pretty good, but it would have been better if something was done wrong, poorly or more sloppily"

Being technical does not always mean better like so many people make out it does.

I agree to a point, but while technical doesn't mean better, it also can be considered more professional (at least to an extent). If Leonardo DaVinci had created his art with silly putty or crayons, the way we look at his works would likely not even closely resemble the pedistal we put that stuff on now. Kurt's 'art' was done on crumpled up construction paper with broken crayons. when my kids did that, it was cute, when a so-called "professional artist" does it, I call it sloppy and lazy, of which both of those last two adjectives describe Kurt's work perfectly (for me). JM2CW

 

[Khor1255]

Technical proficiency doesn't have to equate in to Yngwie Malmsteen or Steve Vai-like guitar licks, but when I hear stuff that any kid with 5 ounces of talent could play and I see reviewers gushing over them like they are some sort of rock god, yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

I have seen shit articles by the likes of Rolling Stone rate Kurt Cobain as a top 10 guitarist of all time. THAT my friend is ridiculous and what I'm referring to.

I get that. And I'm not saying he and they weren't at least in some ways overrated.

Cobain being put on a top 100 guitar player list is laughable enough but what I am trying to get at is that there is quite a bit to good songwriting than being able to pull off some chops. The Rolling Stones and a thousand other very popular bands with very little technical proficiency are living proof of this.

And for the record, as much as I like Jimi, his live shows were garbage, a LOT.

When he was bad he was bad. But I have a lot of examples where he was anything but. So we'll have to agree to disagree about this bit.

I used to work with a guy that got his hands on every single bootleg imaginable including multiple boots from different angles or different recordings from the same concert. Dude was a freak about it. Anyway, he made me some mix Hendrix bootleg tapes and while Hendrix could be pure genius at times (especially in the studio), he was sloppy as hell in concert all too often. So, in the same sense, I'd say that the love that Hendrix gets is also quite overrated.

If sloppy means that kind of free-form style a lot of improvisational guys have than we'll have to agree to disagree here too. It's funny because when I was younger and before I really liked jazz I was saying exactly the same thing about Hendrix.

Back to Kurt, he was sloppy as hell a LOT ... in concert and in the studio. Terrible singer, horrible guitar player. Lyrics? well, again, nonsensical crap a lot and WAY too much "woah is me, my life sucks, etc" which really seemed to connect to an entire generation of lazy, unwashed kids. *shrug*

I'm not trying to change your mind here but some folks' slop is another's vibrant live sound.

I'm wondering how much you like live recordings at all if you think everything Hendrix did (or even a majority of it) was sloppy? What about Song Remains the Same? Now there's some sloppy improvisation at times if you ask me but this is all opinion.

Not trying to argue or say I'm right or you're wrong I'm just calling it like I see it.

 

[Khor1255]

imperfections make music better? wuh?

I'd love to see an explanation of this statement. Not trying to be an ass, but I really don't get this. I have never done anything in my life nor watched, listened to or seen anything in my life where something was done just right and I thought to myself "that was pretty good, but it would have been better if something was done wrong, poorly or more sloppily"

I'll take a run at this one. Would you prefer a drum machine or a drummer? A computer generated riff or one produced by a musician?

If your answer is the former or that you don't really care I can totally see where you are coming from.

For some of us music is almost a living thing in terms of how it hits us and we don't want the CAD version of it we want the chick with all the pores and even a mole or two over Made in Japan Barbie.

I hope you follow what I'm trying to say here.

 

[Riff Raff]

I'll take a run at this one. Would you prefer a drum machine or a drummer? A computer generated riff or one produced by a musician?

If your answer is the former or that you don't really care I can totally see where you are coming from.

For some of us music is almost a living thing in terms of how it hits us and we don't want the CAD version of it we want the chick with all the pores and even a mole or two over Made in Japan Barbie.

I hope you follow what I'm trying to say here.

Pretty much this. I was saying sometimes the little imperfections of some bands can actually be more enjoyable than overly technical ones. Being too technical can actually for me anyway take away from the quality of the music because there does need to be the sentimental aspect to the music too. One that is overly technical and lacking in real passion just doesn't cut it for me.

Like certain solos in metal for me sound a bit too technical and robotic whereas others can sound really naturally done and have more power to them based on the more passion put into them by the guitarist. Again all subjective but for me and repeating the little imperfections can actually enhance the music experience yeah some guitarists aren't perfect but some styles of music are not meant for the very technical side of it.

I don't mean that it sounds better if it was more sloppy. lol

 

[Lynch]

When he was bad he was bad. But I have a lot of examples where he was anything but. So we'll have to agree to disagree about this bit.

I said it was garbage, a lot (missed the comma the first time through). That's not to say every single concert was bad, but it is me saying that what I have heard, most of it was NOT good. There are monents in some bootlegs that I heard where he sounded like I did when I was 13 with my first $75 guitar with a $25 amp, just making noise. Other times, he sounded like he was supposed to, but the guy got a ton of praise and still does as one of the best if not THE best of all time. I'll say one of the most innovative guitarists ever, but based on the number of bad live performances I heard, I can't agree with "best". But... we are FAR off topic on this (yes, I brought it up, I'm just sayin')

If sloppy means that kind of free-form style a lot of improvisational guys have than we'll have to agree to disagree here too. It's funny because when I was younger and before I really liked jazz I was saying exactly the same thing about Hendrix.

I actually held Jimi in VERY high regard based solely on his studio work and what I had heard from Woodstock and a couple of other select performances. The more bootleg and unreleased stuff I heard, the more he dropped on my personal totem pole of guitar genius. He was sloppy, sounded lazy and was most likely stoned out of his gourde, which is also a turnoff if they can't play properly when in such a condition.

I'm not trying to change your mind here but some folks' slop is another's vibrant live sound.

Understood and I completely agree. That's why I said that this is just my opinion and being as such, is no more or less relevant than anyone elses.

I'm wondering how much you like live recordings at all if you think everything Hendrix did (or even a majority of it) was sloppy? What about Song Remains the Same? Now there's some sloppy improvisation at times if you ask me but this is all opinion.

Honestly I don't like many live recordings, ESPECIALLY ones from the 60's and early 70's. That's not because of poor recording equipment in many cases, but rather because the musicians were terrible on stage. Led Zeppelin is NO exception. I'm sure I've ended up on a few people's ignore lists for being overly critical of Zeppelin's stage performances. (HOW dare I?!)

For me, it's one thing to be AT a concert and like it, find a bootleg and remember how it was because you were there. To listen to bootleg after bootleg of any number of artists from 30-45 years ago? Meh, does very little for me.

 

[Lynch]

Pretty much this. I was saying sometimes the little imperfections of some bands can actually be more enjoyable than overly technical ones. Being too technical can actually for me anyway take away from the quality of the music because there does need to be the sentimental aspect to the music too. One that is overly technical and lacking in real passion just doesn't cut it for me.

Like certain solos in metal for me sound a bit too technical and robotic whereas others can sound really naturally done and have more power to them based on the more passion put into them by the guitarist. Again all subjective but for me and repeating the little imperfections can actually enhance the music experience yeah some guitarists aren't perfect but some styles of music are not meant for the very technical side of it.

Yet you are one of the single most critical people I have ever seen when it comes to "production quality" on albums. So, musicians can be sloppy or simple and that's ok, but if the engineer and/or producer weren't impeccable, that's where we draw the line? Sorry, I don't buy that at all and I have a feeling you are playing around a bit with the role of the devil's advocate on this one (but I'm just assuming).



Whatever. The question asked if Nirwanna is overrated, and I answered the question with detailed reasoning, at least partially.

 

[Khor1255]

Honestly I don't like many live recordings, ESPECIALLY ones from the 60's and early 70's. That's not because of poor recording equipment in many cases, but rather because the musicians were terrible on stage. Led Zeppelin is NO exception. I'm sure I've ended up on a few people's ignore lists for being overly critical of Zeppelin's stage performances. (HOW dare I?!)

For me, it's one thing to be AT a concert and like it, find a bootleg and remember how it was because you were there. To listen to bootleg after bootleg of any number of artists from 30-45 years ago? Meh, does very little for me.

This explains quite a bit. I used to get very irritated by the jam style of many classic musicians. Now it's kind of one of my favorite things. But to each his own. I love live music that improvises a bit. When they get too carried away and or banal (and a lot of 60s and 70s artists did this too) it tends to get annoying but not as much as when I can tell everyone is overly focused on reproducing every note they did in the studio. I mean, that can be fun too but often times it just sounds like they lose all feel in the endeavor to reach the technical fidelity of a studio work live.

Some times that works but I guess what I'm trying to say is 'it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing'.

 

[Riff Raff]

Yet you are one of the single most critical people I have ever seen when it comes to "production quality" on albums. So, musicians can be sloppy or simple and that's ok, but if the engineer and/or producer weren't impeccable, that's where we draw the line? Sorry, I don't buy that at all and I have a feeling you are playing around a bit with the role of the devil's advocate on this one (but I'm just assuming).



Whatever. The question asked if Nirwanna is overrated, and I answered the question with detailed reasoning, at least partially.

Well it depends on the band. Some bands/albums sound better with good production, some don't. I don't care if you buy that or not it is my own personal opinion. Some albums I enjoy with the more raw sounding 'imperfect' production such as the first 2 Metallica albums. The reason I am more critical about AJFA is the bass production. I am picky on some things but not on everything. Again I don't give a shit if you don't buy it, that is fine if you don't. I acknowledge the fact I am critical in some instances but not for the same shit on everything. Megadeth has good musicianship on their first album but pretty sloppy production and I love that album, others like And Justice For All have lacklustre production that does actually throw me off even though I think the actual performed music is decent. Not that I have to actually justify my opinion on this but that is to explain why I am picky about the production on some albums, others not so. Some cases for me the production can be good for the quality of the music, others I am fine with the little flaws about it such as the production on the first Megadeth album. I prefer the pre Mutt Lange produced AC/DC work too like Powerage.