Kurt Cobain

[AboutAGirl]

I'm having trouble grasping your point here. What sounds like a starwars phrase? Who is 'bottom'? Regardless of our musical tastes - what specific thing did John Lennon have that Kurt Cobain didn't? I mean, we could say that John Lennon was better, but he wasn't a shinning vision of technical musical apptitude, considering that he could read music and write down his songs. Cobain didn't have the rest of The Beatles, but I'm not even sure of what you're trying to say in the first place - are Hendrix, Page, Lennon, etc. , are they the propaganda ****? Or else what is the propaganda ****?

Are there really hundreds of people like Cobain who are lined up to be famous? I think it's a little bit silly of you to ask everyone to stop focusing on modern music and focus on your favorite kind of music. I'm a huge classic rock fan, but think about it -- there are plenty of people who would tell you and me to quit focusing on that Classic Rock "****" and start realizing that none of it would have been there without John Lee Hooker, Muddy Waters and the rest of the blues. And then there are other people who would say "What are you talking about, fools? Classical music is the end all to music. From Muddy Waters to Led Zeppelin to Nirvana, nobody in pop music has ever made anything that goes anywhere even fathomably close to the genius and greatness of Mozart."

IMO the modern era has some great things to its advantage. I love the modern sound capabilities, very crisp and powerful. Maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, but I often wonder about what the classic rock greats could have accomplished with the added technology of today. Can you imagine The Doors' When The Music's Over with the crisp fervor of a Nirvana album? Can you imagine Hendrix's Spanish Castle Magic in a grunge context? Maybe it's just me but I'd like to hear some of that classic rock genius with the audio style of today. I could be wrong but when I hear the flaring feedback and jaw-droppingly intense screams of When The Music's Over, I feel like the song is being held back a little by its audio. The screams are as intense as all heck, but they don't come out with the volume and strength of a modern album... Maybe I'm an audiophile and I don't know it? I've gotten too far off topic anyway... way too far...

 

[newdawnfades]

Well said. It amazes me how you can be a cheerleader for the classic rock groups and not know how to identify new quality music when it appears.

Dark Side of The Moon was a remarkably simple album which packed a powerful punch. Bob Marley was a man, an acoustic guitar, and a couple of backup singers. Simple, complex, who the hell cares as long as the finished product sounds good.

I still don't get how anyone can think of Nirvana as simple. Why? Because Cobain used simple power chords in his guitar playing? Because he didn't wank a guitar solo or two? Nirvana wasn't about virtuoso guitar playing so stop trying to put them in a neat tidy box of your fav form of music.

Accept them for what they were. Open your goddamn mind and realize that great music does exist today, and it can be every bit as powerful and influential as Page, Hendrix, and the lot of the old guys.

The mistake that young people make when they start to delve into classic rock music is that they begin to develop this simultaneous distaste for the music that comes out today. It's unnecessary. You miss out on the pulse of music today because you got your ostrich head in the hole of classic rock. Keep your mind open to everything.

*fires up When The Music's Over and wonders how it would sound like today*

 

[TheEvilErk2008]

Well said. It amazes me how you can be a cheerleader for the classic rock groups and not know how to identify new quality music when it appears.

Dark Side of The Moon was a remarkably simple album which packed a powerful punch. Bob Marley was a man, an acoustic guitar, and a couple of backup singers. Simple, complex, who the hell cares as long as the finished product sounds good.

I still don't get how anyone can think of Nirvana as simple. Why? Because Cobain used simple power chords in his guitar playing? Because he didn't wank a guitar solo or two? Nirvana wasn't about virtuoso guitar playing so stop trying to put them in a neat tidy box of your fav form of music.

Accept them for what they were. Open your goddamn mind and realize that great music does exist today, and it can be every bit as powerful and influential as Page, Hendrix, and the lot of the old guys.

The mistake that young people make when they start to delve into classic rock music is that they begin to develop this simultaneous distaste for the music that comes out today. It's unnecessary. You miss out on the pulse of music today because you got your ostrich head in the hole of classic rock. Keep your mind open to everything.

*fires up When The Music's Over and wonders how it would sound like today*

What cracks me up is the fact that you think what they have to say is worth something. its not. the lyrics are at the emothional level of a lab rat. I am, by the way a nirvana fan, but i will NOT regard them as musicians worthy of having changed modern music. Smells like teens spirit = F5 Bb5 G#5 C#5. Its based off of the principle laid down by Boston, simplified, and then had some heavy distortion to make it sound all together. Pink Flyd has Gilmore, who could take that, and make it into a progression of chords that each used an entire fret board with miniture bridges and then would add and synchronize 5 other instruments and synth. Dark side of the moon reflected a more bass type thing, but if you can do what gilmore does, your a pro. If you can do what Cobain does, your a begginer. Simple as that. NEVER use pink floyd again as a comparison to Nirvana.
Sounds Good as a finished product, i believe is what you siad. I think you fail to see Wierd Als point of veiw in his cover of the song. Its pathetic. Cobain is lacking the ability to be understood, even if that is the point, why the hell do they go and make it as loud as poosible to be annoying. Bob marely was a professor of chords, a talented an audible singer. He had an actual backround.
They have simple minds. Simple is good of course, accept when you add the fact that people like you find complexity in it.
As i stated before, im a fan. i listen to them occasionally on the way to school. But i also now that Dream theater is better in every single way they do things. So youll say they arent better at saying F-society. Well, that was your point, i say F-society and so i dont addore Nirvana as talented at all. Therefore i live what Nirvana says. Dream theater is brand new, sounds different from the old stuff, yet still contains that complexity that makes them geniouses.
Propaganda, as i was saying in earlier, is the use of posters, and other novelties to potray them as icons. I want an icon who, like john lennon, could give mea feeling and theme of complexity, an icon who, like led zepplin and pink floyd, convey a message through the mood of the music that makes you become apart of the music, an icon who, like vah halen adn guns n roses, has a guitarist and feel that pushes you to the edge of your mind. Not an icon who did a lame job conveying the same feelings as earlier stuff did but with bad everything, an icon who is only getting this propaganda because he looked pretty and is dead.
Motzart was a genious, so yeah, of course it makes rock and roll look simple. And that iis why i do worship bands like Dream Theater, Floyd, King Crimson, Styx, Yes, Rush, and so many more that worked towards makeing the music so complex in its simplicty that it was called progressive for it.

"Now I’m mumblin’ and I’m screamin’
And I don’t know what I’m singin’
Crank the volume, ears are bleedin’
I still don’t know what I’m singin’
We’re so loud and incoherent
Boy, this oughta bug your parents
Yeah

It’s unintel-ligible
I just can’t get it through my skull
It’s hard to bargle nawdle zouss(? )
With all these marbles in my mouth
Don’t know, don’t know, don’t know, oh no
Don’t know, don’t know, don’t know..." -weird al

 

[AboutAGirl]

Nirvana pushes me to the absolute end of my mind. Nirvana gives me a feeling of complexity as much as any of the idols you consider to be worthy of idolatry. I still don't see how you consider Nirvana to be derivative. I still reject the notion that "complex = worthy." Music is entertainment, and music is heart, and music will never be science. If a worthy band has to play a bunch of notes then I don't want to listen to worthy bands, 'cause Smells Like Teen Spirit rocks me harder than pretty much anything else.

It is downright false to claim that those other bands have something that makes people a part of the music and Nirvana doesn't. I'm a part of Nirvana's music as much as I'm a part of anything, no different from with Zep or Hendrix or any of the best artists.

Nirvana are icons every bit as much as anyone you mention, that is a simple fact. Nobody is turning them into an icon unrighteously, nobody is pulling a fast-one over our eyes. If John Lennon is a valid icon, then so is Kurt Cobain. You don't like it but that doesn't mean it's invalid. Nirvana didn't play loud to annoy people. They played loud because it sounds good and feels good (to some people, like me). It's all just opinions and taste, nothing you can say can get around that. You say Dream Theater is better than Nirvana in every way, but I say Nirvana had way better musicianship than Dream Theater. Nirvana had raw entertainment value like no other, and they dared to be primitive which makes them infinitely more intriuging musically. I'm not trying to diss Dream Theater, I'm just saying that Nirvana's brand of musicianship is so much more powerful for me. Everybody and their dog plays stuff that's comparable to technical apptitude, Nirvana just seems to play stuff that is awesome, and they're better for it. It's not like they're monkeys, the only difference I can tell when listening to Nirvana compared to somebody else is that Nirvana occasionally seems groovier because often times their music is more focused.

 

[newdawnfades]

How can you have an intelligent debate with someone that relies on Weird Al songs to make their points?

Who listens to Dream Theater outside of those that love to hear 5 songs worth of guitar wanking crammed into one song? They are incredible musicians who have absolutely no sense of the subtlety in any of their songs. It's almost as if they have such an inferiority complex that they have to overcompensate with their instruments in an attempt to hide their lack of knowledge in how to properly arrange a song.

I can't believe you are mentioning Dream Theater in the same sentence as Nirvana. Too funny! No offense EvilErk, but your knowledge of what makes good music is in a word immature.

 

[TheEvilErk2008]

Listen to in bloom, and then listen to comfortably numb.
Listen to smells like teen spirit then listen to more than a feeling
Listen to come as you are and then to another one bites the dust
Listen to lithium and then to Home (DT)

They have some good stuff, they can make a song nearly comparable to other bands without as much skill, and do it in one album. We all have our roots, they have theres. I dont respect them because they DIDNT strive to be better, the DIDNT strive to actually sing, they DIDNT strive to write lyrics that took intelligence.
O by the way, if calling me immature based on Wierd Al, that was one of my personal favorites a few years back, but it actually got me into Nirvana. I found that listening to nirvana is slightly more immature. Have you ever even listened to the Scenes from a memory album by DT? If thats immature, im sorry but i believe society needs a new websters dictionary. Nirvana couldnt be a mature basis of principle if BLS took over the world. most songs of Dream theaters are quite subtle, though some extra bass wouldnt kill them. Its a "rock musicians" band. Nirvana is not a musicians band, it does not provide a challenge of skill or a expansion of what one knows.

ma·ture (m-tyr, -tr, -chr)
adj.
1. Worked out fully by the mind; considered: a mature plan of action.
2. Having reached the limit of its time; due: a mature bond.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of full mental or physical development.
4. To evolve toward or reach full development
your definition appears to be more like "consider the fact that they think that they are better and look upon them as gods of what tehy do. Disregard skill, coherentcy, complexity, and ability to reason."

 

[newdawnfades]

Okay Weird Al. Skill and complexity are nothing if the product is horrible. Dream Theater will never be in the same planet as Nirvana. They lack emotion. Their song arrangements are horrible, just a collection of guitar parts. I've listened to quite a bit of their material and I would never waste my time again. If you like them because of their musicianship then that's cool, but that's all they have going for them. They have no idea on how to put together a coherent, quality song.

I want to ask this question to be clear, you actually think that Dream Theater are in the same league as Nirvana?

 

[TheEvilErk2008]

HELL NO
nirvana is for shows for getting a croud into it and so is dream theater. The differnce is the type of people it connects with. Americans just happen to be the type of people that nirvana appeals to and why DT has been shunned from the states. If i want emotion, i listen to music, not lyrics. If you havent heard Liquid Tension Expieriment II you should check it out. I get a buzz of emotion from everysong, but no lyrics.

You also must realize that, as im apart of a prog band, my opinions are influenced by drummers and rock guitarist, who only play the classics

 

[newdawnfades]

If you want emotion you listen to music without vocals?? You are talking about emotion and dissing on Nirvana despite the fact that Cobain's vocals are dripping with emotion? You are confused my friend.

First, I don't know how you could believe that a guitar, drum, or bass could convey emotion better than a voice. Instrumentals have always been secondary to vocal songs because people don't connect quite as strongly to a song without a voice to it.

I don't know what being American or European or Asian has to do with Nirvana being a great band. We can pull up worldwide sales of Nirvana's albums and i'm sure you are going to find the same popularity.

There's a reason why DT are not very popular. They just aren't very good. Sure, they have their niche among musicians just because they are skilled, but when I am sad or angry I sure as hell am not going to spin a DT album over Nirvana or Floyd.

You want an instrumentalist that can create intense emotions with their guitar you listen to Santana or Gilmour, not DT. They are more soulless than Satriani and Vai.

 

[TheEvilErk2008]

That was not my point. My point was the show and performances they do. Sales dont really mean much now-a-days, but thats a differecnt topic. By connect im talking about that emotion of cobains, poeple of america connect with it, i dont. you are right in the fact that floyd is the best at conveying emotion.

I am slightly crazy. im different from poeple in the fact that i find more emotion from a D minor chord than someone screaming there head off. i dont think an artist should ever have to explain the mood of the music. My friend gets mad at me for this same reason, and obvously im not much of a relationship person. Give me a guitar, illl say what i want through it.
You have another point also, and thats Nirvanas angry feel, but im really not a very angry person, i dont connect with it.
WE really should get of DT because it really has no relevancy to why there is no repect for nirvana. DT has plenty of stuff that i enjoy for every emotion, but this is not common for all people.

i can see the appeal it would have to a canibis enthusiast, but id rather get that appeal from more...in depth music.

so we have come to the agreement that floyd is the best i would assume, for this genre of emotion. leave it at that and go make a floyd thread.