Kurt Cobain Memorial thread

[acostiga]

what about nwa being an important group from the 1990's? the groundbreaking work of eazy e, dr. dre and the rest of the crew? you guys all probably don't think halle berry is one of the most beautiful women in the world either, right?

also- am i the only cubicle-dweller who will be forced to dwell tomorrow?

[noodles]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
"Newer Bands" that belong with the greats, IMHO:

Pearl Jam
Guns N Roses
Metallica
Red Hot Chili Peppers
RunDMC
Black Crowes
SRV (might be considered old by some)
Talking Heads
Janes Addiction
The Police
Public Enemy


On the Bubble:

Alice In Chains (would make the greats on MY list)
Jay Z
Van Halen
Rush
Peter Gabriel
Tupac Shakur

Alice in Chains - best. grunge. band. ever.

Nirvana doesn't deserve to be in the same thread about Nirvana.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by noodles
Nirvana doesn't deserve to be in the same thread about Nirvana.

You just blew my mind.

[The AD]

Originally posted by acostiga
what about nwa being an important group from the 1990's? the groundbreaking work of eazy e, dr. dre and the rest of the crew? you guys all probably don't think halle berry is one of the most beautiful women in the world either, right?

I'd say the fact that N.W.A.'s most influential album "Straight Outta Compton" came up in 1988 precludes them, yes. They certainly were/are influential to gangsta rap, for whatever that's worth.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Rock music would be radically different today, or would have changed at a relatively glacial pace, had it not been for the Beatles.

Let's ignore Bo Diddley, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Zappa, the Kinks and play some really vacuous "what-if" history.

All it boils down to is if you like the music or not. This is not the Vatican.

[mr_gyptian]

Originally posted by Schmear
The critical argument behind elevating Nivana to "best in history" status seems to be that its sound (and Cobain's lyrics) marked a dramatic turning point in rock away from cheesy '80s pop melodies and hair bands.

So to you rock historians...is this a fair portrayal of Nirvana? Did it singlehandedly change rock forever?

How many times does Kurt Loder have to beat it into your head that grunge was nothing but a cheap take off of Neil Young?

[acostiga]

Originally posted by The AD
I'd say the fact that N.W.A.'s most influential album "Straight Outta Compton" came up in 1988 precludes them, yes. They certainly were/are influential to gangsta rap, for whatever that's worth.

whatyagonnado, eh? they weren't an influential group in the 90's because their most popular album was released at the end of the previous decade? it's all good.

[Viva]

Originally posted by Schmear
The critical argument behind elevating Nivana to "best in history" status seems to be that its sound (and Cobain's lyrics) marked a dramatic turning point in rock away from cheesy '80s pop melodies and hair bands.

So to you rock historians...is this a fair portrayal of Nirvana? Did it singlehandedly change rock forever?

I say that Nirvana took a sound...a style that had been around for more than a few years and propelled that into the mainstream.

Bands that came before and did or probably did influence Nirvana include:

Mission of Burma
Dinosaur jr.
Pere Ubu
The Adolescents
Social Distortion
Husker Du (yes, I know there's suppose to be an umlaut there)
Red Temple Spirits
and others...

[Buster Highmen]

Pere Ubu sounds like Nirvana? Huh? Can I borrow your ears?

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Let's ignore Bo Diddley, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Zappa, the Kinks and play some really vacuous "what-if" history.

Evidently you failed to read what this was in response to. I am not ignoring anyone, but you are choosing read very selectively. I don't see how this 'what-if' is particularly vacuous, but to imply that the Beatles are less than what I said doesn't seem right. But that's just me (and probably many people who should know even better than I do).

All it boils down to is if you like the music or not. This is not the Vatican.

So let's stop playing Pope, eh?
The question was 'did Nirvana change music the way these other groups did', and I would submit that the answer is no.

[The AD]

I don't know if they actually sued, but Killing Joke accused Nirvana of stealing the guitar riff from "Eighties" in "Come As You Are." I think Nirvana even more or less admitted they did. So I guess you can add Killing Joke to the list of influences. Of course every band has influences. The great ones build on these influences to transcend their predecessors.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki


Evidently So let's stop playing Pope, eh?

You first.

The question was 'did Nirvana change music the way these other groups did', and I would submit that the answer is no.

Well, geez, if you can go inventing the questions, no wonder you get the answers.

While Nirvana may not have been the originator of some particular sound or musical ethos, can it be argued that they were at least the conduit for the shift from supposedly atonal polemic to lusty pop paradigm.

If we are to construe M. Le Schmear's queries in this light, there may be merit to a "yes" answer.

However, to singlehandedly credit Nirvana with making toilets swirl backwards, spreading dehydrated whirled peas in the stratosphere and maintaining the perpetual sound emanating from the Big Note, I may hand in my papacy.

[The AD]

Talking about music is such a great excuse to pontificate, though, isn't it? All of us inherently know that our own taste in music is superior to everyone else's.

[meatdrink9]

music is good.

I own several Nirvana disks and liked them at the time. They were a "good" band IMO, but they didn't really blow me away. However I had friends that were completely nuts for them. That was all they would listen to. One kid in my highschool killed himself after Kurt. He was the biggest Nirvana fan I knew.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody can tell you what you to like. Music grabs different people for different reasons. I think a lot of people were able to identify with Kurt and that helped them feel that their problems weren't their own. I know I've identified with other bands on this same level. We "the critics" need to shut our holes and give props to those to put something out there and create rather than sit back and complain about those people who are actually doing something.

RIP Kurt

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by meatdrink9
We "the critics" need to shut our holes and give props to those to put something out there and create rather than sit back and complain about those people who are actually doing something.

RIP Kurt

Hear, hear!
(except about this radiohead thingy....)

[meatdrink9]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen
Hear, hear!
(except about this radiohead thingy....)

ha ha. You best learn to use the winkies when talkin bout radiohead son.

[Buster Highmen]

What???? No Zappa ripost? Hand in your keyboard, young (t)G(r)edi!!!!

[Schmear]

Originally posted by meatdrink9
We "the critics" need to shut our holes and give props to those to put something out there and create rather than sit back and complain about those people who are actually doing something.

Well, except for when they create something really really awful.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Tap
http://www.squidsear.com/ear/images/.../NakedCity.jpg

That is a great record. John Zorn is a KooK. Gumshoe rain wipers, bottle smashing gin joint stale smoky cigar pool hall jazz.

[meatdrink9]

Originally posted by Schmear
Well, except for when they create something really really awful.

Agreed, but who are you and I to be determining the "greatness" of anyone?

[The Reverend Floater]

BUSTAH:

Check out this week's www.theonion.com and scroll down! How appropriate!

[Buster Highmen]

Nancarro Varese Frith Stravinsky Cage Henry Cow Art Bears Stockhausen

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
BUSTAH:

Check out this week's www.theonion.com and scroll down! How appropriate!

Hey, who do you think write that shit? Between that, the Weekly World News, Topology and this poop, my fingers be hurtin'


Take this, or take your late night poseur fest.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Schmear
So to you rock historians...is this a fair portrayal of Nirvana? Did it singlehandedly change rock forever?

Buster, I promise I didn't 'invent' this question. My Jedi mind tricks don't work on Schmear.
I didn't realize that in mentioning the Beatles and their importance I also had to account for Bo, Buddy, Elvis, Zappa, the Kinks...just because you didn't mention Jimi, Clapton, Buddy, Chuck B., James B., Byrds, etc. etc. I wouldn't think you're ignoring them. The Beatles wouldn't have existed without U.S. R+B, but that's not the point.
Many books have been written on this, I was just giving a brief example in response to a question.
I wouldn't tell anyone that Nirvana shouldn't be listened to, but my opinion of their musical importance is not very high. That's all. As for their influence on which way toilets swirl, well, I'd see a plumber about that.

[joshbu]

Originally posted by meatdrink9
music is good.

I own several Nirvana disks and liked them at the time. They were a "good" band IMO, but they didn't really blow me away. However I had friends that were completely nuts for them. That was all they would listen to. One kid in my highschool killed himself after Kurt. He was the biggest Nirvana fan I knew.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody can tell you what you to like. Music grabs different people for different reasons. I think a lot of people were able to identify with Kurt and that helped them feel that their problems weren't their own. I know I've identified with other bands on this same level. We "the critics" need to shut our holes and give props to those to put something out there and create rather than sit back and complain about those people who are actually doing something.

RIP Kurt

I'm actually going to disagree with you. The VAST majority of music is bad. Really bad. Much worse than Nirvana, which was actually good sometimes. The critic's role is to insure that only reasonably good stuff makes it into your ear canal. Sure, there's different genres, but most people can actually pick out good and bad examples of genres that they don't even like, or listen to frequently. Are critics fail-proof? Does all of the good stuff get elevated and the bad stuff squashed? Clearly not, but there's no better way of insuring that we don't have to wade through more musical crap than we already do.