Jump to content

Nirvana


anagramking
 Share

Recommended Posts

(Mod Note: This topic was split from the "Worst Genre In Music" thread.)

 

I couldn't decide. But why did you leave off Nirvana? You want to talk about a person that destroyed the concept of rock guitar, it was Kurt Cobain. And that is why nobody solos anymore, to answer someone's earlier question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 8 2005, 08:39 PM)
I couldn't decide.  But why did you leave off Nirvana?  You want to talk about a person that destroyed the concept of rock guitar, it was Kurt Cobain.  And that is why nobody solos anymore, to answer someone's earlier question.

omfg

 

I totally disagree in more ways than one. Cobain played leads but they just weren't that great compared to some of the great guitarists. Some of his songs don't have solos but who says every song needs a solo anyway? I got tired of every song being laid out the same way every time, verse chorus verse chorus, solo, verse, etc, etc, whatever......

 

Some bands before him played and didn't have solos so I don't see why everyone claims he changed rock-n-roll in that way. It just goes to show you that if you have a good song then it don't necessarily need a solo to make it a great song. Music isn't meant to have a formula that everyone follows, it would get mighty boring if so. Cobain had a lot of things in his music to keep it not boring, in my opinion.

 

And this is coming from a "solo freak" (Me).....I spent Hours (days, weeks, MONTHS rather) of my life learning note for note leads from guitar greats like Randy Rhoads, Eddie V-H, Alex lifeson, Jimmy Page, Clapton, etc, etc. In other words, I LOVE leads, but I also like bands that are good enough to write good songs that are good without a solo.

 

Did I mention that Cobain played solos in some of his songs? yes.gif

 

So if bands are not playing solos in their songs then how can it be because of Cobain, who DOES play solos in some of his songs?

Edited by Indica
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Indica @ Oct 10 2005, 12:03 PM)
QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 8 2005, 08:39 PM)
I couldn't decide.  But why did you leave off Nirvana?  You want to talk about a person that destroyed the concept of rock guitar, it was Kurt Cobain.  And that is why nobody solos anymore, to answer someone's earlier question.

omfg

 

I totally disagree in more ways than one. Cobain played leads but they just weren't that great compared to some of the great guitarists. Some of his songs don't have solos but who says every song needs a solo anyway? I got tired of every song being laid out the same way every time, verse chorus verse chorus, solo, verse, etc, etc, whatever......

 

Some bands before him played and didn't have solos so I don't see why everyone claims he changed rock-n-roll in that way. It just goes to show you that if you have a good song then it don't necessarily need a solo to make it a great song. Music isn't meant to have a formula that everyone follows, it would get mighty boring if so. Cobain had a lot of things in his music to keep it not boring, in my opinion.

 

And this is coming from a "solo freak" (Me).....I spent Hours (days, weeks, MONTHS rather) of my life learning note for note leads from guitar greats like Randy Rhoads, Eddie V-H, Alex lifeson, Jimmy Page, Clapton, etc, etc. In other words, I LOVE leads, but I also like bands that are good enough to write good songs that are good without a solo.

 

Did I mention that Cobain played solos in some of his songs? yes.gif

 

So if bands are not playing solos in their songs then how can it be because of Cobain, who DOES play solos in some of his songs?

But are you clamoring to learn the notes to a Nirvana song or solo in the same way you clamored to learn the notes to Diary of a Madman or Mother Revleation/Steal Away? I have friends who spent their youth learning to play the same stuff you mentioned learning. One of my friends said that all that is necessary now is three chords, the distortion knob turned to 10, and attitude. It didn't use to be that way. Sure there were bands that made it without solos and such before Nirvana, but Nirvana really did open the floodgates. And I do blame hair bands like Poison for facilitating the rise of grunge and other popular derivative forms of rock in the 90s. Hair bands played solos, but they took away any meaning to them that may have existed beforehand. I understand that songs don't need solos. I never said every song needs a solo. But damn, give us a hint of musicianship at least. Is that so much to ask?

 

But what is the genius of Nirvana, honestly? I fail to see it. Anytime I ask some fan about that, I get a response that implies that I'm just too dense to understand, or that I'll never appreciate the "artistry" contained within. I mean, that's some miserable, self indulgent stuff, quite honestly. I like you, I'm not coming back, I kill you I'm not coming baaaaaaaaaack. WTF? No I don't have a gunnn....

Edited by anagramking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 10 2005, 03:24 PM)
I like you, I'm not coming back, I kill you I'm not coming baaaaaaaaaack. No I don't have a gunnn....

That's ingenious, clever!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Indica @ Oct 10 2005, 06:32 PM)
QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 10 2005, 03:24 PM)
I like you, I'm not coming back, I kill you I'm not coming baaaaaaaaaack.  No I don't have a gunnn....

That's ingenious, clever!!!!

Couldn't resist. But damn, that kind of stuff is so depressing. I fail to see the inherent artistic value.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 10 2005, 08:26 PM)
QUOTE (Indica @ Oct 10 2005, 06:32 PM)
QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 10 2005, 03:24 PM)
I like you, I'm not coming back, I kill you I'm not coming baaaaaaaaaack.  No I don't have a gunnn....

That's ingenious, clever!!!!

Couldn't resist. But damn, that kind of stuff is so depressing. I fail to see the inherent artistic value.

So you're saying anything depressing is not artistic? There are sooo many examples of depressing stuff that is considered artistic...in all types of medium; music, movies, poetry, art, etc.....

 

 

Have you ever listened to the Unplugged in New York album? Yes it is depressing; but there is some great playing on that show.

 

 

Anyone who can totally change the whole music scene overnight like Nirvana did in the early 90's must be doing something right. They help get rid of those shitty hair bands as well as the soulless dance music that was rampant back then.

 

They brought rock music back to the forefront whether u like them or not.

Edited by Test4VitalSigns
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To just be depressing nonstop is a little much. Not the same as a part of a repertoire.

 

Nobody will ever get rid of soulless dance music. That will be around as long as people want to dance. Hair bands were going to die out anyway.

 

Can somebody please explain the genius and the talent of Nirvana/Kurt Cobain beyond citing their commercial success?

Edited by anagramking
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 10 2005, 10:34 PM)
To just be depressing nonstop is a little much. Not the same as a part of a repertoire.

Nobody will ever get rid of soulless dance music. That will be around as long as people want to dance. Hair bands were going to die out anyway.

Can somebody please explain the genius and the talent of Nirvana/Kurt Cobain beyond citing their commercial success?

I personally thought his lyrics were poetic in describing his emotional pain though depressing as it is. john Lennon did it well. A few others too.

 

A lot of kids were disenfranchised with society back then, with going thru divorce, abuse, shitty job prospects, not to mention the baby boomers sitting on their high horses praising themselves endlessly and cashing in on everything. They never had anyone spoke for them.

 

I supposed Pearl Jam sucked too. Soundgarden. Those bands wouldn't be big without Nirvana kicking in the door.

 

 

Rock is about emotion and Nirvana was about pain and anger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Oct 10 2005, 08:52 PM)
So you're saying anything depressing is not artistic? There are sooo many examples of depressing stuff that is considered artistic...in all types of medium; music, movies, poetry, art, etc.....


Have you ever listened to the Unplugged in New York album? Yes it is depressing; but there is some great playing on that show.


Anyone who can totally change the whole music scene overnight like Nirvana did in the early 90's must be doing something right. They help get rid of those shitty hair bands as well as the soulless dance music that was rampant back then.

They brought rock music back to the forefront whether u like them or not.

goodpost.gif HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Oct 10 2005, 11:07 PM)
QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 10 2005, 10:34 PM)
To just be depressing nonstop is a little much.  Not the same as a part of a repertoire. 

Nobody will ever get rid of soulless dance music.  That will be around as long as people want to dance.  Hair bands were going to die out anyway. 

Can somebody please explain the genius and the talent of Nirvana/Kurt Cobain beyond citing their commercial success?

I personally thought his lyrics were poetic in describing his emotional pain though depressing as it is. john Lennon did it well. A few others too.

 

A lot of kids were disenfranchised with society back then, with going thru divorce, abuse, shitty job prospects, not to mention the baby boomers sitting on their high horses praising themselves endlessly and cashing in on everything. They never had anyone spoke for them.

 

I supposed Pearl Jam sucked too. Soundgarden. Those bands wouldn't be big without Nirvana kicking in the door.

 

 

Rock is about emotion and Nirvana was about pain and anger.

Good point about John Lennon. But he didn't make it his entire repertoire. And I guess the thing is, too many acts afterwards decided that anger and such was where it was at, and it got tired. All these acts, angry all the time, making millions telling us how angry and miserable they are. And that was started by Nirvana. I was in the age group you mentioned. I saw that, lived some of it, whatever. But I never identified with the inherent message of hopelessness. Per the issue of depressing songs and such, ELP did some songs that were melancholy, like C'est la Vie and Trilogy, but damn, that wasn't their whole repertoire. And unlike Nirvana, the musicianship was first rate. And C'est la Vie didn't have any solos. But it was beautiful. No atonality, with quality vocals.

 

Anyway, nobody's mind is going to be changed. It doesn't matter much. I have had these debates often enough in the past, usually with people who do not like Rush, so it's interesting discussing this someone that does like Rush. Test, you make some interesting points about the generations. I think baby boomers were going through bad times as well. The high horse thing you talk about preceded this period. It all came crashing down for a lot of the boomers. Divorces, stock market crashes, real estate busts, phasing out of middle management jobs, you name it. It was a bad time for a lot of people, and not just Generation X. Well, anyway...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Oct 11 2005, 12:07 AM)



Rock is about emotion and Nirvana was about pain and anger.

Yes, very true. I think Nirvana had so much success is because a lot of people in the world related with what he was expressing. Solos are one way of expressing emotion, but in music there's more ways than one to express yourself artistically and if a lot of people can relate with that then it's a lot easier to become popular. How many other bands do you often hear people saying that they changed the music scene overnight. Not too many, a lot of people have to relate and connect for this to happen. It don't happen often.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Indica @ Oct 11 2005, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Oct 11 2005, 12:07 AM)



Rock is about emotion and Nirvana was about pain and anger.

Yes, very true. I think Nirvana had so much success is because a lot of people in the world related with what he was expressing. Solos are one way of expressing emotion, but in music there's more ways than one to express yourself artistically and if a lot of people can relate with that then it's a lot easier to become popular. How many other bands do you often hear people saying that they changed the music scene overnight. Not too many, a lot of people have to relate and connect for this to happen. It don't happen often.

What song and lyrics are an example of what everyone related to? By the way, my apologies for the wrong lyrics before. I really thought that it was I'm not coming back, but it's I'm not gonna crack. Shows how closely I followed them. Is it the mood they set for the listener? I just think it becomes very self indulgent at a point, especially when the artist is making millions telling people how miserable he is. Anger and pain are legitimate emotions, but to rely solely on those emotions, isn't there something wrong there? And really, Cobain's suicide created the aura that accompanies early death, as had happened with Jim Morrison and Jimi Hendrix. And he knew it would, and made mention of it before his death. He made the conscious decision to leave his young child by doing what he did. Further evidence of absolute self indulgence. I cannot revere or respect anybody for such actions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Moonraker @ Oct 11 2005, 04:44 PM)
The story behind his first suicide attempt is even worse. As a person, I dont think Cobain was that great, but credit has to be given for what he did do to change the musical climate.

I forgot about that first attempt. Yikes. Didn't he try to imbibe some lethal cocktail? I'm just not sure that the changes brought about were good changes. If I'm wrong, what positives did he bring? Supplanting hair bands is not the correct answer. I don't think anybody per se can be credited for that, as bad a form of rock as that was. What exactly was it that Cobain changed that we can all rejoice about today?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wasnt the one that changed it persay, he was the one that gained the noteriety of changing it though. Music in general was on the move and his sound just happened to be the sound of what was emerging. What he did though was bring a disinfranchised way of thinking to the mainstream, a way of calling out all the pop music and hair metal on the bs that it was. After Nirvana, people stopped paying attention to hair bands.

 

I had also heard his first attempt involved raping a mentally retarded girl and ODing on herion on a train track, hoping to get run over. That way he wouldnt die a virgin. The train though switched tracks and he was never run over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Moonraker @ Oct 11 2005, 05:21 PM)
He wasnt the one that changed it persay, he was the one that gained the noteriety of changing it though. Music in general was on the move and his sound just happened to be the sound of what was emerging. What he did though was bring a disinfranchised way of thinking to the mainstream, a way of calling out all the pop music and hair metal on the bs that it was. After Nirvana, people stopped paying attention to hair bands.

I had also heard his first attempt involved raping a mentally retarded girl and ODing on herion on a train track, hoping to get run over. That way he wouldnt die a virgin. The train though switched tracks and he was never run over.

Wow, that's some sick stuff there.

 

But who's to say his brand was no less BS than stuff like Poison or Motley Crue, or Michael Bolton or Richard Marx? To me, that sound also killed what was left of musicianship (and the four acts I mentioned in the previous sentences are not musicianship that was killed). It told me that there would no longer be any premium attached to it. It meant, as my buddy said, three chords, the distortion knob turned to 10, and ATTITUDE! Be angry, f**k everything. YEAH!! And it seemed so fake. Maybe it was art as expression briefly, but it became art as market campaigns before we all knew what had hit us. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think Nirvana itself was BS at all, it was a new style of music that definatly had an originality to it not seen before. What was BS though was the countless bands that tried to rip Nirvana's sound for thier own personal gain. There were countless grunge bands that followed in Nirvana's footsteps that gained public recognition that wouldnt have otherwise even been on the radar had it not been for them. Nirvana wasnt BS, they just inspired a great deal of it. Its a little hard now I guess to recognize Nirvana for what they did when you look at what happened in thier wake.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Moonraker @ Oct 12 2005, 12:04 AM)
I dont think Nirvana itself was BS at all, it was a new style of music that definatly had an originality to it not seen before. What was BS though was the countless bands that tried to rip Nirvana's sound for thier own personal gain. There were countless grunge bands that followed in Nirvana's footsteps that gained public recognition that wouldnt have otherwise even been on the radar had it not been for them. Nirvana wasnt BS, they just inspired a great deal of it. Its a little hard now I guess to recognize Nirvana for what they did when you look at what happened in thier wake.

As for the originality question, some have accused them of ripping of the Pixies, but I wouldn't know, since I haven't listened to them. One of my friends said that Come As You Are was a slowed down version of a Bauhaus song. Thing is, groups today bank on their target audience not knowing the original source of their material. But what was this original sound? I notice a pattern of quiet, building up into a three chord rage, then quiet, then three chord rage, and so on. (It's so stupid and contagious, apparently.) I see that pattern a lot. Too often. I just can't get past the self indulgent quality of Nirvana (and other grunge bands for that matter), and it's hard for me to feel his pain, seeing him make millions off his pity party until he decided to leave his son to fend for himself with that god awful wife of his, and to create for himself the aura reserved for prematurely dead rock stars. It all seems so planned out and twisted. Why people would want anything associated with that to be their sound is beyond me. Kinda creepy, really.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 11 2005, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE (Indica @ Oct 11 2005, 04:04 PM)
QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Oct 11 2005, 12:07 AM)



Rock is about emotion and Nirvana was about pain and anger.

Yes, very true. I think Nirvana had so much success is because a lot of people in the world related with what he was expressing. Solos are one way of expressing emotion, but in music there's more ways than one to express yourself artistically and if a lot of people can relate with that then it's a lot easier to become popular. How many other bands do you often hear people saying that they changed the music scene overnight. Not too many, a lot of people have to relate and connect for this to happen. It don't happen often.

What song and lyrics are an example of what everyone related to?

An example of a song and lyrics that I related to was "Pennyroyal Tea", I can't speak for others and which songs they can relate to but obviously they do also. It may sound stupid to you but at the time he wrote this tune I had bad stomach ulcers and was in pain for 7-8 years in a row, became depressed and I played guitar in a band as he did. I'm not claiming I'm exactly like Kurt but his story behind the song he wrote matched mine in many ways, and evidently a lot of others too. I heard an interview and he told what this song was about and I was like wow, THATS ME. confused13.gif

 

I'm on my time with everyone

I have very bad posture

 

Sit and drink Pennyroyal Tea

Distill the life that's inside of me

Sit and drink Pennyroyal Tea

I'm anemic royalty

 

Give me a Leonard Cohen afterworld

So I can sigh eternally

I'm so tired I can't sleep

I'm a liar and a thief

 

Sit and drink Pennyroyal Tea

I'm anemic royalty

 

I'm on warm milk and laxatives

Cherry-flavored antacids

 

Sit and drink Pennyroyal Tea

Distill the life that's inside of me

Sit and drink Pennyroyal Tea

I'm anemic royalty

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 12 2005, 12:45 AM)
QUOTE (Moonraker @ Oct 12 2005, 12:04 AM)
I dont think Nirvana itself was BS at all, it was a new style of music that definatly had an originality to it not seen before.  What was BS though was the countless bands that tried to rip Nirvana's sound for thier own personal gain.  There were countless grunge bands that followed in Nirvana's footsteps that gained public recognition that wouldnt have otherwise even been on the radar had it not been for them.  Nirvana wasnt BS, they just inspired a great deal of it.  Its a little hard now I guess to recognize Nirvana for what they did when you look at what happened in thier wake.

As for the originality question, some have accused them of ripping of the Pixies, but I wouldn't know, since I haven't listened to them. One of my friends said that Come As You Are was a slowed down version of a Bauhaus song. Thing is, groups today bank on their target audience not knowing the original source of their material. But what was this original sound? I notice a pattern of quiet, building up into a three chord rage, then quiet, then three chord rage, and so on. (It's so stupid and contagious, apparently.) I see that pattern a lot. Too often. I just can't get past the self indulgent quality of Nirvana (and other grunge bands for that matter), and it's hard for me to feel his pain, seeing him make millions off his pity party until he decided to leave his son to fend for himself with that god awful wife of his, and to create for himself the aura reserved for prematurely dead rock stars. It all seems so planned out and twisted. Why people would want anything associated with that to be their sound is beyond me. Kinda creepy, really.

Planned out and twisted? You got a shrink degree there AK? How do you know Kurt's state of mind? I'm not condoning what he did but none of us knows his reasons for offing himself. Only he knew that. Obviously he was in a lot of emotional and physical pain, was overwhelmed by the whole media frenzy, and got caught up in his addiction too much. It's obviously he was mentally ill and to judge him is pretty harsh.

 

I also don't buy the notion he "marketed" the band's music on his personal problems (the pity party as u call it.) He wrote songs to express what he was going thru and it's not his fault millions of people connected to it and made him the star he became. As a matter of fact it's the record companies who banked on this signing every single band in Nirvana's wake. To blame Kurt for this is ludicrous and unfair. It happened when Elvis became big, the Beatles breaking through, Zep, and many other trend setting bands. John Lennon wa depressed when Beatlemania was at it's peak and hated the whole thing, thus beginning to road to the band's demise.

 

Kurt wanted to be recognized but not to the extent of what happened. I read an interview somewhere he wanted more than anything to be a "cult" fav, like Sonic Youth, one of his fav bands. He himself dissed the whole grunge thing (His dislike for Pearl Jam and other grunge bands was well known).

 

If he was trying to "market" his "pity party" why did he battle the record company who wanted a "Nevermind" 2? Why did he threaten to break up the band? In Utero was in no way a "commercial-sounding" album like Nevermind was. IMO it contained a lot of artistic and honest stuff. On the first song(Serve The Servants) he even acknowledges the bullshit of the whole hype...

 

"Teenage angst has paid off well

Now I'm bored and old

Self-appointed judges judge

More than they have sold"

 

In the same song he deals with estrangement with his father (which many people persoanlly know about very well; especially in the late 80's, early 90's)

 

"As my bones grew they did hurt

They hurt really bad

I tried hard to have a father

But instead I had a dad

 

I just want you to know that I

Don't hate you anymore

There is nothing I could say

That I haven't thought before"

 

He expressed his rage at the media exploitation of his personal life with the song Rape Me.

 

He gives clues as to his mental well being (speaks volumes of bi-polar) with songs like Lithium and Dumb.

 

He speaks out against rape with Polly...about his time of being homeless with Something In The Way...

 

Many examples of songs of social relevance and reasons for people to connect. Examples of art; creating something that expresses the essence of life, good and bad.

 

 

 

Also AK the boomers had their music to lose themselves in when things got bad back then and the younger generation wanted their own music to speak for them and Nirvana, as well as the other trend setting bands (PJ, Soundgarden AIC, not the tons of wannabes that were cashing in) was their choice. Back in the 60's bands like The Rolling Stones, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, etc... were also scorned for their rebellious and outspoken ways and the bands mentioned above are the 90's version of those bands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (anagramking @ Oct 12 2005, 12:45 AM)

until he decided to leave his son to fend for himself with that god awful wife of his,

Also he left behind a daughter not a son...if you are going to judge the guy at least get the facts straight...

 

I too deplore him for doing this and think it was very wrong but that doesn't dismiss the impact his music had on culture....

 

 

 

 

 

 

And don't forget the suspected foul play rumours surrounding his death ( I don't personally believe it but u never know).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...