I liked Nirvana back in the 90's, but any ******* who kills himself and leaves his child alone with some idiot mother is a loser in my book.
i don't believe i could compare any rock band to the genuis of a man who puts symphonies together that stand for hundreds of years as nearly sacred. i love rock music...and i have my own favorite artists...but arranging a rock album...and arranging a symphony with a orchestra are two entirely separate things.
Seems like to me rock stars who die in or a little past their prime are said to be greater then the ones that live. IMHO. Cobain, Elvis, Lennon
You hit the nail on the head! There aren't many musicians alive that are as talented and prolific as Prince. The man is simply a musical genious. As for Nivanna, you kinda had to be there. They are not a band that you judge just by listening to them out of context. If you were born before 1975 you probably appreciate them more than those who weren't. They were this little noisy band that shook the foundations of the music industry at the time. When the airwaves were being dominated by Michael Jackson, New Kids on The Block, and all those 80s hair bands, here comes this song that sounds like a Pixies rip-off. (Kurt even admitted it.) They were the opposite of everything that was being forced on us by the music industry. Their music was simple yet complex. The lyrics were intriging yet confusing. Half the fun was trying to figure out what he said and then trying to figure out what the hell he meant! They made simple beatle-esque pop songs that hit you like a ton of bricks. When he offed himself you were left with an empty feeling in your gut. His death cast a shroud of sadness over many. His death was similar to Hendrix in the sense that you felt cheated. You were never going to know where else he would have taken music. In short, Nivana was more then just a band. They defined a period of time in music history. They made a huge impact. They changed everything at the time. All without really even trying or intending to do so.
insert the words "Pearl Jam" in place of the word "Nirvana" in your post above and see how much differently it reads. it's a sound that was not/is not entirely unique to Nirvana. in fact, at the time, people were making incredible claims about Pearl Jam....calling Eddie Vedder the next Jim Morrison. and then Kurt Cobain died, and everything changed.
I just meant they are geniuses musically. But I guess most people don't think so. I was explaining to somebody, that their music has a rare quality which i call 'Rightness'. As in everything, (vocals and music), sound right. Nearly every song. Mozart and Chopin most notably share that quality from the classical music realm. A few bands have been able to reproduce 'Rightness', but not as consistently as Nirvana in my opinion. Besides that, they are hugely influential in terms of starting the grunge era of rock.
I dont understand why some people dont look at this situation from all the angles. Do you know how many hardcore Sublime fans in my life. The band Nirvana is very very good. But i dont think much better then Alice in Chains, STP, Pearl Jam, Smashing Pumpkins. But Kurt died and that is the biggest diffrence. I can almost promise you if Eddie Vedder died when Kurt did we would be having this same discussion about Pearl Jam.
SpaceCity....don't you mean after 1975? anyone born before 1975 would have already grown up on a whole plethora of bands that are much better than Nirvana. Nirvana ws just the most popular of the grunge bands...it doesnt make them special...their music was taken from their predecessors(punk,metal) and their lyrics were nothing more than the standard themes that appeal to anguished teenagers. Just like many bands before them. Comparing them to Mozart is a supreme disservice to not only Mozart, but the dozens of more original rock bands that came before them over several eras...50s-90s. and a correction to you younguns that think all the 80s were was hairbands and new wave....there actually were good rock n roll bands out there...just because you arent familiar with them does not mean they didnt exist.
I can't believe so many people are taking this conversation seriously. I got Nirvana's stuff in high school when they were popular. I soon after gave them away. Their craftsmanship was ok but nothing special. Musically, they did nothing particularly interesting. And Cobain's lyrics sounded (1) uneducated and (2) juvenile. And, my standards as a teenager on such points were significantly lower than my current standards.
Every Nirvana song can easily be summed up as: verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse CHORUS CHORUS CHORUS CHORUS verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse CHORUS CHORUS CHORUS CHORUS guitar solo that simply mimics chorus melody verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse verse CHORUS CHORUS CHORUS CHORUS
Good point. Actually, I think the guitar solo has been a lost art for some time now and I blame Kurt along with a lot of other 'grunge' era guitarists for that. Seems like most solos since then have taken the 'mimic the melody' approach. But that's another thead...
WHAT!?! WHAT!? WHAT!? Doing my best Chappelle impersonation of Lil' Jon and am genuinely being confused.
Led Zeppelin was great. Nirvana was okay. Prince WAS okay. But there are ZERO musicians that are anywhere close to having the musical abilities of Mozart. If you could study Mozart and his music more in-depth, you'd realize what I'm talking about. -- droxford
