Kurt Cobain reached out by making numerous musics videos where all he did was blank stare at the camera while strumming his guitar and acting like he was a tortured soul. And everyone ate it up, it was a ******** act, you don't go around selling millions of albums and being the most successful alternative rock/grunge band of the 90's and act like you hate every minute of it. I find it hilarious that some newly rich druggie loser who took a shot gun to his head. Is paraded about music history as some tortured soul who was taken from us all too soon.
An interesting fact finding mission. I wonder how many luxury sport cars Cobain owned or did he drive around in some beat up van while he was a millionaire.
You can't get champagne from a garden hose.
Comments like these are exactly what I'm talking about. I don't care if you don't like him or you think he was "a ******** act". Who are you to even judge him? I love Nirvana's music. You don't. So don't come in here complaining about how much you hate his music while disrespecting others that do.
Maybe you should read up on Cobain, before you go ahead and label him as being a fake tortured soul. Oh wait you already did that. Typical.
I really like the Foo Fighters quite a bit, so I've retroactively gotten into a little bit of Nirvana, and I'll certainly nod in agreement that Grohl is talented. I can't really comment on Kurt as I haven't studied that history. Hell, until I watched that recent Foo documentary on their history, I had no idea Pat Smear was in Nirvana (I just don't study this stuff). I've always heard Nirvana launched (in terms of it becoming a big deal nationally and beyond) a type of rock (grunge?), and having heard Smells Like Teen Spirit, I can see why.
Although I still can't understand WTF the lyrics are most of the time.
You called him the John Lennon of the early 90's. I don't care how you qualify that, it's not true at all. John Lennon reached out to a lot more than "troubled youth". Cobain was just a product of a societal impetus. Lennon WAS a societal impetus.
For me it's not about NIrvana's music, I like some of it just fine. But if anything Kurt Cobain was the Dave Matthews of his generation, he had a pretty good band, but he was a great front man that got people to buy into what he was selling, and now he's remembered as some musical savant and apparently capable of being compared to John Lennon whcih just isn't the case IMO, and that has nothing to do with his music or talent level.
Last edited by Trader Joe; 07-29-2011 at 10:44 AM.
I think your overall assessment of Cobain is from the standpoint of simply not facing the fact that he is a musical icon, the fact that he was indeed an addict is just an excuse. But who am I to judge whether or not your opinion doesn't hold any water.
John Lennon never touched drugs, but he's still remembered as an icon, as he should be. He reached out to alot more in that time, but there wasn't much else to grab on to back then.
This isn't really about Cobain's drug use either, the debate is did he impact on a John Lennon type scale, and the answer is no.
John Lennon was the front man for one of, if the the greatest bands of all time. Nirvana and the Beatles aren't even comparable.
I mean, the Beatles held the top five positions on the Top 100 chart at the same freaking time. They have 20 #1 hits. They have 19 #1 albums. I can keep going and going and going and going about the accomplisments of the Beatles.
Nirvana, while a good band, isn't anywhere near them. Not in the same discussion. Not in the same universe.
It's not even close.
Believe me when I say, I have a very strong amount of respect for the Beatles, I do. But there wasn't as much competition at that time in music, and I'm not saying if there was that the Beatles wouldn't be as iconic and popular as they are.
You're simply just not researching what Nirvana did.
Typical person that knows of Nirvana (Kurt Cobain): A messed up dude who was a hardcore drug addict and got famous. Then spent more money on drugs and killed himself because he's weird.
This is simply a Beatles person trying to not give any recognition to a band that deserves a hell of alot more than what you're giving, as well as 90% of non grunge, scene, rock fans.
Over time, absolutely. Look how famous he is now.
Kurt is remembered by most people for the wrong reasons. That fact that he was a heavy drug user and he killed himself. Almost everyone never put the brilliant music he wrote on the table. Lyrically, he songs had hidden meanings, and powerful ones at that. He wasn't that most talented musician, but his talent to write catchy licks was above and beyond.
Do you even know that Kurt was die hard Beatles fan? Listen to the song "About A Girl" and tell me who it sounds like.
So one #1 song can overshawdow 20 #1 hits. That's good to know.
I know exactly what Nirvana did. I listen to their music, I remember the mid 90's.
What you're failing to do is recognize the historical heirarchy, and Nirvana isn't anywhere near the top.
One freaking song, one album, doesn't trump 20+ years of being THE band. You can argue Nirvana would have destroyed the Beatles, Kurt wouldn't have died. I don't agree with it, but I could atleast understand the argument.
But Nirvana's limited body of work isn't anywhere near the discussion.
RollingStone ranked Nirvana 30th. They ranked The Beatles #1.
VH1 ranked Nirvana 14th. Beatles #1.
Last edited by Since86; 07-29-2011 at 04:08 PM.
Just for clarity's sake let's not forget John Lennon might've done a drug or two in his day.
Nuntius was right. I was wrong. Frank Vogel has retained his job.
"A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, thatís teamwork."
Let's put it this way, if the Beatles don't exist, Nirvana doesn't exist, modern rock doesn't exist, music as we know it would be fundamentally changed FOREVER. Nirvana wasn't even the biggest music movement of the decade or the biggest death of an artist of that decade. That was the rap movement and the biggest musical death of that decade was Tupac. Nirvana was a good band. I liked them. They were not international superstars. They did not define a generation. They did none of these things, they maybe defined grunge music which does pale in comparison to what Lennon and the Beatles did. 40 years later you can throw on a song by the Beatles and everyone knows it. You can maybe do that with one song from Nirvana RIGHT NOW and it's only 20 years later.
Last edited by Trader Joe; 07-29-2011 at 04:19 PM.
In Utero Hits:
1. Heart-Shaped Box
2. Rape Me
4. Pennyroyal Tea
5. All Apologies
2. Been A Son
3. Son of A Gun
I have not claiming that Nirvana is better than the Beatles by any means, but look what Nirvana achieved with 3 years, think with what they could have done with the same tenure the Beatles. You just simply can't say they aren't even close.
BTW you want to have some fun, go to wikipedia, type in beatles. What is the first page that comes up?
Go to wikipedia, type in nirvana, what is this first page that comes up?