Nirvana

[Gilda]

Three things have gone into immortalizing Kurt Cobain:

 

1) The fact that he was a brilliant talent

2) The fact that he died young

3) The fact that he died tragically

 

Kurt Cobain's legend has grown since his death, and I don't think you will be able to convince me that #2 and #3 have not played a role. Furthermore, I think our historical perspective of Kurt Cobain has been skewed by this fact, and I don't think that is a good thing. That is my opinion, but I respect the fact that you disagree.

 

#2 and #3 have not played a role for me. I admire Kurt just because he was a brilliant artist.

 

RIP Kurt :cry:

[bjaiken]

#2 and #3 have not played a role for me. I admire Kurt just because he was a brilliant artist.

 

RIP Kurt :cry:[/size]

 

That's you. A general statement, by its very definition, is not going to apply to everyone.

[Gilda]

After 15 years, Kurt Cobain’s light still shines

 

The roots of grunge are varied and tangled, and they formed primarily in Seattle. But the emergence of Nirvana, and the stardom that came to singer-songwriter Kurt Cobain, happened in part via an assist from the New York-based post-punk band Sonic Youth.

 

Danny Goldberg, along with partner John Silva, managed Sonic Youth. Since the group’s members were always looking for new artists to join them on the road, they recommended Nirvana, which was seeking management

 

Goldberg recalled seeing Nirvana play live for the first time at the Palace in Los Angeles shortly after his company signed the band in late 1990. “I was stunned how intimate the relationship was between Kurt and the audience, even with material that a lot of people didn’t know,” he said. “There was something about the way he performed that made him seem like a member of the audience and being on stage at the same time.”

You can read the full article in:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29902832/

[nobodyseditwaseasy08]

^^ did someone in that article just compare david cook and nickelback to cobain? haha

[bjaiken]

^ He's not directly comparing them in terms of equals. He's stating how Kurt Cobain's singing style established a vocal template for many other artists. Many of the post-grunge era bands took the sound of bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and smoothed out the edges in order to achieve mainstream success. In terms of record sales, it has worked out well for the artists who have chosen to do this, however, they usually take a beating from music critics as well as the fans who loved the original sound.

[Tnspieler1012]

There's also the fact he died at 27, the same age as Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison.

[bjaiken]

Yeah, he's part of the "Forever 27" club, as his/their image is forever frozen in time at the age of 27.

[deaths_friend]

Nirvana only toured Australia once. it was in early 1992 before Nevermind had broken through. the band had a fairly solid fanbase already down here. it was towards the end of the tour that Nevermind hit number 1 in the US and the bands popularity exploded but they were no where to be found as they were touring down under. they were here as part of the inaugural Big Day Out festival. Nirvana were scheduled to play the main stage which was indoors and had a capacity of 5500. when the band hit the stage there was about 10 000 people crammed into the venue deserting the rest of the stages. since that performance the festival has continuely grown, it now hits 6 cities with about 60 000 at each festival.

 

most people hold Kurt in such high esteem because of the legacy he left and the influence he has had over countless bands that have followed them not because he died at such a young age. he took a sound which was very much alternative (somewhat underground even) and made it commercially successful. something very very few artist have done. his death and the nature of his death make great rock n roll stories but dont add to the brilliance of Nevermind as well as Bleach and In Utero, all of which were great original records.

[bjaiken]

I can't continue to have this discussion because it's getting frustrating. Nirvana hit hard, hit fast, and were gone. If you want to talk about commercial success, Pearl Jam's Ten was far more commercially viable than Nevermind. Kurt Cobain, himself, was not a fan of Pearl Jam, as he called them alternative, corporate cock rock (or something to that affect).

 

There is no doubt that Nirvana kicked down the door with Smells Like Teen Spirit, but a lot of the success had to do with being at the right place at the right time. People were ready for a different sound, and Nirvana provided it in a way that others couldn't. Kurt Cobain is quoted as saying that Smells Like Teen Spirit was a blatant attempt to make a Pixies song, and Dave Grohl is on record saying it was almost not released for that very reason. Why the Pixies were unable to break down the door a few years earlier, I will never understand. Again, Nirvana was at the right place, at the right time, with the right sound.

 

There's no doubt that his death does not add to the brilliance of his music, I have already admitted this fact. All I can say is that there is a legacy in his death that was not there during his life. I can only chalk that up to the fact that we, as people, tend to take better notice of brilliance when it is taken away than when it walks amongst us. If you don't believe that his death added to his legacy, I don't know what to tell you. I was in high school during this time and I ate, breathed, and slept this type of music, so I know what I know and no one is going to change my mind, but you are free to your own opinion.

[nobodyseditwaseasy08]

^ He's not directly comparing them in terms of equals. He's stating how Kurt Cobain's singing style established a vocal template for many other artists. Many of the post-grunge era bands took the sound of bands like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and smoothed out the edges in order to achieve mainstream success. In terms of record sales, it has worked out well for the artists who have chosen to do this, however, they usually take a beating from music critics as well as the fans who loved the original sound.

 

im just saying he should of used some better examples than a ridiculous american idol winner and a terrible band like nickelback,,,kurt had a unique and powerful voice thats had to compare to anyone...maybe a early liam gallagher.

[bjaiken]

im just saying he should of used some better examples than a ridiculous american idol winner and a terrible band like nickelback,,,kurt had a unique and powerful voice thats had to compare to anyone...maybe a early liam gallagher.

 

Well, his voice was fairly unique, but I never thought it was very powerful. Not when you compare it to his contemporaries like Eddie Vedder and Chris Cornell. Those guys were capable of blowing down a house. There are several vocalists who have sounded like Kurt Cobain. Wes Scantlin from Puddle of Mudd is a dead ringer.

 

Not that I'm giving any more credit to Wes Scantlin than I would to Scott Stapp for copying Eddie Vedder (and the list could go on). I don't really see anything wrong with the imitators (in fact, I kind of like some of them) so long as credit continues to go to the innovators. I also have no problem with the writer's comparison. These artists are doing their best to copy what has come before them. I don't exactly think David Cook or Chad Kroger will be remembered for pushing the boundaries of music - rest easy on that one.

 

And Liam Gallagher?...that's a stretch. They're from completley different continents.

 

But it is cool that you have such an enthusiasm for 90s alternative music. Usually these threads end up falling to the bottom of the message board.

[deaths_friend]

.

 

And Liam Gallagher?...that's a stretch. They're from completley different continents.

 

But it is cool that you have such an enthusiasm for 90s alternative music. Usually these threads end up falling to the bottom of the message board.

 

whats geography got to do with anything?

 

my admiration for kurt cobain lies completely in his ability to turn what was perceived as 'underground' music into chart topping mainstream, without "selling out".

 

but like you bjaiken i would say that Pearl Jam are a far superior band and Eddie the more powerful singer. and it annoys me when people say that PJ would of been nothing had it not been for Nevermind and kurt.

[nobodyseditwaseasy08]

liam gallagher comparison in terms of unique singing. He and Kurt had voices that were very different from anything before it, thats what made it good. Not much of a pearl jam fan but eddie vedders voice is powerful.

[deaths_friend]

^^

 

i wouldnt say that Liam's voice was all that unique. he sounds like alot of 60s pop rock singers. Kurt's was highly influenced by the punk rock singers from the mid 70s. the whole dont give a damn style of vocals

[bjaiken]

whats geography got to do with anything?

 

my admiration for kurt cobain lies completely in his ability to turn what was perceived as 'underground' music into chart topping mainstream, without "selling out".

 

but like you bjaiken i would say that Pearl Jam are a far superior band and Eddie the more powerful singer. and it annoys me when people say that PJ would of been nothing had it not been for Nevermind and kurt.

 

A few quick things:

 

1) Geography is relevant because you rarely will find a U.K. singer sounding like a U.S. singer (or vice versa). I know it happens, but it's rare. Liam Gallagher sounds like a U.K. singer (in terms of accent), and Kurt Cobain sounds like an American singer. I did not see the comparison, and still don't, but at least it was clarified in terms of "uniqueness." Otherwise, the two are night and day vocally.

 

2) There is a "cult-like" status that surrounds Kurt Cobain since his death. I am not saying that applies to anyone on this board, in particular. Congratulations if you love Kurt Cobain based solely on his music. That's the way it should be.

 

3) I don't think Pearl Jam is a superior band to Nirvana. My musical taste just happens to be more toward Pearl Jam.

 

4) My admiration for Kurt Cobain has little to do with his ability to popularize a type of "underground" music. My admiration for Kurt Cobain has to do with the fact that he almost single handedly killed "hair metal" music, or at least made people feel ridiculous for liking it. I like a few "hair metal" bands (not many), but I will always be thankful for that contribution.

[deaths_friend]

A few quick things:

 

 

3) I don't think Pearl Jam is a superior band to Nirvana. My musical taste just happens to be more toward Pearl Jam.

 

.

 

how are u measuring superiority?

 

i usually measure it by influence, longevity, musicianship, chemistry, quality of music, live performances and success.

 

Influence - its a no brainer, Nirvana wins

Longevity- same as above but Pearl jam wins

Musicianship - mike and stone combined are better guitarist, eddie is the better lyricist and vocalist but only just, jeff is the better bassist and dave grohl is better than every PJ drummer combined. its a tie here

Chemistry - pearl jam. kurt cobains dominance prevented any true chemistry in the band.

Quality of Music - pearl jam again simply because of the variety and how accessible it is. suitable for any mood or atmosphere

Live - nirvana. just explosive

Success - they've enjoyed two very different types of success. so tie again

 

ok i give up. no clear winner. but i still prefer PJ

[Gilda]

im just saying he should of used some better examples than a ridiculous american idol winner and a terrible band like nickelback,,,kurt had a unique and powerful voice thats had to compare to anyone...maybe a early liam gallagher.

 

I agree with you: Kurt had a powerful voice!

[bjaiken]

how are u measuring superiority?

 

I'm not. I never ranked one band over the other. I am simply responding to your statement, "but like you bjaiken i would say that Pearl Jam are a far superior band and Eddie the more powerful singer." I only said that Eddie Vedder has a more powerful voice and that I prefer Pearl Jam's music. I feel pretty safe in making those two statements, but I never said one band is superior.

[bjaiken]

I agree with you: Kurt had a powerful voice![/size]

 

Powerful compared to who? Powerful is a relative term. I don't always agree with death_friends' analysis (which is natural), but at least he attempts to establish some type of evaluative criteria.

 

Is Kurt's voice more powerful than mine...yes.

Is Kurt's voice more powerful than Eddie Vedder's or Chris Cornell's...no.

Is Kurt's voice more powerful than Robert Plant's of Freddie Mercury's...hell no.

 

So far, all he's beaten is me, and that's not saying a whole lot. I don't think he's even in the top 5 amongst his contemporaries in his specific genre.

[Gilda]

Powerful compared to who? Powerful is a relative term. I don't always agree with death_friends' analysis (which is natural), but at least he attempts to establish some type of evaluative criteria.

 

Is Kurt's voice more powerful than mine...yes.

Is Kurt's voice more powerful than Eddie Vedder's or Chris Cornell's...no.

Is Kurt's voice more powerful than Robert Plant's of Freddie Mercury's...hell no.

 

So far, all he's beaten is me, and that's not saying a whole lot. I don't think he's even in the top 5 amongst his contemporaries in his specific genre.

 

Is kurt voice more powerful than Eddie Vedder´s ? YES!!!!!!!

Is Kurt voice more powerful than Chris Cornell´s? :\ Chirs Cornell is a great singer. But Kurt´s songs are better. Did you listen Cornell´s last song? I don´t like it. :P

And about Freddie . . . I don´t like Queen but he was an excellent artist!

I have nathing to say about Robert Plant.

This is my opinion.

[bjaiken]

Is kurt voice more powerful than Eddie Vedder´s ? YES!!!!!!!

Is Kurt voice more powerful than Chris Cornell´s? :\ Chirs Cornell is a great singer. But Kurt´s songs are better. Did you listen Cornell´s last song? I don´t like it. :P

And about Freddie . . . I don´t like Queen but he was an excellent artist!

I have nathing to say about Robert Plant.

This is my opinion.

 

1) You are crazy if you think Kurt's voice is more powerful than Eddie's...this is not subjective...you are simply wrong.

 

2) It doesn't matter whether or not you like Chris's latest song. Stick to the topic. Kurt's voice is drastically weaker than Chris's.

 

3) Robert Plant and Freddie Mercury also were not listed in order to get your opinion. They were listed because there is no way Kurt Cobain's vocal power is even a fraction of theirs. This is not up for debate.

 

You obviously like Kurt Cobain a lot, and that is fine. But you are not even being objective.

 

EDIT: Remember, the topic is vocal power (or strength), not whose voice you like better.

[bjaiken]

Here's a few examples for you. Both come from MTV Unplugged. Notice how Eddie is able to go up and down in vocal range effortlessly. Not that we are even talking about range, but Eddie is not even pushing that hard most of the time and his voice is flawless. Kurt, on the other hand, is hardly able to sustain any notes, his voice is cracking throughout the song, and he is barely able to get to the high notes. Now, if you want to talk about emotion or vulnerability in voice, or perhaps another issue, I will entertain that conversation. But not vocal power.

 

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH8fQT-147A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH8fQT-147A[/ame]

 

 

[ame=

]

[/ame]

[Gilda]

1) You are crazy if you think Kurt's voice is more powerful than Eddie's...this is not subjective...you are simply wrong.

 

2) It doesn't matter whether or not you like Chris's latest song. Stick to the topic. Kurt's voice is drastically weaker than Chris's.

 

3) Robert Plant and Freddie Mercury also were not listed in order to get your opinion. They were listed because there is no way Kurt Cobain's vocal power is even a fraction of theirs. This is not up for debate.

 

You obviously like Kurt Cobain a lot, and that is fine. But you are not even being objective.

 

EDIT: Remember, the topic is vocal power (or strength), not whose voice you like better.

 

:laugh3: I don`t like Eddie`s voice :laugh3: and you obviosly like it. But you are right; Freddie`s voice was more powerful than Kurt`s.

I like Nirvana a lot, it`s one of my favourites bands. They had everything: good music, good lyrics, Kurt`s powerful voice :laugh3: . Nirvana is one of the greatest bands of the history of music. This is not up for debate. :P

 

And you don`t have to give me examples of the Eddie`s voice, I`ve listened him and i know his voice is poweful but i don`t like it.

 

Nirvana is better than Pearl Jam, in my opinion. I know you can say we were talking about Kurt`s voice but . . . :whatever:

[bjaiken]

:laugh3: I don`t like Eddie`s voice :laugh3: and you obviosly like it. But you are right; Freddie`s voice was more powerful than Kurt`s.

I like Nirvana a lot, it`s one of my favourites bands. They had everything: good music, good lyrics, Kurt`s powerful voice :laugh3: . Nirvana is one of the greatest bands of the history of music. This is not up for debate. :P

 

And you don`t have to give me examples of the Eddie`s voice, I`ve listened him and i know his voice is poweful but i don`t like it.

 

Nirvana is better than Pearl Jam, in my opinion. I know you can say we were talking about Kurt`s voice but . . . :whatever:

 

That's fine. I don't have a problem with a single thing you said here. You're correct, Nirvana is one of the greatest bands in music history, and they made amazing contributions. I would never try to debate that issue. I like Eddie's voice a lot, but I am also a fan of Kurt's. Like I said, if we were talking about level of emotion, distinctness, vulnerability, or proper fit for the style of music, I got nothing. But when we are talking about power and strength in vocals, let's call a spade a spade.

[nobodyseditwaseasy08]

 

 

 

eddie is the better lyricist

 

no way! lol