Grunge was picked by MTV as the new big thing for the 90s. A garage style for an "authentic" genre to an audience weary of hair metal, butt rock, and hippies. But at the end of the day, just garage rock.
They could not hold a candle to far better acts of their day, like the RHCP or Jane's Addiction. Keep in mind the Grateful Dead were around too, bigger than anything else in performance music at that point.
Fine vocalist. Incredible guitarist and songwriter. Now there are plenty of exceptionally talented and accomplished musicians from the same generation whose music I am not familiar with. But of those I know, none seems to equal Cobain. Nirvana’s music holds up extremely well. It’s as good now as it was thirty years ago.
I suspect I am the only person on this thread who saw Nirvana live, but Cobain was a wildy compelling frontman at a time when things moved A LOT slower. We had no internet, we had no influencers (not in today's vile sense), we had no streaming services.
It took actual work to stay up to date on bands, to hear about concerts, CD releases, etc. You had to go to record stores, watch MTV, read the entertainment section of newspapers and Spin mag. Today, you are awash in neverending stream of music culture. You literally don't have to do a thing.
Corporate music existed and was growing rapidly, but not in the all-encompassing monolithic way they snap up "underground" artists today.
Cobain still retained his punk ethos even after signing to Geffen. Nirvana toured with bands that were truly scrappy (Jawbreaker, Bikini Kill, Poison Idea, Butthole Surfers) in a way only hardcore is scrappy today.
Nirvana gave kids an alternative to the mindless sonic vomit of Phish, Blues Traveler, and Dave Matthews.
Was he the best musician of his generation? No probably not, but punk doesn't really work that way.
I was with you until you called great musicians "sonic vomit" just because you don't like their style.
That's silly.
Every member of Dave Matthews Band are better musicians than Kobain was.
Grunge was picked by MTV as the new big thing for the 90s. A garage style for an "authentic" genre to an audience weary of hair metal, butt rock, and hippies. But at the end of the day, just garage rock.
They could not hold a candle to far better acts of their day, like the RHCP or Jane's Addiction. Keep in mind the Grateful Dead were around too, bigger than anything else in performance music at that point.
Listen to Nirvana's MTV Unplugged session and tell me they're just a garage band.
You don't have to personally like music to admit there's talent involved.
Grunge was picked by MTV as the new big thing for the 90s. A garage style for an "authentic" genre to an audience weary of hair metal, butt rock, and hippies. But at the end of the day, just garage rock.
They could not hold a candle to far better acts of their day, like the RHCP or Jane's Addiction. Keep in mind the Grateful Dead were around too, bigger than anything else in performance music at that point.
Listen to Nirvana's MTV Unplugged session and tell me they're just a garage band.
You don't have to personally like music to admit there's talent involved.
Obviously having been around then, I heard "all apologies" about a million times on MТV and radio.
Did you know he was dopesick during that? Near the end of his downward spiral, very desperate. MTV was preparing to cash in on his martyrdom. Makes everyone think he was special, but the hype doesn't make it great music.
Listen to Nirvana's MTV Unplugged session and tell me they're just a garage band.
You don't have to personally like music to admit there's talent involved.
Obviously having been around then, I heard "all apologies" about a million times on MТV and radio.
Did you know he was dopesick during that? Near the end of his downward spiral, very desperate. MTV was preparing to cash in on his martyrdom. Makes everyone think he was special, but the hype doesn't make it great music.
I think you're confusing your personal taste with greatness.
Fine vocalist. Incredible guitarist and songwriter.
Um...no...none of those things. Ok vocalist. Below average guitarist. Ok songwriter. What he was, and ONLY what he was, was influential, and that had lots of reasons behind it, most of which he didn't control.
Right sound at the right time when people were looking for something new.
I have never heard anyone call him an "incredible guitarist," and you should never do so again. He wasn't that.
Obviously having been around then, I heard "all apologies" about a million times on MТV and radio.
Did you know he was dopesick during that? Near the end of his downward spiral, very desperate. MTV was preparing to cash in on his martyrdom. Makes everyone think he was special, but the hype doesn't make it great music.
I think you're confusing your personal taste with greatness.
He was a superb guitarist in the way that counts most: the ability to use the instrument to produce beautiful music. I don’t think he was interested in being one of those that can absolutely shred notes like nobody’s business a guitar, while making awful sounding music in the process.
I think you're confusing your personal taste with greatness.
I think you are.
You're right they sold tens of millions of albums because I'm biased.
There's more to greatness than just musicianship. There's a million musicians on YouTube today playing in their bedrooms that are much more talented than the most famous musicians.
Nirvana was a great band and they had some great songs. This is true whether they suit your personal taste or not.
I don't like the Rolling Stones. I don't care for The Doors. I wouldn't say they weren't great bands just because I don't personally like their music.
He was a superb guitarist in the way that counts most: the ability to use the instrument to produce beautiful music. I don’t think he was interested in being one of those that can absolutely shred notes like nobody’s business a guitar, while making awful sounding music in the process.
He was a superb songwriter. If he was a superb guitarist it wouldn't be possible for a person who's playing guitar for 2 months to play most of his songs.
It diminishes the actual superb guitarists when you call anyone who sings with a guitar a superb guitarist.
There could be other names out there but for me, Cobain is a long way behind Billy Corgan in terms of musicianship, composition and lyricism. Smashing Pumpkins made defining timeless beautiful albums
He was a superb guitarist in the way that counts most: the ability to use the instrument to produce beautiful music. I don’t think he was interested in being one of those that can absolutely shred notes like nobody’s business a guitar, while making awful sounding music in the process.
He was a superb songwriter. If he was a superb guitarist it wouldn't be possible for a person who's playing guitar for 2 months to play most of his songs.
It diminishes the actual superb guitarists when you call anyone who sings with a guitar a superb guitarist.
Rolling Stone has him in the top 100 greatest guitarists of all time at 88. He was a very accomplished guitarist. Maybe not quite in the Jimmy Paige or Stevie Ray Vaughan sense, but only one level below that.
He was a superb songwriter. If he was a superb guitarist it wouldn't be possible for a person who's playing guitar for 2 months to play most of his songs.
It diminishes the actual superb guitarists when you call anyone who sings with a guitar a superb guitarist.
Rolling Stone has him in the top 100 greatest guitarists of all time at 88. He was a very accomplished guitarist. Maybe not quite in the Jimmy Paige or Stevie Ray Vaughan sense, but only one level below that.
Ha! Having said the above, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will chime in to inform me that Jimmy Paige and Stevie Ray Vaughan were not very good guitarists.
He was a superb songwriter. If he was a superb guitarist it wouldn't be possible for a person who's playing guitar for 2 months to play most of his songs.
It diminishes the actual superb guitarists when you call anyone who sings with a guitar a superb guitarist.
Rolling Stone has him in the top 100 greatest guitarists of all time at 88. He was a very accomplished guitarist. Maybe not quite in the Jimmy Paige or Stevie Ray Vaughan sense, but only one level below that.
Well that's absurd.
Those lists are all hot garbage as a general rule.
I can't even find the list you're referring to as there's so many versions of the list.
This one has Keith Richards ahead of Van Halen... it has Johnny Ramone ahead of Randy Rhodes... The Edge at 38 and Lindsey Buckingham at 100? Come on...
Rolling Stone has him in the top 100 greatest guitarists of all time at 88. He was a very accomplished guitarist. Maybe not quite in the Jimmy Paige or Stevie Ray Vaughan sense, but only one level below that.
Ha! Having said the above, you can bet your bottom dollar that someone will chime in to inform me that Jimmy Paige and Stevie Ray Vaughan were not very good guitarists.
Anyone who says that is an idiot.
I play guitar. I can play anything Cobain ever recorded. There are things Paige's and Vaughan's and the Hendrix's and BB King's of the world played I'll never be able to play no matter how much I try.
Um...ok. Certainly can't use musicianship to rate the greatness of a MUSICIAN. Guess you think Taylor Swift is great too. Tiny Tim was quite popular.
The DIFFERENCE here is greatness vs. popularity. The Pet Rock was popular for a little while. So was Milli Vanilli. Popularity does not equal greatness. SALES does not equal greatness...unless you are a salesperson.
He was a superb guitarist in the way that counts most: the ability to use the instrument to produce beautiful music. I don’t think he was interested in being one of those that can absolutely shred notes like nobody’s business a guitar, while making awful sounding music in the process.
But what is "beautiful music"? Some people think Cobain's super distorted guitar tone and screaming sounds terrible. I disagree. You might not like the sound of shreddy guitar. I do.
This is why, in my opinion, if you are going about the silly business trying to rank musical artists in terms of "best" or "greatest", technical ability needs to be a significant part of the scoring system because it is, to some extent, objective.
Someone mentioned Whitesnake as a dinosaur band compared to Nirvana. Their guitarist, Steve Vai, put out his famous solo album Passion and Warfare the year before Nevermind. I think For the Love of God is astonishingly beautiful and blows everything Cobain ever composed out of the water. But that's subjective; most people don't like instrumental music. What isn't subjective is the fact this level of muscianship was lightyears beyond Cobain's.
G3 “For the Love of God” Live in ConcertWatch G3 Live: https://G3.lnk.to/liveYDAbout the album:G3: Live in Concert was released in 1997 by Epic Records. Joe ...
He was a superb songwriter. If he was a superb guitarist it wouldn't be possible for a person who's playing guitar for 2 months to play most of his songs.
It diminishes the actual superb guitarists when you call anyone who sings with a guitar a superb guitarist.
Rolling Stone has him in the top 100 greatest guitarists of all time at 88. He was a very accomplished guitarist. Maybe not quite in the Jimmy Paige or Stevie Ray Vaughan sense, but only one level below that.
Rolling stone lists like this are filled with examples where they say somebody who was really popular doing something is amongst the greatest doing it.
Get a load of this: Rolling Stone has Curt Cobain listed as 11th of the "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" yet Mark Knoffler (Dire Straits) is ranked 27th, DIckey Betts is ranked 58th, Mick Ronson as 64th, and Eddie Van Halen is 70th, and Johnny Winter as 74th! LOL.
Really, let's face it - Grunge guitar spurned flashy guitar solos and shredding, so that's not what Cobain's playing was about. But even compared to other guitarists in that style, he wasn't that great. It got the job done perfectly well, but wasn't anything special in terms of ability.
Um...ok. Certainly can't use musicianship to rate the greatness of a MUSICIAN. Guess you think Taylor Swift is great too. Tiny Tim was quite popular.
The DIFFERENCE here is greatness vs. popularity. The Pet Rock was popular for a little while. So was Milli Vanilli. Popularity does not equal greatness. SALES does not equal greatness...unless you are a salesperson.
You're so determined to disagree with me you're being irrational.
Musicianship is one piece of the pie. Bob Dylan was an average guitar player and couldn't sing a bit but he was a master songwriter. He was great.
I don't listen to Taylor Swift but there's no denying she's talented and a great songwriter.
Do you deny that there's some connection between the popularity of music and how much people like it?
Do you listen to music because of peer pressure or because you like the songs?
Rolling Stone has him in the top 100 greatest guitarists of all time at 88. He was a very accomplished guitarist. Maybe not quite in the Jimmy Paige or Stevie Ray Vaughan sense, but only one level below that.
Rolling stone lists like this are filled with examples where they say somebody who was really popular doing something is amongst the greatest doing it.
Get a load of this: Rolling Stone has Curt Cobain listed as 11th of the "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" yet Mark Knoffler (Dire Straits) is ranked 27th, DIckey Betts is ranked 58th, Mick Ronson as 64th, and Eddie Van Halen is 70th, and Johnny Winter as 74th! LOL.
Really, let's face it - Grunge guitar spurned flashy guitar solos and shredding, so that's not what Cobain's playing was about. But even compared to other guitarists in that style, he wasn't that great. It got the job done perfectly well, but wasn't anything special in terms of ability.
I could teach a 15 year old who's never even held a guitar to play Come As You Are in a few hours if that.
There's people who've played for decades that can't play Money for Nothing.
