RE: Why do people consider Kurt Cobain a genius?

iamnotconvinced wrote:

This album is garbage. Most over rated album of the '90s. It's something that people say they really like to be different than the people who say Nevermind is the best album of the '90s.

Oh come on, you have to be kidding me. Loveless is unbelievable. i don't think either are the best of the 90's but they are both amazing albums.

It is not worth trying to explain to this thread, but the reason Nirvana was such a big deal is b/c they released an album that connected with people at a time when it was being craved.

Sure, there were a slew of other bands doing similar things at the time (Pixies, Meat Puppets, Sonic Youth), but they were not connecting with a widespread audience in the same way. Listen to Nirvana, they are softer and more melodic than many of their contemporaries (90's college/punk).

With regard to the comment about Cobain's technical abilities... that is just stupid. Everyone knows that has nothing to do with art.

You know who is a great technical guitarist? Joe Satriani. Would you consider him an artist? No, he writes crappy elevator music.

You know who is an extraordinary painter? Just about every graphic artist on Madison Avenue working for a marketing firm. They aren't the ones painting Botticelli Nascita di Venere or Monet's The Grainstack. Art is about more than proficiency. In fact, I believe proficiency and accuracy can hinder art. Art is not sport. Art is about emotion.

"Why does my mind blow to bits every time they play that song? It's just the way that he sings, not the words that he says, or the band. I'm in love with his soul, it's a meaning that I understand."

I don't get why everyone is a Green Day hater on here. I personally think BJA is much better than KC, despite whatever you may think about him selling out (The band's been around a LONG time). One thing I noticed is that Kurt Cobain just took all the fun out of rock 'n roll. Some people think this is good because it's "deeply emotional" but I just think Curt's grungy guitar style made his music less melodic, not to mention his raspy voice that never really seemed to show much inflection. Green Day's songs, on the other hand, were always upbeat and melodic, and his voice really started to mature after dookie. They're a little less interesting now, but still good. Not to mention still alive.

Mtn Dew wrote:

The Dense Fog wrote:

Actually, "Urban Hymns" by The Verve is probably the best album of the '90s...but it's sort of the later '90s.

I agree with this statement.

This is my pick for best album of the 1990's as well. Nevermind has to be in the top 15 somewhere I suppose but I never listened to it after 1994. I listen to these albums still today and would consider them as good or better.

U2-Achtung Baby

Bob Dylan-Time After Mind

Afghan Whigs-Gentlemen

My Bloody Valentine-Loveless

Radiohead-The Bends

The Stone Roses debut from 1990

Clayton Delaney wrote:

Cobain was extremely talented and created great music with Nirvana. Sure he was influenced by other music that he heard. Just like every great writer / artist / musician etc. is influenced by predecessors and contemporaries. Prior to Nirvana, there was a genre of "alternative" rock for people who did not care for the mainstream music of the time. The only problem was that the alternative music was even worse than the crap that was flooding the airwaves. Then Nirvana came along.

Hey Clayton. You died.

someone else wrote:

I don't get why everyone is a Green Day hater on here. I personally think BJA is much better than KC, despite whatever you may think about him selling out (The band's been around a LONG time). One thing I noticed is that Kurt Cobain just took all the fun out of rock 'n roll. Some people think this is good because it's "deeply emotional" but I just think Curt's grungy guitar style made his music less melodic, not to mention his raspy voice that never really seemed to show much inflection. Green Day's songs, on the other hand, were always upbeat and melodic, and his voice really started to mature after dookie. They're a little less interesting now, but still good. Not to mention still alive.

Okay, this is just stupid. Green Day?

Green Day is a no talent pop band. Just stop it.

You know nothing about anything, especially running and music.

I don't think he was a good musician. He couldn't really sing and the nirvana lyrics are not very well written. But what is amazing to me is what a humble nice guy he was!! Very good looking with this boyish innocent yet down to earth attitude. He had a sort of serenity all the time. I honestly want to hug him every time I watch his interviews. No i can't listen to nirvana songs, though! And I disagree with the statement that nirvana is the symbol of the 90s. Roxette is! Roxette sold more albums than nirvana and 1989-1993 belonged to them. Very different style though. Having said that, Justin Bieber in one month sold more than the Beatles throughout the history.

Every few years the recording industry runs out of big ideas so they repackage garage rock into a hot new genre. Nirvana and Kurt Cobain were in the right place at the right time.

he had his own thing, it was real

lots of people can play but have noting to say ever great technical players

my two cents

i wouldn't listen to his music though.

Ernest T Bass wrote:

All the above but genius?..... No.

It cheapens the achievements of others to put him in that

category.

His genius was selling TONS of records for a style of rock that had been around for a decade fishing around for a mainstream audience.

That said, Cobain invented nothing. Lots of bands were around doing similar sounds. Cobain's took off.

For whatever reason, people responded to his band and not the others. Same old story.

karpopper wrote:

he had his own thing, it was real ....

That's it right there. And at the end of the day, that's the most any artists can really ask for ... and very few ever attain.

On a technical level, Muddy Waters wasn't so great either. Or BB King. Not by the standards set years later anyway. Technique isn't too critical.

It is strictly based upon his tested IQ. Based on the results of this test he achieved genius status. You, my friend, cannot argue with measured statistical data.

qwert wrote:

Shoebacca wrote:

I agree. It was a fairly troubled departure from the norm.

I disagree. He invented nothing. The media were desparate (remember they'd just suffered the '80's wasteland) looking for anything to call different. Grunge was just a bad..bad diversion that the industry brainwashed the kids to think was new.

Bingo. Grunge was just another name for Punk. There's a very small age range for whom he will be a God because they had no clue what came before. See also, say, fans of pop princesses.

I'll give you a great example. I got "The Tom Petty Biography" by Warren Zanes just published last month as a Christmas present. Half way donewith the book, it is riveting. Leon Russell was basically Petty's mentor.Petty's innate genius coupled with his Florida band mates were central to his success. Same could be said, with Kurt Cobain.

Nero wrote:

To appreciate Nirvana you have to understand what music was like at the time. The man invented a whole sub-genre of music, that's pretty genius like to me.

I always thought Cobain, Sammy Davis Jr, and Bruce SPringsteen were the most over rated celebrities of all time.

Well he probably only shot a gun once in his life and he made a headshot on that attempt. That's genius. He could have probably got a skeet gold medal at the Olympics.

pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:

Ernest T Bass wrote:

All the above but genius?..... No.

It cheapens the achievements of others to put him in that

category.

His genius was selling TONS of records for a style of rock that had been around for a decade fishing around for a mainstream audience.

That said, Cobain invented nothing. Lots of bands were around doing similar sounds. Cobain's took off.

For whatever reason, people responded to his band and not the others. Same old story.

The songs. Yes, grunge had been slowly building for years, but nobody did it as flawlessly or memorably as Nirvana. I don't know how that's even up for debate. Much like the Beatles, they took a genre of music that had been around and made it more accessible. It was a moment in time where top 40 was dominated by glam rock and bubble gum pop. And then this one guy ripping his own bleeding heart out for everyone to dance to. That was special and people remember it that way for a reason.

runn wrote:

I always thought Cobain, Sammy Davis Jr, and Bruce SPringsteen were the most over rated celebrities of all time.

You, my friend, are wrong. Bruce SPringsteen[sic] is a musical genius. Have you ever seen The Boss in concert? I didn't think so you little tool.

just another guy wrote:

runn wrote:

I always thought Cobain, Sammy Davis Jr, and Bruce SPringsteen were the most over rated celebrities of all time.

You, my friend, are wrong. Bruce SPringsteen[sic] is a musical genius. Have you ever seen The Boss in concert? I didn't think so you little tool.

I grew up in the 70's/80's. Never liked him.

He has some songs I like, but overall- nope.

He was a talented artist both in two mediums visual art and music. His visual art although cartoonish and underdeveloped was unique and displayed his raw artistic talent. Creativity is define as “having exceptional intellectual and creative power or natural ability”. You could consider him a genius based on his natural raw artistic talent in visual art. In a musical sense, He isn’t thought of as a creative genius because of his technical skills in writing music. His genius (also what made him popular) was to take a raw, unadulterated sound with disturbing themes and imagery, and make it listable to the mainstream american. Most punk bands had a difficult time doing this which is why they remained underground. Nirvana was able to usher in a completely new type of music that w as unknown to the public because of their ability to make punk listable. This was the beginning of alternative rock paving the way for bands like linkin park, blink182, fall out boy, daughtry, ect. The latter mentioned bands were much more pop based and dealt with far less disturbing themes than nirvana. If you read the lyrics to many of nirvana’s songs (especially on in utero) they are so disturbing its difficult to understand how they had such a large mainstream audience. The reason is because kurt was able to make music that was so catchy and listable, yet so disturbing, and volatile. This is where kurt cobain’s genius lies.