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.
You dont need to try to compare nirvana to anyone else. Its music. You like what you like, until you get bored of it.
But if youre going to insist, do you mean actual musicianship or writing the best songs or charismatic front man? And what do you mean by his generation, they werent about very long, cos well you know.
You could argue that he was the most talented songwriter and I wouldn't complain, but there is no plausible argument for Cobain being most talented muscian. He was not an incredible guitar player.
Absolutely not! Jerry Cantrell and Chris Cornell are better musicians, in my opinion. You could also make the argument that Dave Grohl was the most talented member of Nirvana. I think Kurt was the most raw/unrefined of the era, which commands respect, but he isn't the best.
It's fair to say he was one of the most influential musicians of his time. Ratt and Whitesnake looked up and saw Nirvana like dinosaurs looking at an asteroid rushing toward Chicxulub.
You dont need to try to compare nirvana to anyone else. Its music. You like what you like, until you get bored of it.
But if youre going to insist, do you mean actual musicianship or writing the best songs or charismatic front man? And what do you mean by his generation, they werent about very long, cos well you know.
First, my apologies for the uncalled for snarkiness in my second post. I’m giving myself a thumbs down on that one.
Kurt Cobain would have been considered Generation X. I consider him to be possibly the most talented musician of his generation because of his combination of his songwriting , guitar and vocal abilities, along with his originality. His charismatic front man role means nothing to me. Would be interested to hear from others who they believe ranks higher.
As others have pointed out, the criteria are rather broad here, and it is in that vein that I will frame my response.
Cobain was very influential by any standards, and perhaps more so than any other musician of that time. The ability to do that is no small feat.
It's just my taste, but I find his songs just too simple and repetitive for me to listen to it except in passing. Great sound, but not enough depth for me to stick with it, for the most part.
Alternatively, I find the work put out by SoundGarden to be much more to my liking. They were pioneers in the Grunge movement, and I contend that their lead singer, Chris Cornell may well be the best rock vocalist of all time. Their catalogue is extensive and it is unique in that it includes some real pop hits that climbed the billboards, in addition to a more hardcore body of work.
For me, SoundGarden just epitomizes the range of that late 90's music scene, and they helped form it.
If you want to talk just pure talent (as per OP title of thread), I would look to Bob Mould of Husker Du as having some very strong credentials for that distinction.
As others have pointed out, the criteria are rather broad here, and it is in that vein that I will frame my response.
Cobain was very influential by any standards, and perhaps more so than any other musician of that time. The ability to do that is no small feat.
It's just my taste, but I find his songs just too simple and repetitive for me to listen to it except in passing. Great sound, but not enough depth for me to stick with it, for the most part.
Alternatively, I find the work put out by SoundGarden to be much more to my liking. They were pioneers in the Grunge movement, and I contend that their lead singer, Chris Cornell may well be the best rock vocalist of all time. Their catalogue is extensive and it is unique in that it includes some real pop hits that climbed the billboards, in addition to a more hardcore body of work.
For me, SoundGarden just epitomizes the range of that late 90's music scene, and they helped form it.
If you want to talk just pure talent (as per OP title of thread), I would look to Bob Mould of Husker Du as having some very strong credentials for that distinction.
Almost any metal lead guitarist from the 80s could play circles around Cobain. When it comes to songwriting, contemporaries like Matt Johnson of The The (maybe pre-dated Nirvana by a little bit, definitely overlapped though) were far more gifted lyrically. You could close your eyes and throw darts at a board and hit a better vocalist than Cobain.
None of those take away from the overall raw emotion that Nirvana brought, which completely revolutionized a stale scene the same way that the advent of Punk revolutionized music in the 70s.
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 love Nirvana but Cobain wasn't even the most talented musician in Nirvana.
He wasn't even the most talented musician in Nirvana, kiddo.
Yea what he said. Dave Grohl is much more talented musician than Kobain. Of course he killed himself at 27 so who knows what kind of musician he might have developed into.
What cobain could do is 'read the room', proverbially speaking.
He had a super keen sense of where rock was headed and brought it there. He borrowed heavily from the past, the beatles kind of stuff, etc. But he modernized it with the kind of things Husker Du and punk bands were doing. He shortened the songs, made them blunt and and stripped down, and based on a hook that you couldn't escape. The result was very direct, loud, minimal, and with a big sense of urgency and immediacy.
That was his contribution, or at least his biggest one. He did that effectively and concisely, and it caught on like nothing else of that time.
Whether you like it or not is not the point. He changed the landscape. No small feat, that.
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.
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.
Good points.
Cobain brought punk to mainstream rock listeners. He made it palatable, more listenable. He did that well and he did it without losing the ethos of musical form.
He remained true to the roots and his music.
Btw, I sat behind him and Courtney Love at a movie here in Seattle in 1994, I think it was. All I can say is that it was not too long before his unfortunate demise, and it was clear that he was struggling and was deeply uncomfortable. Very sad, really.