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.
i kinda like running wrote:
No, I think guys like Cobain and Armstrong may well be geniuses, but not musical geniuses. More like capitalists. They knew how to take something new that was happening in the underground and put it a prettier package to sell to the masses, getting rich and famous in the process. Which is a type of genius in itself.
I see your point, and agree somewhat, but I believe Armstrong's financial success was a lot more intentional than Cobain. And of course their reactions to success were completely different also: Cobain responded to success by recording a lot of not very commercial sounding music and blowing his head off, and Armstrong started to write poppier and poppier songs, and ballad after ballad. BJA embraced the capitalist success he became. Cobain, not so much.
And look at much Cobain's collection of songs: from Bleach, to Incesticide, to In Utero, to many songs not on albums, the catchy pop songs were actually few and far between. Yet despite that, he still managed huge popularity and success, and that really says something. For the most part, he was writing for himself, and simply expressing his innermost, and often disturbing, emotions, and certainly not hoping or planning on everyone embracing these often twisted, strange songs. Yet, despite that, and maybe because of it, he was embraced. I think that shows some level of "genius", as much as any other rock musicians that have come along the last 20 years.
"No, I think guys like Cobain and Armstrong may well be geniuses, but not musical geniuses. More like capitalists"
Really. I was thinking bands like bush, seether and puddle of mudd....
Free Market Extremist wrote:
Nihilism is popular and thats why people admire Kurt Kobain, because he was a nihilist. He died for a reason.
How do you know he was a nihilist? HOW DO YOU KNOW???!!
No spaces required
FUCK
SHIT
CUNT
Maybe he's considered a genius because he inspired this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwTqXSOZUZo
Seriously though, he was super marketable. Despite the label "grunge", he had much more of a pop music influence than some of his contemporaries and had hook sin his songs. Also, he was much "prettier" than a lot of other musicians. Even if his music was full of angst, it was a a vulnerable, sensitive angst. Sensitive boys and teen girls liked Nirvana. Most the rock critics from the mid-90s on were sensitive boys, hence the enduring love for Nirvana.
Nirvana is no where near as revered a band as it was 5 or 10 years ago, and it's because the current "alternative" scene has shifted away from the simplistic to more intricate arrangements. R.E.M., My Bloody Valentine, and bands like Pavement and Sonic Youth seemed to have shaped more of today's music scene.
Cobain was no more of a genius than the person that invented the Snuggie. Meeting a market need doesn't make someone talented or particularly creative.
The argument that he somehow single-handedly changed the direction of music or that he introduced a new genre that ushered out the bad superficial pop music of the day is weak and short-sighted.
Top 40 music has almost always been buble-gum and there almost always have been grittier alternatives in each given era. The Bee Gees and ABBA dominated the mid-late 70's on the charts but the Sid Viscous was there as an alternative. The Monkees were huge on the charts in the late 60s, but Jimi Hendrix was available as an alternative. Milli Vanilli was big in the early 90s, but Cobain was there as an alternative.
Cobain was an icon for a generation that desparately wanted one for rebelious reasons. There's something to be said for that. But he was not a genius.
Milli Vanilli was big for about five minutes.
Roughhouse Doyle wrote:
I always found it funny that, when people were calling Cobain a genius, the first Foo Fighters album came out, and it turned out that Cobain wasn't even the best songwriter in his own band...
While it's fair to argue about whether Kurt was a genius or Nirvana was just a well-packaged pop/punk/rebellious band, the Foo Fighters have never approached Nirvana in terms of songwriting ability.
The idea that Grohl is a better songwriter than Cobain is laughable. Mind you, Foo Fighters have some very good songs, very catchy, upbeat, all that... but Kurt brought something else entirely to the table.
It's like suggesting that Green Day is anywhere close to being as good a band as Nirvana. It's laughable.
To those of you who weren't musically aware in the late 80s/early 90s, you might not understand. But if you were there, you understood the vast difference between a Foo Fighter or Green Day, and Nirvana.
Kurt was an artist. Tortured, whacked out on heroin, hooking up with the mess that was and is Courtney Love... but still a unique artist. My two knocks on Kurt are: Courtney Love, and shooting himself. His suicide really lowers his historical 'greatness', as it were. Not cool.
Sometimes I wonder what Kurt would be doing today, if he hadn't taken the idiot's way out. The whole "fame and money" aspect of it all was definitely tough for him to deal with, but not enough to warrant shooting yourself.
"Nevermind" is a ridiculously wondrous album. Credit Butch Vig for a lot of the sound, if we're being honest, but Kurt's voice and approach to his music were singular. It's funny that, of all the Seattle bands at the time, you could argue that fame and fortune meant less to Nirvana than anyone else (Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam, Mother Love Bone, Soundgarden). I always thought they had more in common with the Mudhoneys of the world than with Pearl Jam. But Kurt wrote songs that appealed to a specific (and large) demographic.
Nirvana: power chords, raw lyrical emotion, punk ethos, nursery-rhyme vocal delivery. People underestimate the power of the nursery-rhyme vocal delivery that Kurt had. Very infectious.
But the best album of that time still remains "Loveless" by My Bloody Valentine.
I agree-"Loveless" by My Bloody Valentine is one of my top 15 favorite albums of all time. Now if you want to see an example of almost singlehandedly creating a whole new music form that is it.
best thing he ever released was the trigger
whoa whoa wrote:
But the best album of that time still remains "Loveless" by My Bloody Valentine.
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.
"It's like saying Filet Minon is brilliant, but bananas are stupid to eat."
iruntoo wrote:
what chiken said is 100% right on. He changed the sound and direction of the art form.
Um well, I think we're all in the process of learning that change doesn't always equal better my friend. Pretty piss poor argument you have there.
Is Axl Rose a genius? Had he only put out Appetite, he'd be a legend. He was briefly the best front man in the world and now he's a joke. Had Cobain lived, he'd have put out a lot of crap albums and we wouldn't be having this debate.
There are plenty of musicians who died young who would've put out lots of great music for a long time - Hendrix, Mozart. I don't think Cobain is one of those guys.
Actually, "Urban Hymns" by The Verve is probably the best album of the '90s...but it's sort of the later '90s. From he earlier '90s, I'd pick any one of about three albums by The church.
One of the most overrated musicians EVER!
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.
Sir Lance-alot wrote:
i kinda like running wrote:No, I think guys like Cobain and Armstrong may well be geniuses, but not musical geniuses. More like capitalists. They knew how to take something new that was happening in the underground and put it a prettier package to sell to the masses, getting rich and famous in the process. Which is a type of genius in itself.
I see your point, and agree somewhat, but I believe Armstrong's financial success was a lot more intentional than Cobain. And of course their reactions to success were completely different also: Cobain responded to success by recording a lot of not very commercial sounding music and blowing his head off, and Armstrong started to write poppier and poppier songs, and ballad after ballad. BJA embraced the capitalist success he became. Cobain, not so much.
And look at much Cobain's collection of songs: from Bleach, to Incesticide, to In Utero, to many songs not on albums, the catchy pop songs were actually few and far between. Yet despite that, he still managed huge popularity and success, and that really says something. For the most part, he was writing for himself, and simply expressing his innermost, and often disturbing, emotions, and certainly not hoping or planning on everyone embracing these often twisted, strange songs. Yet, despite that, and maybe because of it, he was embraced. I think that shows some level of "genius", as much as any other rock musicians that have come along the last 20 years.
Fair assesment. And I think you're right. Kurt was a more talented artist than Billy Joe by a long shot, sell out or not. I think that happens to a lot of artists/performers. They get famous and then realize they don't want to be famous, then they get depressed because they're sort of trapped.
But I'm still not sold on the idea of Kurt being a musical genius. Maybe he was, I don't know.
Speaking of which, have any of you ever seen The Devil and Daniel Johnston? Another guy there who is often referred to as a genius, but I just don't see it. I think people mistake the, um, unique perspective of a schizophrenic as "genius".
I'm old wrote:
3. Kurt Cobain is a classic case of somebody who clearly did not WANT to be famous. His music was basically a way to rebel against anything that was popular. Then suddenly HE was popular. You know how it ended.
If you read his journals, you'd know he wanted nothing more than to be famous and successful. That said, I still think he was a genius, a great songwriter, guitarist and singer. You bashers have no taste in music, not surprising since you represent the majority of the retards who are responsible for popular opinions and tastes. Like Kurt, I hate you all. You are worthless.