For over a decade it has been said Kurt Cobain's (of the US Nirvana*) favourite album was Krimson's "Red". However, the Krimson expert Sid Smith tells me he has only traced  this statement back to what Cobain's former road manager said to somebody else, not to Cobain himself. Can somebody supply a more definite reference?

*The British band Nirvana, who had the  psychedelia pop hit "Rainbow Chaser" in the 60's, successfully sued Cobain and co in the British courts, so strictly they should be know as 'The US Nirvana' on British releases (but still waiting). However, the Irish band Skid Row, never sued the American Skid Row - why?  The far superior, original  Skid Row  had Gary Moore (IMHO) at the peak of his guitar playing skills: check out the changes in "Love Story Parts 1 to 4" on the 1971 album, "34 Hours", which gives a lot of clues why he ended up in Colosseum 2. 

I've read that as well. I don't know if it was his all-time fav, but 'Red' was indeed one of his favorites.

When Michael Azzarad published his Nirvana book in the winter of '93, Cobain asked him not to include his 'CD top 50' in this book. Chances are the album was in this 'Top 50'.

In his dairies he had wrote some Playlists down, but I can't remember if King Crimson was included in those lists. I don't think it was. 

Fripp and Crimson are gods.

Cobain was a talent-less wreck who foolishly ended his own life.

There is NO truth to the media-made myth that Cobain "saved rock". I'll take Warrant, Winger, Slaughter and New Kids On The Block over Blink 182, Sum 41, Linkin Park or Britney Spears any 8 days of the week.  

Nothing changed because of Nirvana or "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Mainstream music is as bad now as it's ever been. Despite the 10th anniversary hype, I don't think he's missed at all. "Flash in the pan" is the correct term I believe.

The only thing Cobain ever proved to his deluded legion of angst-ridden teenagers, was that he sucked at playing guitar. Those same kids in 1991-1994 should have been listening to Steve Howe and Steve Hackett unload their six strings.

Grunge is dead - prog is coming back...show no mercy to bad music.

necromancing wrote: Those same kids in 1991-1994 should have been listening to Steve Howe and Steve Hackett unload their six strings.

Because before Cobain came along, all kids listened to prog.

He wasn't a good musician, but no lyricist in King Crimson's history can hold a candle to Kurt's lyric writing.  Give credit where credit is due.

Jim

Thanks for dragging this back to what I originally requested.

 I bought "Nevermind" and was stunned by what I hadn't heard before, but (regardless what other may think of my recent Spocks Beard "Snow" review), I try to hold an open mind and ever looking for new ideas (thats why I've been into prog music since the psychedelic period).

One final point on this "debate": Cobain's talents have impressed folks like Herbie Hancock, for them to cover tunes.

Cobain's talent is a myth....again, just my opinion.

However, I will conceed that covering Bowie's "Man Who Sold the World" on Unplugged took some balls.

Because before Cobain came along, all kids listened to prog.

They did? That's a new one to me!

He wasn't a good musician, but no lyricist in King Crimson's history can hold a candle to Kurt's lyric writing.  Give credit where credit is due.

Kurt the lyricist ain't that much better than Kurt the vocalist or Kurt the guitarist. He wrote some lines that young 'uns felt they connected with, and that's about all I'll give him. Hey, don't bring up the fact that Kurt swiped the main riff from Killing Joke's "'80s" for "Come As You Are" or anything.

I have all Nirvana's releases, but you only have to listen to the MTV unplugged set to realise here was a highly talented man fronting one of the better bands to come out of the Seattle boom of the late '80s

I'll never figure out why Nirvana (then Pearl Jam) were perched atop the "grunge" heap. The term grunge is kind of silly, and bands like Alice In Chains and Soundgarden (a much, much better band than any of the aforementioned...better vocals, better guitar playing, better drumming, better everything!) were firmly metal, IMO, and just because they were based out of Seattle...sheesh.

tragically, a few months later, unable to deal with his addictions and inner demons, he took his own life.

Courtney did it.

Cobain's talents have impressed folks like Herbie Hancock, for them to cover tunes.

Neil Peart thinks Nirvana was great, too, and Carl Palmer publicly approved of Pearl Jam on The Tonight Show, but that doesn't mean I'm going to feel or do likewise.

 I don't really get the fuss over Cobain (the music, and the music it spawned, does very little for me -- perhaps I'm too content inside?) but I know that he was an important figure in 80s-90s rock history to many -- like it or not, his music spoke to millions. Surely, given his stature, and his popularity with rational, even intelligent people (Jim and Dick, to name just two such) he was not "talentless."

Have the nay-sayers ever been rock stars, or in his shoes? 

If he liked Red, I like him the better for it.

Somewhere perhaps,on a Nirvana forum,a member is bieng chided for liking Pink Floyd "you raelly like that talantless crap!?" they may be saying.

ALL MUSIC HAS VALIDITY(AND ALL STYLES AND ARTISTS THEIR PLACE.. EVEN MARIAH CAREY!!)EVEN IF WE DO NOT LIKE THE ARTIST!

HOWEVER I WILL AGREE ON DROPFORGES VIEW ON THE TERM "GRUNGE" AS MUCH AS I LIKED BANDS LIKE SOUNDGARDEN MUDHONEY PEARL JAM ETC IT SOUNDED JUST LIKE HARD ROCK/METAL(IF ANYTHING A RETURN TO THE 70s) IN MY HUMBLE OPINOIN. I AM STILL NOT SURE AFTER ALL THESE YAERS WHAT THE "SEATTLE SOUND"  OR GRUNGE ACTUALLY WAS !!

ALL I KNOW IS, A LOT OF IT SOUNDED GOOD!!

DICKS COMMENTS AT THE BEGINNING ARE INTERESTING I MUST FIND OUT MORE!!

dropForge wrote: Because before Cobain came along, all kids listened to prog. They did? That's a new one to me!

I was being sarcastic.  There's no way kids would ever listen to prog, which made the comment about how kids should have been listening to Steve Hackett and whatnot ironic.

dropForge wrote: He wasn't a good musician, but no lyricist in King Crimson's history can hold a candle to Kurt's lyric writing.  Give credit where credit is due. Kurt the lyricist ain't that much better than Kurt the vocalist or Kurt the guitarist. He wrote some lines that young 'uns felt they connected with, and that's about all I'll give him. Hey, don't bring up the fact that Kurt swiped the main riff from Killing Joke's "'80s" for "Come As You Are" or anything.

Swiping the riff from a song doesn't have anything to do with lyrics.  Read some of his lyrics sometime and who knows, you just might be impressed.

P.S. sorry if I'm coming off as sounding like an ass here, it's just that I feel that while a lot of people overrate Kurt's talents, a lot also underrate them.

necromancing wrote: Fripp and Crimson are gods. Cobain was a talent-less wreck who foolishly ended his own life. There is NO truth to the media-made myth that Cobain "saved rock". I'll take Warrant, Winger, Slaughter and New Kids On The Block over Blink 182, Sum 41, Linkin Park or Britney Spears any 8 days of the week.   Nothing changed because of Nirvana or "Smells Like Teen Spirit". Mainstream music is as bad now as it's ever been. Despite the 10th anniversary hype, I don't think he's missed at all. "Flash in the pan" is the correct term I believe. The only thing Cobain ever proved to his deluded legion of angst-ridden teenagers, was that he sucked at playing guitar. Those same kids in 1991-1994 should have been listening to Steve Howe and Steve Hackett unload their six strings. Grunge is dead - prog is coming back...show no mercy to bad music.

Fripp and Crimson are not Gods.

Cobain had a talent for writing songs that appealed to a large cross-section of music-lovers - not everyone, of course, but the almost tangible attitude and raw energy he put in was something quite unique. Nirvana were overhyped - that's part of what killed him; he had become the very thing he set out to try to destroy; an icon.

Cobain did not save rock, it's true, but Warrant, Winger, Slaughter and New Kids On The Block are all talentless rubbish, while Blink 182, Sum 41, Linkin Park or Britney Spears are all more talented than the former. Linkin Park especially have assisted in the revitalisation of rock in recent years with great melodies, angst-ridden generic lyrics and the combination of Rap, Metal and Boy Band in a way that Rage Against The Machine could only dream of.

Nirvana never wanted to be mainstream - that was the point. They DID, in their own small way, have a knock-on effect that is still being felt - the Nirvana Rock is still sending out ripples, you might say!

Cobain became another rock legend like the appalling list of casualties before him. He wrote (and borrowed) some nice riffs - but it's the sum of the parts, not the parts individually that matter. Nevermind is an AWESOME album, with very few weak points. It's great if something has pd you off and you want to work out some aggression.

The trouble with Howe and Hackett is that you require several brain cells to be in operation simultaneously when you listen to them. The main problem with prog as a genre is that there is a lot of up itself, over-technical, directionless and just plain boring noodling. Sometimes you just want some mindless fun - like the Rolling Stones sang "I know it's only Rock'n'Roll but I like it!".

(dons flame-retardent suit...)

Cobain did not save rock, it's true, but Warrant, Winger, Slaughter and New Kids On The Block are all talentless rubbish, while Blink 182, Sum 41, Linkin Park or Britney Spears are all more talented than the former.

Really? Show me the evidence. If I believe what I see, I'll believe you! The prob is with your argument: Britney canNOT sing. No way. She sounds like a lamer version of Paula Abdul. Christina Aguilera? Now she has a voice! Blink's not much, but that's still a better "band" (barely) than Sum or Linkin.  However, all of these guys pretty much do the 4/4 thing, and I doubt any of their guitar players can do much beyond strum chords and turn the distortion on their pedals all the way up. I am NOT a fan of Warrant, Winger, Slaughter, etc., but keep in mind some of those guys were doing it for the money, and Winger had Dixie Dregs drummer Rod Morgenstein! Kip Winger's also a better bassist than he lets on to be (big deal, tho).

Linkin Park especially have assisted in the revitalisation of rock in recent years with great melodies, angst-ridden generic lyrics and the combination of Rap, Metal and Boy Band in a way that Rage Against The Machine could only dream of.

Okay, you've proven yourself to be a Linkin fan. Great melodies? Don't hear 'em. Angst-ridden lyrics? Yeah, like everyone else and their cousins. Generic?? Absolutely! (You dug yourself into a hole, there, mate.) And, excuse me, but LP's guys couldn't outplay Tim Commerford, Brad Wilk, or Tom Morello any day of the week. Those three guys are very, very good (Tim is a lot  better than what you hear on album, I'd put money down on it). LP couldn't dust RATM's gear.  

Can you wait outside, please? We're having a discussion!

{Just kidding!}

However, all of these guys pretty much do the 4/4 thing, and I doubt any of their guitar players can do much beyond strum chords and turn the distortion on their pedals all the way up.

Nothing wrong with that! Writing good music has bugger all to do with using 11/9 time signatures all over the place, clusters of hemidemisemiquaver runs and 3-hour solos - although all those things can be good. It's like saying someone who just won the world prize for the most fantastic scones is useless because they make a crap souffle. Who cares? Good scones are good scones, even though the ingredients and composition are very simple.

Okay, you've proven yourself to be a Linkin fan. Great melodies? Don't hear 'em. Angst-ridden lyrics? Yeah, like everyone else and their cousins. Generic?? Absolutely! (You dug yourself into a hole, there, mate.)

I like Linkin Park because they sound good to me. You don't like the melodies? OK. That's prolly because you like different tunes to me. Generic - yes, but it takes a special type of talent to make lyrics that wide-reaching, hence LP are so popular, because the lyrics speak very well to a lot of different people. The Beatles specialised in writing generic lyrics, although certain popular themes cropped up, like Love and Peace (odd, really, given that it was the 1960s...). I see no holes or problems with anyone who is good at generic lyrics - it's really difficult. I'm still trying (as a lyricist) to write lyrics that mean many things to many people.

OK, I dislike all the bands you mentioned, so I said Britney was more talented to get a rise (bad, bad Cert!) - I know she's rubbish and can't sing - to mime at a "Live" concert is excrable, IMNSHO). NKOTB used to mime as well, so I believe you may need a spade? Blink 182 are a bit older and more experienced than Sum41 - who are completely bland - and I've seen both bands live as well, and they could well be the same band really.

However, just because a band can play 5 chords it does not mean they are the next King Crimson.

And, excuse me, but LP's guys couldn't outplay Tim Commerford, Brad Wilk, or Tom Morello any day of the week. Those three guys are very, very good (Tim is a lot  better than what you hear on album, I'd put money down on it). LP couldn't dust RATM's gear.

Ah. A "RATM" fan. Depends what you mean by "outplay". LP write much better material - better riffs, better melodies, subtle arrangements, light and shade - if you haven't heard the strong melodies, you really ought to listen to them instead of sitting there going "Horrible, spotty little boyband - I must not like...".

One concession; maybe LP ought to write a thank you letter to RATM for some of the riffs they managed to improve upon. The other problems with RATM (apart from the up themselves attitude) was that the riffs were almost there (so unsatisfying - a little more time in the studio and they might have got the idea) - and they needed a new producer. On every album. Less really can be more, in the right context. RATM do not fit here just because they're anti-establishment - hell, why not invite the Sex Pistols, the Dead Kennedys and Citizen Fish as well (not to mention the hundreds of other underground anti-establisment bands). Mainly, of course, RATM don't fit here 'coz they're pants.

It is indeed a sad state of affairs that Record Companies will try to dictate what a band can or cannot sound like - but if a band really has talent, they will find a way to let out the music within, even if it means finishing the 5-year sentence first.

I think Linkin Park are different to most pop-metal. In the current drought of good stuff, they seem to shine through, along with the highly technical System of a Down, the huge sounding Rammstein and the very quirky Korn. You can keep the rest.

Personally I prefer Gilmour or Rothery to Fripp - I'm not keen on the tangential noodling - although I recognise that Fripp is capable of good tunes and interesting structures

But YAY to the Mellotrons!!! - and YAY to Different Strokes!!!!!

dropForge wrote: Can you wait outside, please? We're having a discussion! {Just kidding!}

Go to it, by all means -- don't mind me.

Whoops! There goes your own tail again -- catch it, quick!

The trouble with peace is that it only occurs between times of conflict.

I just love reasoned and rational debate - seasoned with some good old-fashioned mud-slinging. As long as nobody takes it personally, nobody gets hurt - and surely no-one takes anything seriously or personally except PROG on this forum?

On the original topic, there is a lot of hearsay and statements in various reviews here and there, but I can find no authoritative links that back up the claim that "Red" was one of Cobain's favourites. However, the grunginess, the distortion, the wailing metallic sounds are all there in Nirvana's music to add support to the theory. Play Nevermind back to back with Red and see what I mean (Nevermind first, of course - save the best 'til last!). Somehow I find In Utero to be less satisfying, although many cite it as the best.  Don't expect one to sound like the other, though - we're talking about musicians at opposite ends of the technical spectrum.

I read somewhere that "Red" owes its name to where the needles were on the mixing console during the recording sessions...

Writing good music has bugger all to do with using 11/9 time signatures all over the place, clusters of hemidemisemiquaver runs and 3-hour solos

That's a whole other animal. I'm just generalizing when it comes to a lot of these mainstream "rawk" bands. Yeah, they can crank it up, but volume isn't everything. And most of them ground themselves on the basic major & minor chords, and let open strings fill in the rest. That's why the term garage rock often comes up in new album reviews, eh? I'm still trying to figure out why bands like LP and Incubus have "turntablists" when you can never hear the guy over the guitars, drums & vocals.

However, just because a band can play 5 chords it does not mean they are the next King Crimson.

No, they still need to figure out seventeen more chords so they can write some decent songs. Not that I haven't heard good 5-chord songs (AC/DC or Cheap Trick, anyone?).

LP write much better material - better riffs, better melodies, subtle arrangements, light and shade

Er...I think not!   Please re-listen to all your RATM CDs, and thank me later.

One concession; maybe LP ought to write a thank you letter to RATM for some of the riffs they managed to improve upon.

I'm going to love this part - care to provide any concrete examples? Since you think LP is the best new thing since the electric blender...

I think Linkin Park are different to most pop-metal. In the current drought of good stuff, they seem to shine through, along with the highly technical System of a Down, the huge sounding Rammstein and the very quirky Korn. You can keep the rest.

Rammstein were kind of interesting for a bit (never saw them live, but I read reviews), and Serj Tankian probably makes all the difference in SOAD so that they don't simply sound like another Pantera (drummer ain't bad, either). What you think greatly differentiates LP from the rest of the crop is beyond me; I'm no fan of Incubus, but I'd wager they do LP one better, minus the crappy pseudo-rappy vox.

And then you mention the very "quirky" Korn. There's nothing quirky about that band save the fact that Jon Davis does NOT have a singing voice, or decent growling voice (or whatever), and he couldn't write good lyrics if he took a cocktail of the best illegal drugs you can buy locally. I don't understand the moderate success Korn is apparently enjoying, but in about a year or two, they may not even be a blip on the radar. Seldom have I heard a more pedestrian modern "rawk" band that attempts to sound "mean" and "heavy"! And Jon's "vocals" just make me laff!

I don't suppose you listen(ed) to Tool or Soundgarden? If you want to hear some good mainstream music...

I guess we'll just agree to disagree!

 Imagine if we all loved the same woman (or exact physical type) -- dear sweet liitle Mariah excepted, natch.....

Or: "Lasagna is way better than spaghetti! I dare you to eat some lasagna and disagree with me!"

I daresay you would think such an argument ridiculous?

You already made the same point, earlier. Yes, we understand you, but we're "discussing," anyway.

Next topic: White Stripes...worth a damn or not?

{J/K!}

  NOT...

Oooops, Knock it off boys. The White Stripes appeal to many of use middle aged, wispy haired proggers. They remind me of ...... The Knack, yeah, The Knack;

My Sharona, dada dada duh duh.... Myyyyyy Sharona.

Yeah, those were the days. Peter in a pair of Angel Flights, Jim bouncing off the walls of the local disco, Dude wearing high heeled sneakers..... ahh, those were the days, chaps.

There is no accounting for taste.

Mmmmm, I all I was trying to do was some serious research and nail the Cobain and Red quote. Trouble is the wrong sort of research results came about more  suited to  a social psychologist:i.e. indications as to  how some folks end up displaying the mental level of an 8 year old: "mind is better than yours" etc.  That is some form of progressive fundamentalism, a rock Afghanistan where some don't care to accept that others have different  opinions and prefer other bands. That's nonsense. Blinked inflexibity caused me to pack in the last prog discussion group,  although I've been with a jazz rock fusion group since the mid 90's, and it has never suffered this level of immaturity. I'm in my 50's and I still want to learnt; I still find myself  changing my ideas given sound reasoning. Music like any art form is abstract, try to define it in pure physically or mathematical terms and you still haven't  explain anything about how it effects others' souls and minds. Telling me x is better than y is your subjective opinion. If I ask you to prove it, you can't . I respect your preferred tastes but don't have the fascist arrogance to insist what I should or shouldn't like. Suggest by all means but don't insist.

I'm not sure how long a thread stays serious on this forum - it annoys me a bit too that a kind of "who gives a monkeys" attitude creeps into most serious threads. OK - Guilty as charged! It reminds me of those superb History Today sketches by David Baddiel and Robert Newman, where two old university professors sit down to discuss a topic from history, and descend into a "See that? That's you, that is" type of childish argument. http://www.tmwe.co.uk/ - http://www.tmwe.co.uk/ . I know I'm not the only one whose mind tends to revert to the inner child...

I tried to pull this thread back O/T a couple of posts ago - but the old "X is Crap Y is Fab" argument can be just sooooo irresistable - as you say, the psychology is fascinating. It would appear that not many respondents have bothered to look into the title topic (check the History Today videos on the link above - if you've never seen them before you'll get the point immediately - and also have some serious belly laughs!!).

Music, like any art, is not totally abstract; there are rules that govern structure which underpin all art. Many artists push the boundaries of those rules in order to bring abstraction and chaos, or at the very least some sense of their own self to their creation, but usually end up re-affirming the rules for the general populace. There are certain patterns which have a wide appeal, and there are biological and physiological as well as psychological reasons why one person may like a piece while another hates it. Music is not just an audible phenomenon after all; sound waves have a physical effect.

I could stick with this topic for HOURS

dropforge:

I've NEVER bought a RATM CD, but my brother is equally rabid about them and equally anti LP. So if you like one, you automatically hate the other? Different sides of the same coin? It's all "rap metal", surely? My brother reckons that LP nicked loads of RATM riffs. I don't hear that either. If they did, then they improved them to the point that they created some very slick new ones! (Oooops!! Bad, Bad Cert!!) If you think LP sound nothing like RATM, then I'm in full agreement, buddy! Let's agree on that, at least

I went round to my brothers, and allowed him to try to convert me, but I hate the production, and there's that "X" factor in the music that either does it for me or doesn't.  In this case, it most blatantly doesn't.

My brother also likes the bands you mention, who I also dislike, and also dismisses the bands I mentioned in much the same way - you're not my brother, are you??

It never fails to amaze me just how much strong feeling music can raise - it's such incredibly powerful stuff - amazing, considering it's only sound organised in time.

Back O/T:

Has anyone else played a Nirvana album back to back with Red? I think that, in absence of biographical material to back up Dick's original hypothesis, maybe progarchives could do some aural research (no sniggering at the back - it's spelt differently...).  I've just pulled out the bits that were most obvious to me - maybe someone will spot other links.

YES I THINK I WILL JUST TAKE MY WALKING STICK AND SNAEK QUITELY OUT THE BACK DOOR

TIS A YOUNG MANS GAME THIS THREAD!!

DUDES WHEELCHAIR QIUVERS IN EXCITEMENT "AH SAXON" HE SIGHS..."WHEELS OF STEEL"!!

HE REMENICES ABOUT THE SALAd days....or in his case the" chips is all i can afford days"

 Shout it Jim, shout it out loud!

(Just let me turn up my hearing aid first.)

 Now, what were you saying?

HEY HEY HEY!

How about that new VAN HALEN tour?

EH..!! SPEAK UP YOUNGENS!!! WHAT WAS THAT ABOUT BREAST IMPLANTS?

...you see what I mean, Dick Heath;

Us whippersnappers just want to fight and argue about who's best, and the old farts just want to talk about the first thing that comes into their heads. And the first thing that comes into their heads usually has a pair of breasts...

^ Hyuk hyuk. Har-dee-freakin' har har!

Not bad, actually. Pretty good, in fact....HA!

I've NEVER bought a RATM CD, but my brother is equally rabid about them and equally anti LP.

At least somebody else can distinguish between a real rock band and a boy band/rock band hybrid trying to hitch a ride on the coattails of others before them. 

So if you like one, you automatically hate the other?

That's a generalization you've invented. Nothing more.

My brother reckons that LP nicked loads of RATM riffs. I don't hear that either. If they did, then they improved them to the point that they created some very slick new ones!

Hehe. I doubt it. I've yet to hear a memorable "riff" from LP. All I see & hear are uninspired rhymes, tired posturing and cookie cutter chord progressions.

dropForge wrote: I've NEVER bought a RATM CD, but my brother is equally rabid about them and equally anti LP. At least somebody else can distinguish between a real rock band and a boy band/rock band hybrid trying to hitch a ride on the coattails of others before them.

No - my brother's musical tastes suck as well

So if you like one, you automatically hate the other? That's a generalization you've invented. Nothing more.

No it was a rhetorical question - the clue was in that funny squiggly "?" sign

My brother reckons that LP nicked loads of RATM riffs. I don't hear that either. If they did, then they improved them to the point that they created some very slick new ones! Hehe. I doubt it. I've yet to hear a memorable "riff" from LP. All I see & hear are uninspired rhymes, tired posturing and cookie cutter chord progressions.

I hope the nurse removes your blinkers

Exhibit A

I don’t know what set me off first but I know what I can’t stand
Everybody acts like the fact of the matter is
I can’t add up to what you can but
Everybody has a face that they hold inside
A face that awakes when they close their eyes

Exhibit B (strangely appropriate!)

I tried so hard
And got so far
But in the end
It doesn’t even matter

Exhibit C (Even better!!)

I've
become so numb
I can't feel you there
become so tired
so much more aware
I'm becoming this
all I want to do
is be more like me
and be less like you

Uninspired? Maybe I'm alone in thinking that those lyircs are pretty inspired for this day and age. There's a nice, slick degree of minimalism that cuts through the crap and gets to the point, but still keeps it subjective and personal to the listener. Being "In Yer Face" as well as "In Yer Mind" is quite a neat trick, even if it is somewhat superficial.

Compare with Exhibit D (RATM)

Huh!
Yeah, we're comin' back then with another bombtrack
Think ya know what it's all about
Huh!
Hey yo, so check this out
Yeah!
Know your enemy!

Come on!

Exhibit E (I'm not cheating - this is a different song, allegedly...)

Ughh! Hey you, it's just another bombtrack...ughh!
Hey you, it's just another bombtrack...yeah!
It goes a-one, two three and
It's just another bombtrack
And suckas be thinkin' that they can fake this
But I'm gonna drop it at a higher level
'Cause I'm inclined to stoop down
Hand out some beat-downs

Hmm. I don't want to come across all hyper-critical or anything, but this looks like complete bcks to me. Just my opinion, you understand?

Posturing? Can anyone say AC/DC, Metallica or Rage Against the Machine? Or any other "Hair" band you care to mention. Many prog bands - and bands who play other music... Hello!!! Posturing is what interesting rock stars do. If you don't like it, go see Coldplay or Travis.

"Cookie-Cutter chord progressions" - a mildly interesting but meaningless media term. Can anyone say AC/DC, Metallica or Rage Against the Machine...?  The term appears to mean re-using patterns or chord progressions and not pushing boundaries in order to remain popular. Nickelback are often cited as a prime example, along with just about every so-called R&B act under the sun.

If so, then Mozart wrote "cookie-cutter" music and so did the Beatles. They also wrote heaps of non-"CC" music, but that's not the point - the point is that there is nothing wrong with using a style or template. Even Beethoven used standard Sonata form on the whole. That's why the term is meaningless - if I use the progression A-D-E in a piece of music, that could be seen as "CC". The response is obvious - it depends HOW I use it.

To paraphrase what I said earlier, Beauty is in the (ear) of the beholder, and there is no right or wrong way to write music, although there are definite rules within cultures which create the boundaries that musicians love to push. People use cliches in music because they work - even prog bands. 

Not one of your criticisms stands up under close scrutiny, they just come across as cheap attacks based on personal opinion. OK, pot, kettle, black, but at least I do not confine my replies to opinion alone. If you have something concrete and interesting to say, I'd be pleasantly surprised, otherwise, my shredder stands at the ready 

MORE DRIED FROG PILLS OVER HERE, PLEASE!!!

These posts are getting longer and longer and...

Um (or erm), so you posted some LP lyrics.

So what exactly is it you're trying to accomplish? Is a lyric like "Everybody has a face that they hold inside" supposed to be deep? Your second example takes lyrics from one of their singles, lines which would be right at home in almost any other song by a current schlock-rock band whose video you can see on Fuse. If you don't hear the difference between all of this crap and bands like RATM or Tool, I can't help you.

"Cookie-Cutter chord progressions" - a mildly interesting but meaningless media term.

No, it means exactly what I intended to get across. And I think you got my point.

Not one of your criticisms stands up under close scrutiny, they just come across as cheap attacks based on personal opinion. OK, pot, kettle, black, but at least I do not confine my replies to opinion alone.

My criticisms stand up just fine. 'Tis not I who's on the defensive. And yes, pot~kettle~black, exactly. By suggesting I don't have anything "concrete and interesting to say," you're just being snobbish.

As I said before, we'll just agree to disagree. Besides, if somebody doesn't put their wet index finger & thumb around this fuse, I'm afraid Korn lyrics might turn up!

Surely the multifarious (if slightly naughty) points I made were not missed? Those 5 lyric sections were deliberately chosen with tongue firmly in cheek, (but I'm not saying whose...) if, admittedly, a slightly acerbic attitude. The humour (and insults) were there to be found and giggled at - and there were some serious points. It's all in the mix, as they say! 

Pass the popkorn, danbo!

You want Korn lyrics - OK

I can take no more
What are we fighting for?
You are my brothers
Each one I would die for
Please just let it go

Does the penny drop?

I still find the term "Cookie-Cutter" music to be meaningless - it's just too easy a target to argue against - a cheap jibe for when nothing intelligent comes to mind.

Cookie, anyone?

I notice you don't disagree that RATM fit that description also.

Snobbish? Probably. But then I have my reasons. I don't like RATM, for a start...  As Jack Nicholson once said "The best form of defence is the attack without mercy!!!"

You see that Mariah Carey? That's you that is - she's, like, your favourite singer in the whole world - you've got all her CDs in chronological order; You love her - you think she can sing 

I notice you don't disagree that RATM fit that description also.

So, by your logic, it means that I agree? Because I didn't go out of my way to post some lyrics?

Snobbish? Probably. But then I have my reasons.

Heh. We all do. Looks like you missed the in-joke in that one, matey! After all, this is a prog forum.

You see that Mariah Carey? That's you that is - she's, like, your favourite singer in the whole world - you've got all her CDs in chronological order; You love her - you think she can sing

Actually, I don't think she can sing. I know she can sing. Everyone does. She can hold a note. She can lengthen those vowels, eh? (I just don't care for her tunes.) 

How come every thread ends in a discussion about Mariah Carey and/or vegetables?

This is a song about vegetables; they keep you regular and they're real good for ya!

MY SISTER USED TO GIGGLE AT CUCUMBERS...DUNNO WHY, THEY WERE JUST BIG LONG VEGETABLES!!

OH DEAR I JUST REALISED!!!....

What's long and hard and full of seamen?

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

  .

.

.

.

.

A submarine.....



http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001">

http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb037">

Looks like I'm just not in with the right people and don't get all the jokes. I probably don't read people's postings closely enough to understand them.

Me - I'm just a vegetable, you can tell me by the way I stalk...

JOKE:

Two nuns are out driving in their Morris Minor, when, all of a sudden, a vampire flutters down from the sky and lands on the bonnet.

Sister Theresa turns to sister Mary and says

"Quick, sister Mary - show him your cross!!!"

So sister Mary, quick as a flash, winds down the window and shouts

"OI!! You!!! f off!!!"

danbo wrote: What's long and hard and full of seamen? A submarine.....

What's long and hard, and drags along the bottom of the sea?

Moby's d*ck!

Ha!

http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001 -

http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb037 -  

Certif1ed wrote: Two nuns are out driving in their Morris Minor, when, all of a sudden, a vampire flutters down from the sky and lands on the bonnet. Sister Theresa turns to sister Mary and says "Quick, sister Mary - show him your cross!!!" So sister Mary, quick as a flash, winds down the window and shouts "OI!! You!!! f off!!!"

   I had never heard that one before! 

I like to wake up to something long, pink and hard in the morning...

...

...

...

...

The Financial Times Crossword!

Two Canadians are walking down the street when they see a do licking his privates. One of them says, "Don't you wish you could do that?"

The other replies,

.

. http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001">

.

.

"Sure, but shouldn't we make sure he's not rabid first."  

  





http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb041">

^ Two Americans named Danbo are walking down the street,

when this Canadian jumps out and pounds the living crap out of them!

Dick Heath wrote: The far superior, original  Skid Row  had Gary Moore (IMHO) at the peak of his guitar playing skills: check out the changes in "Love Story Parts 1 to 4" on the 1971 album, "34 Hours", which gives a lot of clues why he ended up in Colosseum 2.

The US Skid Row is great!

necromancing wrote: The only thing Cobain ever proved to his deluded legion of angst-ridden teenagers, was that he sucked at playing guitar. Those same kids in 1991-1994 should have been listening to Steve Howe and Steve Hackett unload their six strings. Grunge is dead - prog is coming back...show no mercy to bad music.

Am I the only one who thinks this statement is completely ridiculous. Who get's to decide what kids should, or shouldn't be listening to anyway?. I'm not a Nirvana fan, they just aren't for me. But if there are people out their that do get something out of their music, then more power to them.

I definitely feel, sometimes, that some Prog fans are just as closed minded and ignorant as they accuse others of being.

Facts:

cobain did not ask to be the icon of a generation, it was thrust upon him by the media.  the movement was happening all around him and somehow he was chosen as the reluctant poster boy.

this, however, does not reduce his importance in musical history.  The grunge movement brought about the end of hair metal, and was in fact much more progressive in general than hairspray-and-spandex bands. 

to agree that KC was cobains favorite band is not to compare them with Nirvana.  apples and oranges. 

sure kurt couldnt play guitar worth pigeon poo, but that does not undermine his importance.

courtnet love killed kurt cobain.  'nuff said.

now on to the LP/RATM thing...

Tom morello is a musical genius.  he is often asked in interviews why he writes such simple riffs, and he answers 'because they are more fun to play'.  how can you not agree with that?  his style is totally original and he can make unimaginable sounds come out of his guitar.  LP needs a DJ to produce turntable and MIDI controlled sounds.  Morello did the same with a few analog pedals and the digitech Whammy (the greatest pedal ever made...). 

all those great sounds from a guy with a Poli-Sci degree from Harvard...

Useful_Idiot wrote: necromancing wrote: Those same kids in 1991-1994 should have been listening to Steve Howe and Steve Hackett unload their six strings. Because before Cobain came along, all kids listened to prog. He wasn't a good musician, but no lyricist in King Crimson's history can hold a candle to Kurt's lyric writing.  Give credit where credit is due.

Finally he's recognized for his stong points.

Wonder how 21st Century Shcizoid Man would sound if Nirvana did it......?

frenchie wrote: alan_pfeifer wrote: Useful_Idiot wrote: necromancing wrote: Those same kids in 1991-1994 should have been listening to Steve Howe and Steve Hackett unload their six strings. Because before Cobain came along, all kids listened to prog. He wasn't a good musician, but no lyricist in King Crimson's history can hold a candle to Kurt's lyric writing.  Give credit where credit is due. Finally he's recognized for his stong points. Wonder how 21st Century Shcizoid Man would sound if Nirvana did it......? oh god forbid the vocals would be difficult since kurt blew his jaw off but he will prolly still sound just about the same. that said Dave Grohl is a fantastic drummer.

yeah...too bad I was joking.  and Dave Grohl is a tad too bashy for my tastes.

Anyone notice that Dick Heath hasn't come back?

Anyway, if Kurt Cobain liked Red, that's good for him. But I don't have to think him better for it. Kurt Cobain is the single most overhyped musician in the history of popular music. He was a lousy musician who didn't have a shred of creativity in him, he was a lousy poet who prefered abstractness to emotion, and he was a lousy person in general who cared about his drugs and his money more than any of his family and friends.

However, the media continues to look to him as a hero, and saying what I just said means you're frowned upon by the narrow minded masses who have made it taboo to question things such as that. It just goes to show you, people don't want someone to look up to, they want somone to look eye level with so's to make themselves feel better.

And about Linkin Park, I would never pick up thier albums, but at least they make it a point to try thier best at making good music. I don't think they're fantastic at it, but they deserve some appraisal. I would never put them in the same class as Rage, a band that transended two genres before anyone had even thougt it a possibility however.

And grunge, I don't see anything special about that either. It didn't put an end to hair metal, it simply made it less popular. Prog isn't as popular, is it dead? I don't like hair metal, it's boring, bubblegummy music. But I don't like grunge either. I find nothing progressive about it. There are no musical comcepts that haven't been done before, no real blending of styles that hasn't been done before, and no real originality. It's just a wave of punk rock and heavy metal that became the new target of the media's hype. The only band of that genre that I enjoy is Soundgarden, because I think they were accomplished musicians and songwriters with powerful and profound music.

DavidInsabella wrote: Kurt Cobain is the single most overhyped musician in the history of popular music. He was a lousy musician who didn't have a shred of creativity in him, he was a lousy poet who prefered abstractness to emotion, and he was a lousy person in general who cared about his drugs and his money more than any of his family and friends.

he changed the face of music in the early 90s and transformed & defined a generation; I think he had a lot of creativity in him!!  he was a much better musician than people give him credit for.  he knew music inside out and did actually have a good voice.  he may not have been the world's greatest lyricist, but he conveyed his thoughts and allowed you to connect with them.

he was a tortured soul throughtout his life and was consumed by drugs at the end of this life; that changed him for sure.  yes he was selfish in the final few months, but was he a lousy person in general?  no more than the next person; no more than you or I.

cobain was also a massive, massive led zep fan...for what it's worth.

spectral wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Kurt Cobain is the single most overhyped musician in the history of popular music. He was a lousy musician who didn't have a shred of creativity in him, he was a lousy poet who prefered abstractness to emotion, and he was a lousy person in general who cared about his drugs and his money more than any of his family and friends. he changed the face of music in the early 90s and transformed & defined a generation; I think he had a lot of creativity in him!!  he was a much better musician than people give him credit for.  he knew music inside out and did actually have a good voice.  he may not have been the world's greatest lyricist, but he conveyed his thoughts and allowed you to connect with them. he was a tortured soul throughtout his life and was consumed by drugs at the end of this life; that changed him for sure.  yes he was selfish in the final few months, but was he a lousy person in general?  no more than the next person; no more than you or I. cobain was also a massive, massive led zep fan...for what it's worth.

single most over hyped musician in history?!! i think that is a bit of an over exageration. Anyway Noel Gallagher should get that accolade!

like you say Spectral Cobain was a big music fan and music was his life but he also happened to strike a chord (excuse the pun) that the youth of that period could empathise with.

How anyone can call him the single most overhyped musician is beyond me even if you don't like the band you should realise he was an instrumental figure of 90's music.

spectral wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Kurt Cobain is the single most overhyped musician in the history of popular music. He was a lousy musician who didn't have a shred of creativity in him, he was a lousy poet who prefered abstractness to emotion, and he was a lousy person in general who cared about his drugs and his money more than any of his family and friends. he changed the face of music in the early 90s and transformed & defined a generation; I think he had a lot of creativity in him!!  he was a much better musician than people give him credit for.  he knew music inside out and did actually have a good voice.  he may not have been the world's greatest lyricist, but he conveyed his thoughts and allowed you to connect with them. he was a tortured soul throughtout his life and was consumed by drugs at the end of this life; that changed him for sure.  yes he was selfish in the final few months, but was he a lousy person in general?  no more than the next person; no more than you or I. cobain was also a massive, massive led zep fan...for what it's worth.

And secondly, of course he was a tortures soul, he was a heroin junkie! He was a weak minded human being who needed drugs to escape from simple problems that could be faced head on with internal strength that he didn't have. As all heroin junkies, he was pitiful. That's not something to look up to, that's just sad.

He pushed his family and friends away just so they couldn't take his drugs away from him. Then he killed himself because he was too weak and pathetic a person to fix his problems. I'll never concider this person a strong player in the history of music.

And if I didn't care that he was a King Crimson fan, why would I care that he was a Led Zeppelin fan?

DavidInsabella wrote: Kurt Cobain made a trend. That's all. He didn't do anything that wasn't done befre and he didn't change music, or at least not for the better. If anything he led to musicians lowering thier standards. ANd when I listen to any of his music, I find it impossible to believe that he was a creative person. He was a three chord writer who could never come up with a great piece of music or even a catchy tune. I think people give him too much credit, most definately it's not the other way around. Plus, he was an awful singer. And secondly, of course he was a tortures soul, he was a heroin junkie! He was a weak minded human being who needed drugs to escape from simple problems that could be faced head on with internal strength that he didn't have. As all heroin junkies, he was pitiful. That's not something to look up to, that's just sad. He pushed his family and friends away just so they couldn't take his drugs away from him. Then he killed himself because he was too weak and pathetic a person to fix his problems. I'll never concider this person a strong player in the history of music. And if I didn't care that he was a King Crimson fan, why would I care that he was a Led Zeppelin fan?

You know f*** about Nirvana or music then.  Are you trying to say that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is not a catchy tune?  Yes, he wrote mainly 3-chord songs, but you don't have to write intensely technical songs to make them sound good.  Also, he was a great singer.  A recent documentary on him and nirvana displayed his vocal abilities.  He captured a sound on record that went well with the music, but he could sing.  his knowledge of music was incredible, evidently 1000s of times better than yours.

he was a musician and an artist, i.e. a creative person.  his artwork was another facet to his character and displayed another creative talent of his.

He was a tortured soul before he became an addict.  when his parents divorced his life was turned upside down.  his addiction was created by his experiences growing up, not the cause of him being a mixed up/tortured person.  just because people have problems does not make them a bad person or even pitiful.

so all people who commit suicide are weak and pathetic, according to you.  it is a last resort for people who are struggling.  it is not a case of just snapping out of it and getting on with life; it is a serious mental problem.

basically, you are an obtuse, insensitive asshole who is trying to argue a point of view which you know f**k all about.  you call him uncreative and pitiful.  he was neither.  get your facts straight before you argue about something.

DavidInsabella wrote: spectral wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Kurt Cobain is the single most overhyped musician in the history of popular music. He was a lousy musician who didn't have a shred of creativity in him, he was a lousy poet who prefered abstractness to emotion, and he was a lousy person in general who cared about his drugs and his money more than any of his family and friends. he changed the face of music in the early 90s and transformed & defined a generation; I think he had a lot of creativity in him!!  he was a much better musician than people give him credit for.  he knew music inside out and did actually have a good voice.  he may not have been the world's greatest lyricist, but he conveyed his thoughts and allowed you to connect with them. he was a tortured soul throughtout his life and was consumed by drugs at the end of this life; that changed him for sure.  yes he was selfish in the final few months, but was he a lousy person in general?  no more than the next person; no more than you or I. cobain was also a massive, massive led zep fan...for what it's worth. Kurt Cobain made a trend. That's all. He didn't do anything that wasn't done befre and he didn't change music, or at least not for the better. If anything he led to musicians lowering thier standards. ANd when I listen to any of his music, I find it impossible to believe that he was a creative person. He was a three chord writer who could never come up with a great piece of music or even a catchy tune. I think people give him too much credit, most definately it's not the other way around. Plus, he was an awful singer. And secondly, of course he was a tortures soul, he was a heroin junkie! He was a weak minded human being who needed drugs to escape from simple problems that could be faced head on with internal strength that he didn't have. As all heroin junkies, he was pitiful. That's not something to look up to, that's just sad. He pushed his family and friends away just so they couldn't take his drugs away from him. Then he killed himself because he was too weak and pathetic a person to fix his problems. I'll never concider this person a strong player in the history of music. And if I didn't care that he was a King Crimson fan, why would I care that he was a Led Zeppelin fan?

i think buddio you should go and try and write some of the tunes he wrote and then i might just start to maybe consider your f***in ridiculous point of view. man i have never before read such a ridiculous or utterly unfounded opinion on the archives.

do you go to church or something? i think you may also like men!!

GoldenSpiral wrote:  Cobain didnt start the trend.  it happened while he was in a band of the same genre that the media chose to popularize, thats all.  Nirvana never wanted to be popular.  in fact, Smells Like Teen Spirit was originally written as a "stupid pop song", as sort of a pop satire by an underground band.  turned out accidentally to be a chart topper.  oh, how reality seems to always end up imitating satire...

Cobain had a darn load more talent and integrity compared to the majority of popular bands around at the moment who are just sold off the basis of imageology.

"oh man you look so cool and i can't wait to watch you burn"

spectral wrote: DavidInsabella wrote: Kurt Cobain made a trend. That's all. He didn't do anything that wasn't done befre and he didn't change music, or at least not for the better. If anything he led to musicians lowering thier standards. ANd when I listen to any of his music, I find it impossible to believe that he was a creative person. He was a three chord writer who could never come up with a great piece of music or even a catchy tune. I think people give him too much credit, most definately it's not the other way around. Plus, he was an awful singer. And secondly, of course he was a tortures soul, he was a heroin junkie! He was a weak minded human being who needed drugs to escape from simple problems that could be faced head on with internal strength that he didn't have. As all heroin junkies, he was pitiful. That's not something to look up to, that's just sad. He pushed his family and friends away just so they couldn't take his drugs away from him. Then he killed himself because he was too weak and pathetic a person to fix his problems. I'll never concider this person a strong player in the history of music. And if I didn't care that he was a King Crimson fan, why would I care that he was a Led Zeppelin fan? You know f*** about Nirvana or music then.  Are you trying to say that "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is not a catchy tune?  Yes, he wrote mainly 3-chord songs, but you don't have to write intensely technical songs to make them sound good.  Also, he was a great singer.  A recent documentary on him and nirvana displayed his vocal abilities.  He captured a sound on record that went well with the music, but he could sing.  his knowledge of music was incredible, evidently 1000s of times better than yours. he was a musician and an artist, i.e. a creative person.  his artwork was another facet to his character and displayed another creative talent of his. He was a tortured soul before he became an addict.  when his parents divorced his life was turned upside down.  his addiction was created by his experiences growing up, not the cause of him being a mixed up/tortured person.  just because people have problems does not make them a bad person or even pitiful. so all people who commit suicide are weak and pathetic, according to you.  it is a last resort for people who are struggling.  it is not a case of just snapping out of it and getting on with life; it is a serious mental problem. basically, you are an obtuse, insensitive asshole who is trying to argue a point of view which you know f**k all about.  you call him uncreative and pitiful.  he was neither.  get your facts straight before you argue about something.

"You don't have to be a technical musician to write good songs," you say, that's neither here nor there. For all I care Cobain could have played the most amazing solos in the world and he still wouldn't be a good musician. And no, I don't think Smells Like Teen Spirit is a catchy tune. Cobain wrote upwards of songs like that. Songs that all sounded virtually the same. That's not creativity. And just because you say he had a great voice doesn't make it so (which is the weakness of your argument in general). And saying he knew 1000 times more about music than me when you don't even know me is just immature, like your entire post. If I don't currently know more about music than he ever did, then I'm confident that I will within the passing year, though I doubt I don't already. What a bitter statement in general, you have some serious growing up to do.

Once again, just becsuse you claim he was a genious doesn't make it so. You just throw statements in my face with no reason. That's just like every blindly following youth in the world that refuses to question the ideas displayed by the media. I don't think he was an artist and I don't think he was a good musician, plus I've thoroughly backed up my reasoning. You've just disagreed and put me down for thinking that way. That just makes you a rude, bitter child.

All this tortured soul rubbish is ridiculous. I know plenty of people with divorced parents, and they live happy and normal lives. For Cobain, it seems that he wasn't quite as strong a person. And his drugs only made it worse. He kept taking them until it led to heroin. He didn't even feel anything anymore, he just needed heroin to get by, as all heroin junkies who can't bring themselves to prie away from thier drugs. In Kurt Cobain's Officil biography, (which I read, an get my facts that you claim are nonexistent from) it says that for the last few weeks of his life, Cobain had left his family and run off with his drug dealer after escaping from a rehabilitation center. His family and his friends couldn't find him and eventually he was found dead. Is that the kind of person I should praise? Is this the man you concider so wonderful and scorn me for ever questioning his glory? Jerk.

Commiting suicide is an easy way out of problems. Cobain's problem at the time was his family trying to get him clean. The "fame" and all that junk wasn't his problem, (or so I have read) it was the fact that people were trying to take away his drugs. I don't have respect for people who kill themselves instead of remaining strong and doing thier best to pick up the pieces. Sure, maybe there's some kind of outlandish scenario you can bring up where I would feel respect, but in the case of Kurt Cobain, yes, I find him weak and pathetic.

You, my friend, have to exept the opinions given to you. I didn't attack you in my post, but you felt the need to insult my character just for having an opposing opinion. You were either too bitter to think straight at the time, or just a mean person. Either way, I have my facts straight, I read Cobain's official biography cover to cover, and let me tell you, I had no problems with Cobain before I had read it, it was only after that I became cynical of his greatness.