What makes Kurt Cobain sooo great?

[The_Universal_Sigh]

Lenny, Kurt Cobain is not on the same level as Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, Tupac Shakur, John Lennon and Bob Dylan. He's still very good, but I don't think his music has quite the same universal appeal as those other artists' music does.

Nirvana's appeal is mainly to people in their young to mid teens who want to feel edgy or like they're non-comformists or are edgy and alienated from society, by hipsters, and by people who are now somewhere in their 30s, who grew up with Nirvana and Cobain in the '90s and are nostalgic, whereas the appeal of Marley, Hendrix, Tupac, Dylan and Lennon is universal; it isn't just loved by depressed teens or nostalgic 30-somethings...Even people who don't like rock music like John Lennon; even people like myself who generally hate rap love Tupac. Kurt was just a figure of the 1990s. He is bound very much by the trappings and baggage of the early-mid 90s. He's not a timeless figure like the others.

Lol. Nirvana has been a "cool" band since they started and that hasn't wavered an inch up until today. Almost 20 years after he died and everyone still loves them. Ya, they're not timeless at all

Have you listened to a full tupac record? He's got a lot of cheesy bad songs. Have you listened to John Lennon's solo stuff? He's got a lot of cheesy bad songs too. Kurt was at a peak from Nevermind until he died he's basically immortal and that won't change.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Lenny, Kurt Cobain is not on the same level as Bob Marley, Jimi Hendrix, Tupac Shakur, John Lennon and Bob Dylan. He's still very good, but I don't think his music has quite the same universal appeal as those other artists' music does.

I meant that basically, in short, those people are where they are because they spearheaded or were at the forefront of a particular musical genre/cultural happening, be it grunge or gangsta rap or reggae or what have you. This is why Kurt occupies the same space and those folks.

Edited June 24, 2012 by sugaraylen

[bran]

overrated would be an under statement kurt got so much larger in death than he did in life, by the time in utero came out nirvana was already starting to fade. grunge was just a fad that soon worn thin and gave way to more shitty music like nickelback and candlebox

[Damn_Smooth]

overrated would be an under statement kurt got so much larger in death than he did in life, by the time in utero came out nirvana was already starting to fade. grunge was just a fad that soon worn thin and gave way to more shitty music like nickelback and candlebox

It's nice to see someone with an accurate memory of the truth.

[MEXzilla]

overrated would be an under statement kurt got so much larger in death than he did in life, by the time in utero came out nirvana was already starting to fade. grunge was just a fad that soon worn thin and gave way to more shitty music like nickelback and candlebox

It's nice to see someone with an accurate memory of the truth.

That's exactly what I remember good stuff

[batman007]

ive been wondering since the 90s what makes him so great i doubt i will ever find the answer

Same here!

[Guest Len B'stard]

overrated would be an under statement kurt got so much larger in death than he did in life, by the time in utero came out nirvana was already starting to fade. grunge was just a fad that soon worn thin and gave way to more shitty music like nickelback and candlebox

It's nice to see someone with an accurate memory of the truth.

Well, it's not ever so accurate really, is it? In Utero was lauded as a fuckin brilliant album, that whole "popularity was starting to wane" shit has more to do with certain reporters doing a comparitive thing with Nirvana and other grunge bands of the time who were perhaps a little more co-operative with the corporate machine although on a scale of things Nirvana were hardly un-cooperative with the corporate machine but, y'know, relatively speaking.

Kurt Cobain was lauded in life, this is a fact. If anything, i'd say he has suffered in death because for as long as he was alive we were gradually seeing different strings to his bow, strings that afforded him further kudos, like Unplugged in New York, that was a creative peak for Nirvana, the detractors that always pull this "popularity was on the wane" crap seem to gloss over Unplugged in favour of In Utero (cuz they think it somehow makes a better case for their popularity being on the wane, which it doesn't, check the record sales) but THAT was Kurt swansong, that was Kurt on the way out, Unplugged in New York, hardly representative of a band on the wane.

The fact of the matter is that Nirvana were purposely pulling back from commercial stuffs (not that it fuckin helped them, the shit still sold by the shedload) ergo, the reasons behind any slight wane were the same reasons why Kurt was fucking loved so much.

That whole thing cracks me up though, reminds me of those reporters at The Beatles Shea gigs going "look, empty seats, it seems the sheen is fading from the Fab Four"

And quite apart from all of this, something like "their popularity is waning" in regards to a band like Nirvana, as a dig, doesn't really mean a great deal i mean this is like, King of the Alternatives we're talking about here, popularity isn't really the issue. I mean, it's a false assertion anyway, that their popularity was on the wane but that as a statement, with a view to perhaps detracting from Kurts "greatness" doesn't really have a lot of mileage in it, listen to In Utero, does it sound like a band trying to court popularity?

[wasted]

Didn't Unplugged come out after he died? I remember feeling bad about buying.

In Heavier than Heaven it's inferred that he knew he was on the way out. He asked a label exec "I was good wasn't I?" At that point it was an effort for him to pull off that show.

I feel he was well aware what his "job" was at that point. maybe writing Back In Black albums over and over didn't really interest him.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Didn't Unplugged come out after he died? I remember feeling bad about buying.

In Heavier than Heaven it's inferred that he knew he was on the way out. He asked a label exec "I was good wasn't I?" At that point it was an effort for him to pull off that show.

I feel he was well aware what his "job" was at that point. maybe writing Back In Black albums over and over didn't really interest him.

i think it did, i remember ordering off of remember those little fuckin leaflets you'd get and it'd be like 5 Cds for a tenner if you join such and such music club, Britannia or whatever the fuck it was called. But i meant the show itself being a success.

[wasted]

Maybe the success of it got people wanting him to go solo.

Noel said he could have been John Lennon but he fucked it off for heroin.

[bran]

overrated would be an under statement kurt got so much larger in death than he did in life, by the time in utero came out nirvana was already starting to fade. grunge was just a fad that soon worn thin and gave way to more shitty music like nickelback and candlebox

It's nice to see someone with an accurate memory of the truth.

Well, it's not ever so accurate really, is it? In Utero was lauded as a fuckin brilliant album, that whole "popularity was starting to wane" shit has more to do with certain reporters doing a comparitive thing with Nirvana and other grunge bands of the time who were perhaps a little more co-operative with the corporate machine although on a scale of things Nirvana were hardly un-cooperative with the corporate machine but, y'know, relatively speaking.

Kurt Cobain was lauded in life, this is a fact. If anything, i'd say he has suffered in death because for as long as he was alive we were gradually seeing different strings to his bow, strings that afforded him further kudos, like Unplugged in New York, that was a creative peak for Nirvana, the detractors that always pull this "popularity was on the wane" crap seem to gloss over Unplugged in favour of In Utero (cuz they think it somehow makes a better case for their popularity being on the wane, which it doesn't, check the record sales) but THAT was Kurt swansong, that was Kurt on the way out, Unplugged in New York, hardly representative of a band on the wane.

The fact of the matter is that Nirvana were purposely pulling back from commercial stuffs (not that it fuckin helped them, the shit still sold by the shedload) ergo, the reasons behind any slight wane were the same reasons why Kurt was fucking loved so much.

That whole thing cracks me up though, reminds me of those reporters at The Beatles Shea gigs going "look, empty seats, it seems the sheen is fading from the Fab Four"

And quite apart from all of this, something like "their popularity is waning" in regards to a band like Nirvana, as a dig, doesn't really mean a great deal i mean this is like, King of the Alternatives we're talking about here, popularity isn't really the issue. I mean, it's a false assertion anyway, that their popularity was on the wane but that as a statement, with a view to perhaps detracting from Kurts "greatness" doesn't really have a lot of mileage in it, listen to In Utero, does it sound like a band trying to court popularity?

problem is though in utero didnt sell a shitload. it sold about a 1/3 of what nevermind sold. after coming off nevermind which was a 10+ million seller in the usa and then 2 years later the anticipated follow up to that smash only sells 3.5m? pearl jams ten sold 10 milliion albums in 1991 and in 1993 vs came out and sold 7 million. still double of what in utero did.

grunge was being seen as it was just a fad, that was slowly fading and waning in popularity, grunge was strictly a what 4 or so year thing and then grunge gave way to the shitty post grunge bands of the late 90s and early 2000s like candlebox, nickelback,bush etc. very similar to punk in the 1970s it was all the rage people proclaimed this music dead and that music dead and the only thing that died was punk in what 3 or 4 years?

grunge was no revolution it was just pop music with whiny angst added to it.people like chuck berry created a revolution bands like the beatles who helped pioneer rock created a revolution bands like deep purple and black sabbath created a revolution rock and metal are still here.

[arnold layne]

U2 is the last great band still standing. I mean some people argue the Chili Peppers, who are pretty good, but U2 is better over all.

In terms of the last great band to form and fade, that belonged to Nirvana over twenty years ago.

[Dan H.]

U2 is the last great band still standing.

No.

They're up there at the top, but this statement couldn't be more wrong, man.

[Black Sabbath]

U2 is the last great band still standing.

No.

They're up there at the top, but this statement couldn't be more wrong, man.

Nirvana is pretty crappy, but arnold could be right about U2.

[wasted]

In Utero, if not Incesticide was designed to lose some of their "fans". Supposedly the first album submitted to the label was unlistenable like 10 versions of Gallons of Rubbing alcohol Flow on the Strip. I don't think they were ever going to turn into Bon jovi so it was always going to be a struggle. How do you have a career without sucking.

[bran]

In Utero, if not Incesticide was designed to lose some of their "fans". Supposedly the first album submitted to the label was unlistenable like 10 versions of Gallons of Rubbing alcohol Flow on the Strip. I don't think they were ever going to turn into Bon jovi so it was always going to be a struggle. How do you have a career without sucking.

you shoot yourself in the head

[Guest Len B'stard]

problem is though in utero didnt sell a shitload. it sold about a 1/3 of what nevermind sold. after coming off nevermind which was a 10+ million seller in the usa and then 2 years later the anticipated follow up to that smash only sells 3.5m? pearl jams ten sold 10 milliion albums in 1991 and in 1993 vs came out and sold 7 million. still double of what in utero did.

Right but again, this is my point, for a band like Nirvana, that was kinda trying to shed some of the fans they got from their more commercial outting, an album that labels were calling "commercial suicide" cuz it was considered too abrasive, for that to go on and sell 3.5 million copies is a huge fucking success and a victory. To then start doing comparitive studies with this band and other "monsters of rock" is kind of disingenuous because that was never the point of this thing, you could probably name any number of bands that did better numbers than Nirvana, thats sort of the point.

grunge was being seen as it was just a fad, that was slowly fading and waning in popularity, grunge was strictly a what 4 or so year thing and then grunge gave way to the shitty post grunge bands of the late 90s and early 2000s like candlebox, nickelback,bush etc. very similar to punk in the 1970s it was all the rage people proclaimed this music dead and that music dead and the only thing that died was punk in what 3 or 4 years?

Punk wasn't a musical sound, it was an idea and the effects of that idea are still, to this day, influencing bands and, y'know, being a key factor in existence of not only bands but entire sub-sections of music, this is the beauty of punk, it's not a sound thing, punk effected the evolution of rock, of dance music, of hip hop, of reggae, the crop of bands that kick-started it were not representative of a new kind of stalemate to replace the old one. But i agree with grunge being kind of a fad though.

grunge was no revolution it was just pop music with whiny angst added to it.people like chuck berry created a revolution bands like the beatles who helped pioneer rock created a revolution bands like deep purple and black sabbath created a revolution rock and metal are still here.

You don't think maybe the Beatles were pop music too? And Chuck Berry? And i don't think Metal really registers as a revolution, it's just pretty much rock music with the amps way up, knockin' out dodgy blues riffs with no swing to em, is that what a revolution really is? Just being their 30 years later doing the same shit still, that ain't a revolution, thats a new stalemate.

Or was the punk the revolution, the one that changed musical sounds, crossed genre barriers, changed the way people dress and think, threw up bands from The Sex Pistols to The Buzzcocks to Suicide to Television to The Ramones to Gang of Four to PiL to Magazine, to The Fall, the entire fuckin hardcore genre with all it's little scenes and all the various offshoots of it (in which i think it's fair to include grunge), The Meat Puppets, The Butthole Surfers, all these bands can claim a genesis in punk and they sound NOTHING the same, THAT my friend is a revolution, something that changes things with each new generation and encourages and proliferates the spirit of invention, punk blew the doors open, the effects of metal will never be comparable to that of punk and i think it's laughable to even suggest so.

Christ, it's to the point where artists like Banksy and a whole crop of filmmakers in the 80s and 90s trumpetting punk and how it was the door opener and eye opener for them, people like Jim Jarmusch and Derek Jarman. I mean the whole Madchester scene that Britpop came out of, even that has roots in punk, the thing that ended up creating the next big thing in rock, post grunge, ANOTHER punk inspired genre i mean...the ways and all the different angles that the seismic effect of this thing is almost immeasurable.

[Johnny Drama]

Couldnt care less if grunge was a.fad. Give me Nirvana, Pearl Jam, STP, Soundgarden and AIC anyday.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Couldnt care less if grunge was a.fad. Give me Nirvana, Pearl Jam, STP, Soundgarden and AIC anyday.

These names, grunge, punk, these are just ways of packaging something to sell it so it looks new. Basically just a bunch of really good rock bands came out of the Seattle area and thats about the size of it. Fans kill their own fuckin thing by fad-ifying it by giving it these silly names and assigning a dress code to it or whatever but it was basically just a bunch of good bands from a generation that weren't the one before it so the one before it goes on the news and calls it 'grunge' and hey presto, you got a fad when really it's just good rock n roll.

You almost guarantee these things a death by giving them a name instead of just calling it music and getting on with what the fuck you're supposed to be doing i.e. making music.

These names, they're always vague and impossible to define and the reason for that is because they were basically made up by a guy with a buck in his eye. (thats a pretty harsh indictment for Mark Arm there, OK, perhaps they're not all made up by a guy with a buck in his eye but they are certainly trumpetted by a guy with a buck in his eye).

Edited June 27, 2012 by sugaraylen

[Scaramouche]

I have asked myself that question many many many times. I can see that people love Nirvana, even though I don't care for their music myself. But I can't see why people constantly talk about how different and great singer/songwriter/guitar player he was...

[wasted]

I think he makes it sound easy. A bit like Lennon. Seems easy but most band lyrics suck or the vocals are terrible or the solo blows. Every track Nirvana nailed it. it's all very tasteful.

[Guest Len B'stard]

Kurt Cobain had the ability to distill the essence of rhythm and melody and break down music to it's bare elemental component and create serious forceful driving rhythm AND combine it well wonderful melody. If Kurt Cobain is a shit musician then so was John Lennon. I can't play guitar. I know about 15 open chords, a bunch of barre and power chords and like one scale...yet i can play some Nirvana songs...and some Beatles songs.

If it's so easy then try doing it. I listen to Nirvana and The Beatles and i think, fuck man, this is so simple, i could write this shit...and then i sit down with a guitar and i do, i end up re-writing a Beatles song But seriously, try making the shit yourself.

Quite frankly, Nirvana were amazing. To say Kurt Cobain was not exceptional as a guitarist well, OK, look at every mainstream guitarist out there and find me one that plays like Kurt, that sounds like Kurt, that could wring the kind of noises from a guitar that Kurt could/did. It's HUGELY original, the combination of Beatles type melodies and structures peppered with like, Thurston Moore-esque No Wave elements like two note drone solos and yet somehow hanging onto the melody of the song without the whole thing falling apart, this is something that simply was not and still is not done in popular music. The alternative tunings and the wonderfully knackered mustangs that kept falling out of tune all produced these wonderful clashing harmonics that i have never seen within the framework of a pop song. It's about tone and texture, without getting too arty farty about it.

As a songwriter, fuck, i've just never come across anyone like him, the guy made paintings with words, you get this vague idea of what the guys trying to say but then he'll contradict it and pepper it with these weird images and give the song a kind of tone and a mood whereupon the song reaches a sort of realm where it's less about overtly saying something (cuz lets face it, "message" songs tend to be slightly patronising) you're handed a kind of overall mood or a series of little vigenettes that tie together. I mean just the imagery in something like Heart Shaped Box, particularly combined with that beautiful video by Anton Cjorbin or however you spelt his name, it's beautiful and it hints at being about a number of things yet doesn't nail itself to anything (yeah yeah, it's about Courtney etc etc i've heard those but those are basically peoples interpretations so i don't tend to commit to them) and just creates a kind of tone.

Or Sliver, how beautifully does that sum up and explain one of the most universal everyman feelings ever? Or a song like Dumb, which expresses one of the most oft-treaded subject matters of "angsty" popular music in such a beautiful way. I mean lyrically, he was just incredible, for instance:

"my heart is broke but i have some glue, help me inhale, mend it with you, we float around, hang out on clouds, then we'll come down, have a hangover"

I see a plea in that, i see desperation in that, i see humour in that, i see despair in that, i see cynicism in that, i see innocence and needyness...and all these things within like, a couple of lines, it's just fuckin desperately beautiful. I could literally pick this boys lyrics to pieces with every song he's written and explain the shit to you, i feel that strongly about it ALL...and the power of it all. The beauty of non-commital lyrics, when the writer has the command of words and the ability to put them together in a way that evokes a strong mood or feeling is that there are endless interpretation and this gives the song a life beyond it's natural mileage, it is things like this that makes a song truly timeless because the creativity doesn't end with the artist, the artist seminates the audience with creativity and a given piece of art takes on a life of it's own.

Cobains lyrics actually make more sense when you sort of get a handle on his art and the paintings he did and the various collages, the boy worked from the abstract, he understood subtlty and texture through his lyrics, which was a great juxtaposition with this music which, largely, was anything but subtle, it's a wonderful counterpoint, classic counterpoint. I see Kurt lyrics as like collages, exercises in conveying mood and tone and colour through words.

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

Frankie, I love your replies in this thread.

Brings back great memories from the "Who betta?" thread.

I personally think Kurt Cobain might be the most underrated guitarist of all time.

Saying that he's a bad guitar player is like saying Angus Young suck. The man has used the exact same sound in 40 years and people still love it. It's simple, anyone with basic guitar knowledge can copy it, but it's still so brilliant and catchy that "everyone" loves it. Try using such simple riffs as Kurt or Angus and see if you can get people to love it in the same way that dozens of millions of people have loved their music.

Edited June 27, 2012 by Satanisk_Slakt

[wasted]

In Utero, if not Incesticide was designed to lose some of their "fans". Supposedly the first album submitted to the label was unlistenable like 10 versions of Gallons of Rubbing alcohol Flow on the Strip. I don't think they were ever going to turn into Bon jovi so it was always going to be a struggle. How do you have a career without sucking.

you shoot yourself in the head

That's true, that's one thing that I felt was unnecessary. He'd sort backed himself into a corner. It became too much about not selling out. He was punishing himself way past the call of duty.

In Utero is such a good record. It's a work of art. It's heavy on the narcissism but they rocked the shit out of it.

[Dazey]

A Remington M- 11 20-gauge. [/thread]