The Ten Most Hated Men In Rock [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : The Ten Most Hated Men In Rock



MindGoneHaywire
09-06-2004, 02:08 PM
Cute, good for a laugh. I love this opening salvo at Paul McCartney:

"Barely qualified to carry John Lennon's roach clip while both toiled with a grotesquely overrated boy band known as the Beatles"...

http://www.riverfronttimes.com/issues/2004-09-01/music.html

mad rhetorik
09-06-2004, 02:44 PM
Jay, this is awesome (not to mention long overdue). I'm printing out the "Least Wanted" posters as we speak.

Especially loved that blurb about Carraba/Oberst. Emo-hipster douches.

Speaking of douches, where's John Mayer?

3-LockBox
09-06-2004, 03:18 PM
Good thing I have guys like you on this board, who like to surf and report your findings back here at RR. (I rarely, if ever, surf)

Thanks for the laugh.

tentoze
09-06-2004, 04:39 PM
A beauty, Jay. Thanks.

Swish
09-06-2004, 04:44 PM
...for me, although the bios they wrote are really a hoot, and I had to read each and every one. Thanks J, best thing I read all day.

Swish

Jim Clark
09-06-2004, 05:01 PM
I even laughed when the nailed the one I like.

jc

DarrenH
09-06-2004, 06:00 PM
It's really a shame that Carlos Santana has morphed into the pop/rock schlock guitarist that he's become. I still respect his work from the late 60's and into the 70's and own quite a few CD's from that era. I will always hold Carlos in some high regard.

Never ever was a Buffet fan. Never saw the appeal in his music. Not even Margaritaville.

Never like Bryan Adams either. Had no idea Ryan was even related to him. Tells you how much I know about him, eh.

I like Elton John's music. Just don't go past 1974.

Macca was okay. Buy Wings Greatest Hits and Band On The Run and you have all the good stuff with some fluff.

Fred Durst? Wasn't he the lead singer for some rap/metal band? Shows you much I care for that style of music. Or him for that matter.I wasn't paying attention.

Never knew anything about G.E. Smith beyond SNL. And never cared.

Conor Oberst & Chris Carrabba - couldn't even begin to tell you who they are or what they played or who they played it with. No clue. No importance to me at all.

The Dead will always have a following. I could care less if they're still on the road. Apparently, there's still a bunch of Dead Heads out there who still want this. I won't pay to see them but I do enjoy some of thier live stuff from the early 70's. At least Phil Lesh is doing some creative things lately.

Thanks for the post Jay. An interesting read.

Darren

kexodusc
09-07-2004, 11:18 AM
My question is why isn't there one corporate shopping-mall punk frontman on the list?
Maybe nobody'd recognize the name?

Still this was pretty good. Can't believe Courtney Love didn't crack the top 10 (well, guess she's not a MAN per se...but Fred Durst is?).

Mike
09-10-2004, 03:22 AM
run your career over ten years and you run the risk of being savaged by critics/hacks at some point, basically after 10 years very few acts have anything new or interesting to offer.
The exception being if an artist goes solo from a band or the band takes on some new blood.

Can anybody name a artist/band still doing the business after 10 years - I'm diving for cover as you type.

Cheers
Mike

N. Abstentia
09-10-2004, 04:45 AM
Artists/bands still going after 10 years, and still doing very good stuff:

Rush
Yes
Live
Dream Theater
Fates Warning
Iron Maiden
Queensryche
Primus (still hanging on I think!)
Dave Matthews Band
Joe Satriani
Steve Vai
Gary Hoey
Eric Johnson
Journey

My head hurts.

Mike
09-10-2004, 05:18 AM
Artists/bands still going after 10 years, and still doing very good stuff:

Rush
Yes
Live
Dream Theater
Fates Warning
Iron Maiden
Queensryche
Primus (still hanging on I think!)
Dave Matthews Band
Joe Satriani
Steve Vai
Gary Hoey
Eric Johnson
Journey

My head hurts.

I don't see many in that list that sustained interest and quality beyond 10 years. Arguably the last good Rush album is Power Windows although Presto isn't too bad. For Iron Maiden it would be Powerslave and as for Yes they peaked pretty early in my book. DMB, I like them although there are lots round here who don't but you don't need many of his albums to hear the same stuff over and over again.

I'm not knocking these guys it's just a fact of life it's difficult to sustain interest or quality in the studio beyond 10 years. One exception (and I accept there will be some) might be David Bowie.

Cheers
Mike

kexodusc
09-10-2004, 05:48 AM
Mike, I could see a virtual gang stomping breaking out between you, N. Abstentia, and myself over slandering Rush, Dream Theater, and Yes in one post! :D

I would add Pearl Jam to the list as well...in fact their more recent stuff is far better than the primitive grunge stuff that got them big in the first place.

Hmmm, other bands...how about THE FREAKIN' ALLMAN BROTHERS!!!

Megadeth gets a vote for me too...though Risk was last passable album...The World Needs a Hero should be forgotten except for a few songs.

Worf101
09-10-2004, 05:54 AM
That's really not to hard a question, to me at least....

1. Prince - Kinda obvious, man's got a new album selling out all over and doin' fine.

2. Annie Lennox - Still making beautiful music and I'd still drink her bath water.

3. Sade - Although you have to remember she'll take as much as 7 years between albums but when she's back, she's BACK!!!!!

4. Chili Peppers - Don't love everything they do, but at least they try.

5. Madonna - Her last album tanked but like herpes, she'll be back.

Man, I'm runnin' out of steam. Guess this is harder than I thought. Well at least I got 5.

Da Worfster :cool:

mg196
09-10-2004, 06:11 AM
Hey Absentia, I agree that most on your list still have at least a few drops left in the tank, but JOURNEY? They have that Kenny G look-alike who sings EXACTLY like Steve Perry. That CANT qualify for your list, can it?! :D

A few on my list:

Bowie
Neil Young
Dylan
Morrissey

N. Abstentia
09-10-2004, 10:10 AM
I don't see many in that list that sustained interest and quality beyond 10 years.

Cheers
Mike

I know you're not knocking Mike, but I have to reply..it's just too much fun!

Rush- Didn't make a completely un-interesting album until Vapor Trails. Starting with the first album, each one was better than the last, peaking with Presto. That's 16 years! Starting with Roll The Bones it started going downhill, each having less and less to get interested about until Vapor Trails was finally puked up.

Iron Maiden BLASPHEMY! Powerslave was okay, but not nearly as good as Piece Of Mind. But Somewhere In Time and Seventh Son are two of the strongest albums start to finish ever recorded! I think they peaked with Seventh Son, hit rock bottom without Dickinson, and Dance Of Death is right there with Vapor Trails for me. The sound quality is awful.

Yes Come on now, these guys have been getting it done since 1969. May never best the Fragile/Close to the Edge era, but 90125 is still my favorite Yes album (despite the 80's fluff here and there). Magnification is a very good album and is actually a bit of a change again for them.

Dream Theater Haven't made an un-interesting album yet. Wanna hear something even scarier? They haven't peaked yet!

Dave Matthews Busted Stuff is his best yet.

N. Abstentia
09-10-2004, 10:15 AM
Mike, I could see a virtual gang stomping breaking out between you, N. Abstentia, and myself over slandering Rush, Dream Theater, and Yes in one post! :D

I would add Pearl Jam to the list as well...in fact their more recent stuff is far better than the primitive grunge stuff that got them big in the first place.

Hmmm, other bands...how about THE FREAKIN' ALLMAN BROTHERS!!!

Megadeth gets a vote for me too...though Risk was last passable album...The World Needs a Hero should be forgotten except for a few songs.

Heck yeah, just because a guy listens to Yes doesn't mean he can't start some sh*t! You ever been curb-stomped by a guy wearing a japanese robe, big fuzzy boots, and holding a Rickenbacker bass??

I forgot about Pearl Jam, Megadeth is a good call also. Of course the Allmans, they're like the Grateful Dead..they'll never go away.

N. Abstentia
09-10-2004, 10:17 AM
Hey Absentia, I agree that most on your list still have at least a few drops left in the tank, but JOURNEY? They have that Kenny G look-alike who sings EXACTLY like Steve Perry. That CANT qualify for your list, can it?! :D

A few on my list:

Bowie
Neil Young
Dylan
Morrissey

Dude, I LIKE Steve Augeri!

Trial By Fire was a darn fine album (Steve Perry's last) despite a few fillers here an there.

kexodusc
09-10-2004, 10:46 AM
Heck yeah, just because a guy listens to Yes doesn't mean he can't start some sh*t! You ever been curb-stomped by a guy wearing a japanese robe, big fuzzy boots, and holding a Rickenbacker bass??

Can't say I have, but there was a mosh-pit at the only Yes show I've ever seen...figure that one out???

Tori Amos is still making music...Tool and Nine Inch Nails are probably hitting 10 years by now...they've got big followings...of course there's AC/DC...


Bands that have been around for 10 years or more that I wish would go away:
Aerosmith
Metallica
Korn
Courtney Love
etc

N. Abstentia
09-10-2004, 11:37 AM
Bands that have been around for 10 years or more that I wish would go away:
Aerosmith
Metallica
Korn
Courtney Love
etc

I'll agree with all that for sure. Ugh.

However, the first Korn CD is great stuff. They were really breaking new ground, you gotta remember that they were the ONLY band that had that sound at the time. Now everybody has it. But that first Korn CD has true angst that you can feel, and that's what made them a great band. They were truly pi$$ed off. However, once you sell 32 million records and you own 8 mansions it's hard to get pi$$ed off and make good angry music, thus Korn needs to now go away.

tentoze
09-10-2004, 12:20 PM
These type discussions invariably turn out to be nothing more than one person's opinion versus another's. So, in that spirit, I 'll just toss out that I'd listen to a recording of Van Morrison (performing for 10 yrs x 4) spitting into a sink before I'd willingly sit through any of the artists mentioned in this part of the thread (above or below).....

:]

mad rhetorik
09-10-2004, 02:19 PM
However, the first Korn CD is great stuff. They were really breaking new ground, you gotta remember that they were the ONLY band that had that sound at the time. Now everybody has it. But that first Korn CD has true angst that you can feel, and that's what made them a great band. They were truly pi$$ed off.

Bunk. Korn's debut owed largely to the sound of Helmet, Faith No More, Prong, and Sepultura. Helmet's <b>In The Meantime</b> and the aforementioned <b>Roots</b> are about the clearest reference points I can think of for Korn and nu-metal in general (except for the fact that it didn't suck). <b>Roots</b> even has a Jonathan Davis cameo--on "Lookaway."

As for the angst thing, Korn always sounded contrived and forced to me. I know this sounds horrible, but personally I question Davis' history of being abused as a child. Even <i>if</i> he was abused, his angst just comes off as uncompelling and whiny. "Look at me, I'm SO tormented" juvenile crap. Now, if you want genuine no-holds-barred RAGE, you should pick up a Strapping Young Lad, Fear Factory, or (metal-crossover era) Ministry album. They don't come much more vitriolic and p<a>issed-off than that, and it's still listenable and inventive music (of course your mileage may vary).

Not intending to slam you. If you dig Korn's first album, fine. You like what you like. But Korn "groundbreaking?" Not hardly.

N. Abstentia
09-10-2004, 02:56 PM
Yeah I still think Korn broke new ground. Other than Petrucci, I don't think I ever saw any metal guys using a 7 string guitar. Now they all use them...and it was old 2 years ago. Plus you didn't see any Prong or Helmet clones popping up everywhere...it took 5 years after Helmet broke up for Chevelle to become popular!

But that does bring up memories...I used to love Prong and Helmet both. Prong's Prove You Wrong is amazing stuff, along with Helmet's Betty. I need to dig those back out. One of the best concerts I ever saw was Helmet opening for Primus, probably 1994 or so.

I think the problem people have with Korn is they are unable to seperate 'then' Korn from 'what has happened since then' Korn. Now they look like just another rap/funk/rock/metal band on MTV all day long. Back in '98 (or when was it?) it wasn't like that. Korn was raw, fresh, and just what we needed. It took something like that to get rid of all the Nirvana grungies and bring music back to it's raw roots.

MindGoneHaywire
09-10-2004, 03:19 PM
>Korn was raw, fresh, and just what we needed. It took something like that to get rid of all the Nirvana grungies and bring music back to it's raw roots.

Post of the year.

N. Abstentia
09-10-2004, 07:13 PM
Have I made my hatred for Kurt Cobain's useless, no talent a$$ clear?

Thanks for the post of the year nomination :)

MindGoneHaywire
09-10-2004, 08:35 PM
I would suggest that talent has more to do with what you perceive it as if that's how you feel about one of the most talented mofos to come down the pike in quite some time. In the meantime, I might be more willing to accept that bundle of joy in the form of a list you threw down there a few posts back that are supposed to have something to do with a continued legacy of quality after ten years in the biz, if I ever accepted that they produced a single, solitary note worth listening to. That would take some convincing. In short, I think tentoze's comments pretty much sum it up for me here.

kexodusc
09-11-2004, 03:19 AM
I liked Korn, until the unforgiveable incident: Limp Bizkit

I blame them, and them alone....

No excuses...
Time to go, Korn, thanks alot guys.

N. Abstentia
09-11-2004, 03:30 AM
I'll agree that tentoze is right..it all boils down to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Were you referring to Cobain as 'the most talented mofo to ever come down the pike'? I assume you never saw that 'mofo' live. He can't sing or play a note in tune when playing live. The MTV unplugged show was the best performace the guy ever gave because he didn't have to scream and had plenty of backing musicians. I guess I just never bought into the whole grunge/MTV hype.

What exactly was Cobain talented at? Guitar playing? Satriani. Vai. Bonnamassa. Tabor. Lifeson. Mustaine. Howe. Rabin. McCready. Matheos. Adrian Smith. DeGarmo. Gilmour. Petrucci. You should check them out too.

Song writing? He's better than me, that's for sure. But I urge you to check out Neal Morse, Neil Peart, Jim Matheos, Steve Harris, DeGarmo/Tate, Chris Cornell, Portnoy/Petrucci, Becker/***an. These are the song writers I've always looked up to.

kexodusc
09-11-2004, 03:40 AM
I saw Cobain live...I think it was the lack of talent that made them so appealing.
After Skid Row, Damn Yankees, Dokken, etc (and that flaming Yngwie Malmsteen) drama bombed the world with insincere album after insincere album, it was aweful nice to have something more grass roots.
It was 578 copy-cats that ruined it for me.
But live, Alice In Chains was way better than Nirvana.

N. Abstentia
09-11-2004, 06:32 AM
The worst thing about the whole 'Seattle Grunge Craze' is that real bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, and even Queensryche (somewhat) got lumped into it.

N. Abstentia
09-11-2004, 06:34 AM
I liked Korn, until the unforgiveable incident: Limp Bizkit

I blame them, and them alone....

No excuses...
Time to go, Korn, thanks alot guys.

Makes me sick to think back on the two Limp Bizkit CD's I owned. *shudder*

But hey, they got me $3 off a Yes-Fragile DVD-Audio at the used CD store :)

Dusty Chalk
09-12-2004, 10:03 AM
I'll agree that tentoze is right..it all boils down to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Were you referring to Cobain as 'the most talented mofo to ever come down the pike'? I assume you never saw that 'mofo' live. He can't sing or play a note in tune when playing live. The MTV unplugged show was the best performace the guy ever gave because he didn't have to scream and had plenty of backing musicians. I guess I just never bought into the whole grunge/MTV hype.

What exactly was Cobain talented at? Guitar playing? Satriani. Vai. Bonnamassa. Tabor. Lifeson. Mustaine. Howe. Rabin. McCready. Matheos. Adrian Smith. DeGarmo. Gilmour. Petrucci. You should check them out too.

Song writing? He's better than me, that's for sure. But I urge you to check out Neal Morse, Neil Peart, Jim Matheos, Steve Harris, DeGarmo/Tate, Chris Cornell, Portnoy/Petrucci, Becker/Fa<a>gan. These are the song writers I've always looked up to.Oh, man, Jay's gonna have a field day with this.

Just FYI -- he hates prog, he hates "overplayers", etc.

Oh, and BTW, Cobain was a great songwriter -- not as great as his legacy, but great all the same.

DariusNYC
09-12-2004, 06:00 PM
Oh, man, Jay's gonna have a field day with this.

Just FYI -- he hates prog, he hates "overplayers", etc.

Oh, and BTW, Cobain was a great songwriter -- not as great as his legacy, but great all the same.

I would have a field day with this too, but alas I don't have the time or energy. :)

I think Cobain had a great guitar sound (favorite example of this is the awesome "Serve the Servants", second favorite is the initial chugging riff in "Teen Spirit"), one of the best pure rock-n-roll voices ever (in the general tradition of John Lennon but quite unique), and was an excellent songwriter and a compelling frontman. His sloppy, emotionally reckless style has never been and will never be appreciated by the "chops" school of music fandom, but then they didn't like Lennon or Buddy Holly or the Clash either -- fair enough; I'm tempted to think they're missing out royally but if they don't like it then for them, they're not missing out. So it's all good.

Swish
09-12-2004, 07:04 PM
I'll agree that tentoze is right..it all boils down to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Were you referring to Cobain as 'the most talented mofo to ever come down the pike'? I assume you never saw that 'mofo' live. He can't sing or play a note in tune when playing live. The MTV unplugged show was the best performace the guy ever gave because he didn't have to scream and had plenty of backing musicians. I guess I just never bought into the whole grunge/MTV hype.

What exactly was Cobain talented at? Guitar playing? Satriani. Vai. Bonnamassa. Tabor. Lifeson. Mustaine. Howe. Rabin. McCready. Matheos. Adrian Smith. DeGarmo. Gilmour. Petrucci. You should check them out too.

Song writing? He's better than me, that's for sure. But I urge you to check out Neal Morse, Neil Peart, Jim Matheos, Steve Harris, DeGarmo/Tate, Chris Cornell, Portnoy/Petrucci, Becker/***an. These are the song writers I've always looked up to.

I certainly don't want to speak for J, but I'm sure he would agree with most of my response to your comments. First of all, I would concur that most of the guys you mention are very good musicians. That's fine if you want to sit around and jam to show off how accomplished you are on your instrument, but in the end, it really doesn't matter to me how well they play, but what they play. I can't think of one memorable record, or even one "critically acclaimed" record, from any of them, and I don't think many rock historians will have much to say about any of them. Maybe some of Howe's work in Yes, but beyond that, I just don't know and really don't care.

Most of the guitarists you mention are playing the same effects-laiden excesses that have been around for years, and it's all so, well...boring if you ask me. Their guitar playing is akin to the vocals of Celine Dion and Whitney Houston. Sure they can sing, but the ballads they do are mindless, unemotional drivel geared toward the masses who buy their records. There are plenty of incredibly talented vocalists who know how to hold it back, giving you that little extra every so often so you know it's there. I can't think of a better example of this than Sinead O'Connor, whether you like her or not.

I've been playing guitar since I was 12, so we're talkin' 34 years, and I went through the "guitar hero" phase for a time, but I came to realize that the songs and the music were much more important to me than how well you played. Kurt Cobain was indeed a unique talent and his guitar playing was perfect for his songs. His music and his legacy will endure long after the guys you mentioned, at least in the musical circles where I hang my hat. Yes he was a mess of a person, but his upbringing was a hell that many of us (I hope) never had to endure.

Hey, I still appreciate great guitar playing, but I'd take Richard Lloyd and Tom Verlain of Television before the guitarists you mentioned. Or how about Jeff Beck during his "Blow By Blow" period? Or Duane Allman and Dickie Betts doing "Statesboro Blues"? Jimi Hendrix is still #1 in my book, he also had great songs. Voodoo Chile (Slight Return) is still outta sight if you ask me. None of these guys relied too heavily on effects, save some wah-wah and distortion pedals, and all of them had great songs.

Anyway, I think you'll find a large contingent here on Rave Recs who will essentially agree with me, although there is another gang that likes your kind of thing. Hey, you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how ridiculous it may be. :D Ok, that was a joke.

G'Night,
Swish

P.S. I fully expect J to write a lengthy response as well.

tentoze
09-12-2004, 08:20 PM
I like Mitch Miller a whole lot. Sounds like teen ennui.

N. Abstentia
09-12-2004, 08:42 PM
[QUOTE=Swish] I can't think of one memorable record, or even one "critically acclaimed" record, from any of them, and I don't think many rock historians will have much to say about any of them. QUOTE]

Some would argue that Aja by Steely Dan is quite memorable. As would Fragile or Close To the Edge by Yes. Or Moving Pictures by Rush.

tentoze
09-12-2004, 08:50 PM
No doubt, some would. Others would not. Post a new thread on a different topic.

MindGoneHaywire
09-13-2004, 12:01 AM
Tentoze is correct here, and I don't really want to take this much further. So, of course, I will. Hey, there was a question directed at me, I believe.

N. Abstentia:

>Were you referring to Cobain as 'the most talented mofo to ever come down the pike'?

No. I said 'one of the.' But I have a feeling that if someone wanted to make some case that he were indeed the most talented, they would have some substance to work with. I say it takes talent to come up with something that change the music business, not to mention pop culture, as radically as his song did. The guy's song had a tremendous impact on a vast cross-section of pop culture all through the Western World; can the same be said of Vai or Satriani or Mustaine? I think the number of people or outfits who impacted popular music in the 20th Century as much as he did can probably be counted on the fingers of two hands.

>I assume you never saw that 'mofo' live.

You assume correctly.

>He can't sing or play a note in tune when playing live.

I have live recordings, a videotape of an MTV broadcast of a live show (not Unplugged), and a bootleg live show somewhere around here...and something called Nirvana Live Tonight, I think...a video release, not the MTV broadcast. Based on them I'd dispute that contention. Remember, also, he played junk guitars on purpose at times. I remember him talking about the sorts of sounds you can get out of pawnshop guitars, which of course don't stay in tune as much as a Paul Reed Smith or a Hamer.

>The MTV unplugged show was the best performace the guy ever gave because he didn't have to scream and had plenty of backing musicians.

What, a cello player? The Meat Puppets? Pat Smear? This makes no sense.

>I guess I just never bought into the whole grunge/MTV hype.

That makes sense. Neither did I. I thought all of those bands sucked, every last one of them except for Mudhoney. But then I never considered Nirvana to be a grunge band. That's because Cobain understood how to write a melody & the guitar playing was fairly straightforward, instead of chords that sound like there's an electric can opener in there somewhere. Nirvana never sounded all that much like the Screaming Trees or Tad or the Melvins to me. Or Alice In Chains or Soundgarden or Pearl Jam, for that matter.

>What exactly was Cobain talented at? Guitar playing?

Among other things. That's a very nice list you put together there. You like yr guys, I like my guys. We can leave it at that; I have nothing to add to what Swish had to say on that score. You want to listen to guys like Satriani, knock yrself out. I've heard enough of that sort of thing. I won't bother telling you how good I think Cobain was if you give me a break & don't try to convince me that I should like what you like. I don't.

>I urge you to check out

Again--no thank you. I've heard enough in that realm. I really cringe when I hear that stuff. It's really not what I thought Mike Portnoy'd end up doing. Back in Jr. High & High School his tastes always seemed a little more diverse than his band ended up being. What can you do. Mike was a nice guy, and I'm sure he still is, and I'm glad for his success, but boy do I think his band's music sucks.

>The worst thing about the whole 'Seattle Grunge Craze' is that real bands like Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice In Chains, and even Queensryche (somewhat) got lumped into it.

Well, that's one view, I guess.


Kexodusc:

>I saw Cobain live...I think it was the lack of talent that made them so appealing.

Look, I don't know how you define talent, but the more I read stuff like this, the more curious I get. I have to remind myself that sort of thing kills cats, I think.

Sorry, I should've just let this lie. Oh, well.

kexodusc
09-13-2004, 04:10 AM
I'll chime in on this thread


Kexodusc:
Look, I don't know how you define talent, but the more I read stuff like this, the more curious I get. I have to remind myself that sort of thing kills cats, I think.
Sorry, I should've just let this lie. Oh, well.

What I meant by that statements was simple. Any complete idiot like myself who's ever bothered to sit and look back at the history of rock music can put it together. At the end of the 1980's we had hundreds of overblown drama-queen singers in glam-rock bands pumping out the same formulaic songs with some good degree of technical ability thrown in for good measure.
This got old, stale, and insincere very quick.
Then there was Metallica, who like them or not, are the single-most influential band in the last 25 years(but should have quit 12 years ago), and who literally opened the door for groups like Nirvana to be accepted by the mainstream. If "One" got radio play, anything could.
But Metallica was still (in 1990) just a bit too much for the pop side of rock.
Enter Nirvana (not just Cobain, despite popular belief he didn't write all the songs all by himself).
I'm proud to say I own every major release of Nirvana (though some of it like Zeppelin has been overplayed to death). When Nirvana hit the scene they were outselling groups like Guns N' Roses, Poison, Aerosmith, or Michael Jackson and the pop music stuff.
It wasn't 2 minute solo's and drama-queen singing that did it. It was primitive song-writing WITH sincerity, a catchy hook, a driving riff and a brand new image that wasn't (yet) being forced upon society. Nirvana's blend of retro everything WAS the new sound.
It was a matter of right place, right time, luck, and song-writing ability.

On the talent side of things...well, there's creativity, then there's talent. I distinguish between the two for simplicity, but creativity is talent. Song-writing in itself is a talent, but it can't really be measured easily because of the subjective nature. Pure musical talent, proficiency with an instrument can. Nirvana lacked this side of talent big-time. It didn't matter though, there was too much of that everywhere else. The world was sick of it. Nirvana played anyway, and made the music more important than the degree of difficulty.

BTW: Ever wonder where Nirvana would have been if they were still around today? Not "legends" at all, but probably something along the lines of Stone Temple Pilots or Foo Fighters. Fact is Nirvana's legacy didn't begin until after Cobain died. This made them big. Bigger than they ever were alive. Record sales in 1994 will prove that.

As for Portnoy and Dream Theater (and even prog in general). Since 1994 we've been bombarded mostly with 1000's of Nirvana parodies (you'd figure we would have learned our lesson). In the 1980's it was glam-rock and pop about love, partying, rebelling, etc...
Dream Theater has always had a very unique sound that blends large, theatrical themes with technical ability. But, despite their technical ability, they are first and foremost about the music (ie: songwriting). They borrow from their influences too, but the synergy they have is incredible. I can't put my finger on it, but Dream Theater could have been just another Symphony X or Spock's Beard, but they've made a more unlikely transition into the mainstream. This is an accomplishment, especially doing it during the Nirvana-Grunge/Alternative, Punk Rock, and Nu Metal explosions of the 90's.

They aren't as popular as the MTV/radio "Cowboy Growl" Cher singing sleaze rock bands you find in Nickelback, Puddle of Mudd, Creed, etc (some of which I don't mind) but that's okay. It's not for everyone. I think Dream Theater's appeal is the opposite of Nirvana's. Good progressive rock to me has always been the anti-mainstream. It's too complex, and requires a greater attention span than a 3 minute, radio-friendly rocking tune. So does Jazz, Classical, etc. But,as a musician, there are times when I truly feel the need to listen to something far less "primitive and formulaic" than simple "Rock Music". Some people like their music to be grand, with vision, incorporating emotions OTHER THAN angst and hatred, with themes other than broken-hearts and bad times...Dream Theater oozes this.
It's not for everyone, you don't have to like it.
Which style of music is better? Who cares? To each, his own.

MindGoneHaywire
09-13-2004, 08:19 AM
>Metallica, who like them or not, are the single-most influential band in the last 25 years(but should have quit 12 years ago), and who literally opened the door for groups like Nirvana to be accepted by the mainstream.

That's just not true. There are a few bands you could say are just as influential as Metallica over the past 25 years, bands who started trends & movements & styles all by themselves. I won't bother to list any. What you're missing with that statement, however, is that it was Nirvana's popularity that drove the changes in the industry, not Metallica's. Nirvana's one song led to radio changing, and that opened the door for Metallica, not the other way around. Yeah, maybe 'One' got some radio play (though I thought it was the video that had more impact), but I think it would be a mistake that Metallica had a big impact on pop culture prior to Nirvana hitting. Metallica didn't have the big hit, Nirvana did, and that was before most people had heard of Alice In Chains or Pearl Jam or Soundgarden. By the time everyone had heard of those bands, radio programmers were scrambling to come up with a format where people could hear those bands, and Metallica and others, because they weren't listening to Tom Petty & the Eagles & Boston or whatever was being played on the radio anymore. The primary root of this development was Nirvana's song, not anything that Metallica ever did. Radio programmers didn't give a damn about Metallica's audience prior to 'Teen Spirit'; it was growing, sure, but was simply not of the size necessary to drive the creation of new formats. Metallica's music got across to the people who started listening to loud, heavy & aggressive rock music at the time due to the popularity of Nirvana's hit--not the other way around.

Now keep in mind that I'm talking about what the music did in terms of impact, not anything about the merits of the music itself; arguing taste is pointless. Now, I do find it interesting to note that I can't think of any followers of Metallica that managed to cross over with pop ballads; Green Day, a follower of Nirvana, did this. And I think that you can hear the potential for something like that to happen in Nevermind, which was five years prior to Green Day landing a song on 'Lite' radio formats that housewives & occupants of waiting rooms in dentist's offices listen to. They're certainly not being exposed to Metallica.

>Cobain, despite popular belief he didn't write all the songs all by himself

The barrels full of great tunes coming out of the surviving members of Nirvana certainly suggest that any help he had was minimal. Don't get me wrong, there's a FF song here or there that catches my ear. But Cobain had an intuitive grasp of how to construct melodies, parts, and structures that very few have ever possessed. There have been so many three-chord anthems that, like blues, it's extremely difficult to write a decent one. So he added a fourth chord to the mix & opened up a whole new world. Which hasn't exactly been successfully explored all that much since his death. He might've just gotten everything there was to get out of that gimmick. But I think it's wrong to say it was retro. It was actually pretty innovative.

>Song-writing in itself is a talent, but it can't really be measured easily because of the subjective nature. Pure musical talent, proficiency with an instrument can.

Yeah, that makes sense, and it sounds great, but what are you going to do, stand there with a clipboard? What standards are you going to impose to measure it? Whose standards? Do you actually believe that jazz players like Charlie Parker would've been considered 'talented' by a music teacher? People who did what he did would've gotten straight Fs. My father had a music teacher tell him that what Art Tatum did was 'not even music.' By telling me that musical talent is objectively measurable, you're setting yrself up to show that yr standards are no better, no more insightful. I happen to have my own standards, which I'm sure differ from yrs--but they only go as far as being my own opinion.

I'll give you an example. I listened to a band called Bloodbrothers--one of a few bands half-jokingly referred to as 'screamo.' That is, it's music that might otherwise be thought of as 'emo,' only with screaming, screeching vocals that are usually atonal. Now--is that talent? Who's to say? Someone said something about Cobain screaming. Well, listen to his scream at the end of the Leadbelly tune on Unplugged & tell me that's not talent. There was method to his screeching in other places, and it had to do with emotion. Some people hear that & say 'that's not talent.' I wonder if they thought John Lennon was talented, and if they ever listened to the primal-scream-inspired 'Plastic Ono Band' album. Or any of Yoko Ono's music, for that matter. Was she not talented because she brought screeching to the attention of a large rock audience due to her Beatles connection? Look, I can't listen to her, either, but the woman knew a thing or two about music & actually does possess musical talent, yes. But I only know that because I'm familiar with her history beyond the screeching. I hear Bloodbrothers, and though I should know better, I think 'that's not talent.' So, because I do know better, I try to disregard that thought. The screeching could be doing things that I'm not willing to recognize because of my reaction to it. It might not just be atonal. I don't know, and I'm not really willing to listen further, but people are, just as they're willing to listen to avant-garde noise of several different varieties, from classical to jazz to hybrids to straight-up rock instrumentation. The point is that talent has more to do with potential than it has to do with producing or covering good work. And the 'good' in that sentence is just as subjective as 'talent.'

I understand that someone who possesses no musical talent can't pick up an instrument and just start playing it. But then some people possess no instrumental ability, yet have great rhythmic talent. Which might never be explored if there's no evidence of a more traditional musical component to their abilities. Too many people judge musical ability strictly on the matter of technical proficiency. By that standard Miles Davis was poor, yet he possessed a musical vision that had no peer, and positioned himself to explore that vision (it didn't hurt that he came from a family that was fairly well-off). And while his trumpet-playing talent is questionable (some like to denigrate him for it far more than I think is valid), there's a guy who did a LOT to change music in the last half of the 20th Century. He may not have invented cool, but it broke through (or at least became known as a form) in no small part due to his work; same with hard bop, same with modal playing, same with fusion. And all the while people like the folks at Julliard he left behind scratched their heads, frustrated with the idea that someone with such meager playing talent did so much to change music. Same with Cobain: people who place great emphasis on technical ability can't get with the idea that a guy who could barely creak out a credible solo wrote something that changed the pop music landscape as significantly as it did. Well, it did, and partially because people were finally ready to accept rock songs that didn't emphasize soloing. They hadn't been when the Ramones had come along more than 15 years before Nirvana broke.

>Ever wonder where Nirvana would have been if they were still around today?

Not really.

>Fact is Nirvana's legacy didn't begin until after Cobain died. This made them big. Bigger than they ever were alive. Record sales in 1994 will prove that.

Not true. You're talking about an act that crossed over & sold 10 million copies of a record to people who normally would never purchase a record that sounded anything like that. This did not happen after he died, it happened when he was still alive.

Any artist will sell a lot of records upon news of his death; that's the nature of the business. But I invite you to go take a look at exactly what records sold in 1994. I suspect a lot of copies of Bleach, Incesticide, and of course In Utero & Unplugged. I suspect not a great deal of copies of Nevermind. I think that most of the people that went out & bought Nirvana records when Cobain died already had it. Which means that their legacy was already formed & didn't just spring up when the guy died more than 2 years after his band broke through.

>despite their technical ability, they are first and foremost about the music (ie: songwriting)

Not to me. I say that they do not approach songwriting as a craft, at least not in the way that Cole Porter did, or Bob Dylan, or Stephen Foster, or Dee Dee Ramone, or John Lennon, or Muddy Waters. Their songs sound to me like they exist first & foremost to showcase their playing ability, not because you're supposed to actually care more about the melodies, or the stories being told, or the poetry, or the way modulations might serve to heighten emotion. I understand that you feel differently. Just as classical music aficionados have no use for any form of popular music, and devotees of standards have no use for rock in any form, it's all a matter of taste.

kexodusc
09-13-2004, 10:14 AM
That's just not true. There are a few bands you could say are just as influential as Metallica over the past 25 years, bands who started trends & movements & styles all by themselves. I won't bother to list any. What you're missing with that statement, however, is that it was Nirvana's popularity that drove the changes in the industry, not Metallica's. Nirvana's one song led to radio changing, and that opened the door for Metallica, not the other way around. Yeah, maybe 'One' got some radio play (though I thought it was the video that had more impact), but I think it would be a mistake that Metallica had a big impact on pop culture prior to Nirvana hitting. Metallica didn't have the big hit, Nirvana did, and that was before most people had heard of Alice In Chains or Pearl Jam or Soundgarden..
I could name a few that were almost as influential as Metallica, but none more so. Certainly not Nirvana, who only paved the way for 1 genre unlike Metallica. It's no accident that Metallica's albums have sold double Nirvanas.

Your complete ignorance for the correct historical sequence of events and their significance ruins your credibility to comment on these issues, though you do make several interesting points. I will supply you with the correct chronological order of events and their significance, then you may formulate your opinions.

Bottom line is the commercial friendly "Black" album by Metallica had sold more albums in the one year before Nevermind was released than any hardrock/alternative rock/heavy metal album had in decades. And had a better pace than Nevermind did before Cobain, died, and after Cobain died (1994/95 were Nevermind's BEST YEARS, sales wise, this is available on google, and use to be available on RIAA before they redesigned there website, maybe it's still there?) It sold more albums than Nevermind did in a shorter period of time...and paved the way for acts like Nirvana!!! Enter Sandmand, among others was so bloody huge it was not funny...It didnt' win the same crowds (completely) that Nevermind did, but it did open the door for Nevermind to make Radio Play in the first place! To this day, "The Black Album" has outsold anything by Nirvana.
It wasn't winning the Pop lovers over, but it was getting tons of radio play and MTV air time. So many hard rock acts were being sought out to fill this market.

Kurt Cobain almighty himself has given a few interviews with his bandmates stating they owed it all to the trailblazing Metallica did. In fact, it was these interviews (available on many bootlegged DVD's or books) I stole that concept from. And it's true. Metallica did more to open the industry's eyes to the possibility of acts like Nirvana than anything Nirvana put out. This is a fact whether you choose to accept it or not. I won't deny Nirvana's popularity led to the explosion of other knock-offs, and I'm a big fan, but again you get facts twisted and distort the order of events. Alice In Chains and Soundgarden were already big before "Nevermind" was released.
Pearl Jam was outselling Nirvana before Nevermind was realeased and continued to do so even after In Utero was released.
If it was Metallica that saw James blow his head off, we'd be talking about Metallica right now.


Radio programmers didn't give a damn about Metallica's audience prior to 'Teen Spirit'; it was growing, sure, but was simply not of the size necessary to drive the creation of new formats. Metallica's music got across to the people who started listening to loud, heavy & aggressive rock music at the time due to the popularity of Nirvana's hit--not the other way around...

You're just wrong...I challenge you to do some chronological research, charts, sales, radio play on Metallica's Black Album and the impact it had long before Nirvana came out. You have it A$$ backwards. Then when you come back armed with correct information on this subject, I will forgive you for making such false and inaccurate claims, and be ready to discuss this further with you. Until you start speaking truth, there isn't much point.


Now keep in mind that I'm talking about what the music did in terms of impact, not anything about the merits of the music itself; arguing taste is pointless. Now, I do find it interesting to note that I can't think of any followers of Metallica that managed to cross over with pop ballads; Green Day, a follower of Nirvana, did this. And I think that you can hear the potential for something like that to happen in Nevermind, which was five years prior to Green Day landing a song on 'Lite' radio formats that housewives & occupants of waiting rooms in dentist's offices listen to. They're certainly not being exposed to Metallica.

What about Metallica's balads...One, Unforgiven, Nothing Else Matters, where you around back then? All before Teen Spirit or any Green Day Balad. But in all honesty, Guns N' Roses, Poison, and power ballads weren't new...so neither Nirvana nor Metallica should get too much credit for this.


The barrels full of great tunes coming out of the surviving members of Nirvana certainly suggest that any help he had was minimal. Don't get me wrong, there's a FF song here or there that catches my ear. But Cobain had an intuitive grasp of how to construct melodies, parts, and structures that very few have ever possessed. There have been so many three-chord anthems that, like blues, it's extremely difficult to write a decent one. So he added a fourth chord to the mix & opened up a whole new world. Which hasn't exactly been successfully explored all that much since his death. He might've just gotten everything there was to get out of that gimmick. But I think it's wrong to say it was retro. It was actually pretty innovative.
I'll give you this...they were collaborators at best...I did overstate their significance after re-reading my post.


>Fact is Nirvana's legacy didn't begin until after Cobain died. This made them big. Bigger than they ever were alive. Record sales in 1994 will prove that.
Not true. You're talking about an act that crossed over & sold 10 million copies of a record to people who normally would never purchase a record that sounded anything like that. This did not happen after he died, it happened when he was still alive.

You overestimate how many records that album sold in the few years it was available during the man's life. The deification that MTV and Rolling Stone gave the man did more for Nirvana's sales after the guy blew his brains out. At the time, Nirvana was the #2 Grunge band on Earth. By October 1994 Nevermind had sold 5 million albums, Nevermind had sold 10 million by April1999. There were over a million alone in the months after Cobain's death. I repeat: THE BULK AFTER THE BULLET TO THE BRAIN!!! The influence was greater after Cobain's death. But it was influential, I'm not denying that.


Any artist will sell a lot of records upon news of his death; that's the nature of the business. But I invite you to go take a look at exactly what records sold in 1994. I suspect a lot of copies of Bleach, Incesticide, and of course In Utero & Unplugged. I suspect not a great deal of copies of Nevermind. I think that most of the people that went out & bought Nirvana records when Cobain died already had it. Which means that their legacy was already formed & didn't just spring up when the guy died more than 2 years after his band broke through.
I did, Nevermind has sold more albums since 1994 than prior to it, a very, very, very rare phenomenon in the music industry (but not rare for other suicide cases).



Not to me. I say that they do not approach songwriting as a craft, at least not in the way that Cole Porter did, or Bob Dylan, or Stephen Foster, or Dee Dee Ramone, or John Lennon, or Muddy Waters. Their songs sound to me like they exist first & foremost to showcase their playing ability, not because you're supposed to actually care more about the melodies, or the stories being told, or the poetry, or the way modulations might serve to heighten emotion. I understand that you feel differently. Just as classical music aficionados have no use for any form of popular music, and devotees of standards have no use for rock in any form, it's all a matter of taste.
I think either you dislike the genre, or you haven't heard enough. Images & Words, and Scenes From a Memory (a story from beginning to end) are full of the qualities you suggest you like. I can't say that you are wrong in not liking them, but, they definitely don't write for the sake of showing off. Trust me...watch these guys live...they show off there. They're almost purposely reserved on their albums. Thank god. If they did "wank"(as it's known), they'd be another Yngwie Malmsteen and Rising Force).

N. Abstentia
09-13-2004, 10:54 AM
I think either you dislike the genre, or you haven't heard enough. Images & Words, and Scenes From a Memory (a story from beginning to end) are full of the qualities you suggest you like. I can't say that you are wrong in not liking them, but, they definitely don't write for the sake of showing off. Trust me...watch these guys live...they show off there. They're almost purposely reserved on their albums. Thank god. If they did "wank"(as it's known), they'd be another Yngwie Malmsteen and Rising Force).


Here's one way you can look at it...one thing you can give to Cobain is that he knew how to speak to the kids who at the time were 'lost souls' (how lost can your soul be at 17?). It took no special skills to be able to attach to Nirvana's lyrics/music so most of the angst-filled MTV watching teens at the time had something they could finally call their own.

Now take those same kids and give them a Dream Theater CD. They wouldn't know what to do with it. However those same kids 10-15 years down the road are now grown up and more educated and matured and can appreciate the finer aspects of good music.

So the moral is..a Dream Theater/Spock's Beard/Yes/Rush/Fates Warning/Flower Kings vs. Nirvana arguement is pointless as the music is aimed at different crowds. Nirvana speaks to the kids, which I guess is why I never liked it and now my Nirvana CD's are in with my Limp Bizkit/Nickelback/Offspring CD's in the trash dump somewhere. I just outgrew all that stuff.

kexodusc
09-13-2004, 11:01 AM
Well, I don't listen to Nirvana even a fraction as much as I use to...but there was a period in my life when I was wearing dirty jeans, playing a Fender, sporting faded flannel...
Nirvana was catchy pop stuff...but it's easy to get bored of it really quick.
I will say this though...there's not many Dream Theater songs you can listen to in 15 minutes...you can sample quite a bit of Nirvana in that time...shorter attention spans.

Different target markets. But yeah, tons of the guys I grew up with listening to Nirvana don't wear the T-Shirts, hang the posters, and play the albums much any more.

MindGoneHaywire
09-13-2004, 11:55 AM
>I could name a few that were almost as influential as Metallica, but none more so. Certainly not Nirvana

We look at things very differently.

> It's no accident that Metallica's albums have sold double Nirvanas.

Perhaps not, but it's more than double, and you shouldn't discount the fact that while Metallica has released something like 9 albums in 20 years, Nirvana released 3 in 4 years. But it doesn't matter. Nirvana was the prime exception to the rule that heavy metal will always sell more and be more popular than punk rock. You're using sales to measure influence. By that argument, the New York Dolls never influenced anybody. Except for all of those 80s hair metal bands that were trying to look like Hanoi Rocks.

>Your complete ignorance for the correct historical sequence of events and their significance ruins your credibility to comment on these issues

Thank you.

>Bottom line is the commercial friendly "Black" album by Metallica had sold more albums in the one year before Nevermind was released than any hardrock/alternative rock/heavy metal album had in decades.

So what? I remember hearing Teen Spirit wherever I went in 1992. Radio, car stereos, television commercials, bar jukeboxes. Metallica never had that sort of impact even if they sold 10 times as many records. I maintain that radio, which drives everything, changed on the basis of the popularity of that one song & the stuff that followed after it, not Metallica as the driving force.

The Grateful Dead sold a lot of records, too, but their subculture remained just that for the life of their career, for the most part. Numbers are great, but they only tell part of the story. People who didn't listen to rock'n'roll never heard Grateful Dead or Metallica songs. For a period in early 1992, they couldn't help but be bombarded by Teen Spirit. And that's when everything started to change.

>1994/95 were Nevermind's BEST YEARS, sales wise, this is available on google, and use to be available on RIAA

Okay, fine, maybe you're right about that. But while the RIAA numbers are not completely in line with Soundscan, they're not all that far off. There's a lot less emphasis placed on what went on with independent record stores, especially prior to Nevermind. They're not counted in Soundscan & never were. And the RIAA numbers don't indicate what happens when labels send people out to buy large quantities of releases from Soundscan-affiliated retailers in order to create as large a buzz as possible upon a title's release. I can't say that anybody ever did that with a Metallica record that Elektra was desperate to break. But it sure wasn't what happened with Nevermind, which Geffen certainly didn't expect to explode. In short, I think there are serious flaws with both Soundscan & the RIAA certification process, and I would only count on them for so much info. After all, the Eagles' Greatest Hits has become the biggest-selling album of all time. Is that supposed to make them good? At the same time, the Beatles are the top-selling group, and I think they ARE good. But it's not because they've sold a lot of records, that's for sure.

>it did open the door for Nevermind to make Radio Play in the first place

I sincerely doubt that Geffen's promo minions pointed to Metallica as a major reason why radio programmers should've moved Nirvana onto their playlists. The song itself had just a bit more to do with it, I'd say. Not to mention the fact that the public was sick of hair metal, but even more than that, there were no real good pop alternatives: a lot of rock fans could live with a good Madonna record, perhaps, but this was the era of Right Said Fred. Metallica's record sales just didn't mean all that much in this area at that point.

>To this day, "The Black Album" has outsold anything by Nirvana.

Yeah...so? It has the band that created it available to tour & promote it, remember? The statement by itself doesn't always mean quite as much as it seems. It also shares with Nirvana the benefit of being on the playlists of stations that have formats that were created following the popularity of Teen Spirit. The success of the Black Album might have been a significant factor in the creation of more modern rock playlists down the road, but Teen Spirit was the #1 factor, bar none.

>it was getting tons of radio play and MTV air time

Not on my radio or television. Outside of 'One,' I never saw Metallica, though I presume they were played on 'Headbanger's Ball.' I didn't see them on 120 Minutes, though. And there were no formats here in NYC that I know of on the commercial side of the band that were playing any Metallica records. Not one.

>Kurt Cobain almighty himself has given a few interviews with his bandmates stating they owed it all to the trailblazing Metallica did

Gee, that's funny, the interviews I saw praised bands like the Ramones & the Sex Pistols. We must have seen different interviews.

>Metallica did more to open the industry's eyes to the possibility of acts like Nirvana than anything Nirvana put out. This is a fact whether you choose to accept it or not.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. Tell me, what clothing trends did Metallica help to inspire? You know, all that Pacific Northwest lumberjack flannel stuff? Hey, funny thing, Nirvana didn't really dress like that. Ah, but very few people were paying any attention to what became known as 'grunge' prior to Teen Spirit. I mean, I had to listen to college radio to hear a Soundgarden record in 1989.

We can continue on this merry-go-round if you like, but you are deluding yrself if you believe that what Metallica did paved the way for Nirvana any more than what Husker Du did, or the Replacements, or the Meat Puppets, or even bands that didn't sign to majors but did the DIY thing, like Black Flag, Minor Threat, and the Minutemen. Majors were signing underground punk bands by the mid-80s in the wake of the success of the Clash. Nirvana was the first one to have any significant success, and Metallica has a place in this discussion with regard to their position in the marketplace, but nowhere near as big as you're saying. And the numbers you're waving are hollow; they don't tell the whole story, or even half of it. Major labels were taking chances with bands they should've known would never sell, like Redd Kross & King Missile & the Butthole Surfers--all signed prior to the release of the Black Album.

If anyone helped Nirvana get signed to Geffen, it was Sonic Youth, not Metallica.

>you get facts twisted and distort the order of events. Alice In Chains and Soundgarden were already big before "Nevermind" was released.

Disagree. In spite of Soundgarden's Grammy nomination, I remember them playing small rooms in these parts prior to 1992. And Alice In Chains was barely a blip on the radar at the time, a name that few knew unless they studiously scanned publications that covered underground music.

>Pearl Jam was outselling Nirvana before Nevermind was realeased

Who's twisting facts? Pearl Jam's first album was released ONE MONTH (8/27/91) prior to Nevermind (9/24/91). And while AMG may not be perfect, they nailed it with this sentence on their Pearl Jam page:

"Ten didn't begin selling in significant numbers until early 1992, after Nirvana made mainstream rock radio receptive to alternative rock acts."

>we'd be talking about Metallica right now.

I wouldn't. Their music does nothing for me. The same AMG that I just quoted from says they were 'easily the best' heavy metal band of the 80s. Sorry, give me Motorhead any day over them. The only thing they ever did that I liked was a Misfits cover.

>I challenge you to do some chronological research, charts, sales, radio play on Metallica's Black Album and the impact it had long before Nirvana came out

You go do it. I lived through that period with several friends who were extremely rabid Metallica fans. They couldn't hear that music played on the radio, they didn't see much of it on MTV, it wasn't blaring out of too many car stereos, it wasn't used as bumpers for television promos, and nobody was downloading their music on Napster, either. If you stumbled into a bar that wasn't a heavy metal bar & stuff like that was on the jukebox, the louder & noisier it was, the more likely it would be to drive the girls out of the bar. Teen Spirit was the first song that I noticed that didn' t do this. Bar owners rarely kept stuff like Metallica on their jukeboxes unless it was a place with live bands. Regular bars didn't want their customers leaving because the music was too loud or aggressive. Teen Spirit smashed that barrier.

Yes, Metallica's audience slowly grew & grew, and if Nirvana hadn't happened, they might've been the act that broke through the way Nirvana did. But it didn't happen that way. Nirvana was the catalyst. And you know what? Their flame burned quickly in this regard because they really weren't warm & cuddly, and their anti-establishment attitude was genuine. Which turned a lot of people off once the initial infatuation wore off; the casual fans who bought Nevermind weren't really interested in hearing about the music that inspired Nirvana, though of course since it was so obscure, Cobain talked it up quit a bit. And people started to lose interest (which was slightly rekindled by In Utero, and of course exploded after the suicide, which gave a big boost to the Unplugged record, which was heavily promoted by MTV). That's where AIC, Soundgarden, & especially Pearl Jam become important parts of the equation in terms of sustaining the popularity of the stuff once people were burned out on Teen Spirit & started to grumble that they were tired of hearing music that did nothing but complain. Metallica was an important part of this also--it's why their impact grew beyond what the numbers on the Black Album did alone. It's why they play 'Enter Sandman' at Yankee Stadium all the time, because Metallica's been on the playlists of the formats heavily inspired by Nirvana, not because they sold a lot of copies of the Black Album when it was first released. It took time for that song to cross over into the general consciousness.

>What about Metallica's balads

What about them? When was the last time you were sitting in a doctor's office with Lite music being played on the radio & heard a Metallica ballad? HAHAHAHAHA I've heard the Green Day song dozens of times on those radio stations over the past few years. When Metallica crosses over to that market, you let me know.

>power ballads weren't new...so neither Nirvana nor Metallica should get too much credit for this.

The Green Day song isn't a power ballad, which is the point. A critical listen to Nevermind would yield that this guy was capable of writing a ballad without it being a power ballad, something that was apparently outside the repertoire of the bands that were writing power ballads. And from there it doesn't take much to figure that somewhere in the next generation of bands that would be influenced by this record, that there'll be someone who IS capable of writing a crossover ballad, one without the double entendre puzzles that Cobain was so fond of. Do you see the distinction I'm drawing here?

>Nirvana was the #2 Grunge band on Earth

Maybe according to those who thought of them as a grunge band. I'm not one of them. They influenced grunge, but created music that I consider to be outside that category.

>By October 1994 Nevermind had sold 5 million albums

Yeah, okay, fine, whatever. I was wrong. But I'm curious as to yr source on that. Soundscan? RIAA?

>The influence was greater after Cobain's death.

Wait a second. That may be true, but earlier you said

>Fact is Nirvana's legacy didn't begin until after Cobain died.

FACT? This is just not true.

>Nevermind has sold more albums since 1994 than prior to it

Again, I am highly suspicious that this does not take indie store activity into account.

>I think either you dislike the genre, or you haven't heard enough

Correct; wrong, I've heard TOO MUCH. I wouldn't play DT to torture prisoners. Something about 'cruel and inhumane treatment.'

MindGoneHaywire
09-13-2004, 01:14 PM
>It took no special skills to be able to attach to Nirvana's lyrics/music

Then how come nobody did stuff like that previously?

>Now take those same kids and give them a Dream Theater CD. They wouldn't know what to do with it.

I sure would.

>However those same kids 10-15 years down the road are now grown up and more educated and matured and can appreciate the finer aspects of good music.
Nirvana speaks to the kids

Oh, sure! I get it now. Hey, I'm glad you cleared that up for me. Now I can get rid of all that kids' stuff I have in my collection & replace it with more mature stuff now that I can appreciate the finer aspects of good music. How ever can I thank you?

kexodusc
09-13-2004, 01:33 PM
I think you're misreading my point...or maybe we'll just have to agree to be civil and end this.
Nirvana definitely crossed FURTHER into the mainstream than Metallica did...I don't deny this. I do maintain from the start that Metallica was the first non hair-metal band of that time draw huge commercial sales, unlike anyting that evolved from the 70's or further back.
This definitely prompted record companies to pursue numerous signings of the underground metal/punk/ etc scenes.
Janes Addiction was selling big before Nirvana too, in addition to the groups above. I'm sorry if Pearl Jam took off after Neverminds release date, I've been looking mostly at old Rolling Stone mags I have for my info.... Nirvana got hot fast with "Teen Spirit", but Pearl Jam rose on their own merit, not because "Teen Spirit" was hot and they were from Seattle...Mother Love Bone was starting to get pretty big before Nevermind, too.

Metallica did cross over earlier, and opened the door for heavier, louder music that wasn't Skid Row or Poison.
NIrvana drew influences from the Sex Pistols et all, but the road to commercial airtime was paved at least partially by Metallica.
The record sales figures came from Rolling Stone, and the RIAA, I get conflicting results too, though. You can't tell me that Metallica's indie sales wouldn't have at least been competitive with Nirvana's.
But sales is not the issue here...according to RIAA, Creed has almost sold as much as Nirvana (we can thank Nirvana for that)...I wouldn't call Creed terribly influential.
I don't know where you were during that time, but back then I was so anti-Metallica it drove me nuts when I heard Enter Sandman, Sad But True, One or anything on MTV or the radio...and that was alot...I remember the kids all begging the 50 year old lady bus driver to crank up Metallica on the way home from school...different geographic area?
I think where we've really gotten off track was the point that Metallica was MORE influential.
Let's not just focus on 3 years at the beginning of the 90's...by 96, the Nirvana scene was starting to cool down pretty fast. Grunge was dead and Marilyn Manson and Korn were all the rage. (by the way, is Marilyn Manson or Korn more influential than Nirvana because of all the dorky goth clothing, or Adidas outfits people where now?)
Metallica's been around for 20 years trail blazing (though I think they should have hung'em up by 91).
I can't say Nirvana wouldn't have had some more innovations up their sleeve, though I just can't see it.
To me, they were a a brilliant flash that had some influence, but ultimately died the way of disco.
Oddly enough, you don't really hear many groups that sound like total Nirvana rip-offs. Can't think of any other than Seether maybe, but I'll accept that's just influence coming out in the music.
You'd expect there'd be alot more if Nirvana was so influential.

N. Abstentia
09-13-2004, 01:44 PM
>It took no special skills to be able to attach to Nirvana's lyrics/music

Then how come nobody did stuff like that previously?



My God man. Do you live in a time capsule or something where nothing before 1992 exists? Ever heard of Neil Young?

MindGoneHaywire
09-13-2004, 02:13 PM
>Ever heard of Neil Young?

Yeah, once or twice. Wasn't he the guy from the Beatles? I particularly admire the records he did that sound just like 'I'm A Negative Creep' and 'Scentless Apprentice.' Hey, I wonder why Cobain never brought Robin Lane in to sing on one of their records? And maybe you could tell me if Nirvana, looking back on his catalog in a quest for inspiration, derived much from the first record he did with Crosby, Stills, & Nash?

>maybe we'll just have to agree to be civil and end this.

Perhaps that's best. I don't disagree with most of what you say in this post, which reads a bit differently to me than the earlier posts in the thread. A quibble here or there--Metallica had nothing to do with major labels like Sire & their own Elektra signing bands like the Replacements & Public Image Ltd., and I never said that Metallica's own sales in indy record stores didn't mean anything, either. I spent enough time in 'em to see more than a few T-shirts & Metallica LP purchases.

Also mostly left out of this discussion to this point was Guns N' Roses. Who I'd say had more to do with a band like Nirvana getting a record on the radio than Metallica. And who were also influenced plenty by the NY Dolls. And please don't try to tell me that Metallica had something to do with them getting on the radio.

Metallica may be more influential in a particular sense at this point because of so many bands that are obviously inspired by them. Bands that took bits & pieces of their style & integrated it into their own. There's less in the way of bits & pieces with Nirvana, because they were more stripped-down. There were some acts that were somewhat copycat-like, but you're right, not many. But all these bands that Metallica influenced musically more than Nirvana did are heard, once again, on radio stations that have formatted their playlists to reflect a modern rock aesthetic that Nirvana's hit was the #1 factor in creating.

mad rhetorik
09-13-2004, 03:00 PM
Metallica, who like them or not, are the single-most influential band in the last 25 years(but should have quit 12 years ago), and who literally opened the door for groups like Nirvana to be accepted by the mainstream.

Can't say I really agree with this assertion.

Metallica was influential, yes. They were one of the first underground bands to break big into the mainstream, though the means they employed were somewhat despicable (watering down their style, making ballads, etc.). However, stylistically the <b>Black Album</b> wasn't all that groundbreaking. A little darker than the likes of Skid Row or Twisted Sister, but very much an orthodox hard rock record. Right down to their choice of producer (Bob Rock, who had a history of working with hair bands).

Nirvana, however, was really different from anything else in the mainstream circa '92 (Mudhoney and Soundgarden predated Nirvana, but they were quite underground at the time). Kurt had both the angry, disaffected punk attitude and "ragged-is-right" aesthetic, two things that really weren't prevalent in the realm of commercial radio before.

I can still recall to this day how shocking "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was when I was 8 years old. Kurt's howl, the pounding quiet/loud dynamic, the video with the cheerleaders and the "A" for Anarchy--everything. I didn't know jack about music at that age, but it didn't take a genius to recognize how different and powerful "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was. These days it seems so boring now due to radio saturation and a horde of watered-down copycats, but back then it was really something. "Enter Sandman," on the other hand, was a clear pandering to the mainstream compared to Metallica's earlier works.

Oh, and by the way, I don't consider Nirvana to be "grunge." They were much closer to that scene sonically than Alice In Chains or Pearl Jam, but "grunge" is early Soundgarden, Melvins, Mudhoney, Green River etc. Nirvana had a very distinct pop sensibility compared to those bands.

As far as record sales and all that other sh<a>ite, I'll let you and Jay debate to your hearts' content.



Were you referring to Cobain as 'the most talented mofo to ever come down the pike'? I assume you never saw that 'mofo' live. He can't sing or play a note in tune when playing live. The MTV unplugged show was the best performace the guy ever gave because he didn't have to scream and had plenty of backing musicians. I guess I just never bought into the whole grunge/MTV hype.

What exactly was Cobain talented at? Guitar playing? Satriani. Vai. Bonnamassa. Tabor. Lifeson. Mustaine. Howe. Rabin. McCready. Matheos. Adrian Smith. DeGarmo. Gilmour. Petrucci. You should check them out too.

Song writing? He's better than me, that's for sure. But I urge you to check out Neal Morse, Neil Peart, Jim Matheos, Steve Harris, DeGarmo/Tate, Chris Cornell, Portnoy/Petrucci, Becker/Fa<a>gan. These are the song writers I've always looked up to.

Personally, I have no problems with the words "Nirvana" and "talent" in the same sentence. Cobain was no guitar virtuoso, but what he lacked in guitar ability he made up for in songwriting. On a song-by-song basis he was up there with John Lennon, and that's with only 4 studio albums to his credit.

Hey, I love punk, and rock 'n' roll, and folk, and all those other forms where simplicity, catchy hooks etc. are an asset. I also dig prog and metal, where musicianship and pushing the envelope of what can be done with your instrument are seen as superlative. Good songwriting is good songwriting--simple music is not "low art," and complex music is not necessarily "high art" (contrary to what all the Yes and Rush fans might say). I don't have much taste for pointless wanking, even in prog, and I find most of the guitar shredders you mention above to be monotonous and overly showly (though I do like Mustaine, Smith, Gilmour, Tabor, and even the occassional dose of Petrucci). There's something to be said for 2 minutes of 3-chord, simple yet catchy songwriting and lyrics that express a lot versus 10 minutes of flashy, expertly played jamming that, while impressive from a technical standpoint, ultimately says nothing. Them's my 2 cents.

kexodusc
09-13-2004, 03:26 PM
I'm sorry, but just so I'm clear on your point of view, are you saying if Nirvana's Teen Spirit didn't hit the airwaves, none of the increased accessibility that's transpired since then would have happened?
I don't think I could accept that. It was already happening simultaneously with Nirvana's breakthrough.
I don't recall Cobain being the poster-boy for it until he became a martyr.

MindGoneHaywire
09-13-2004, 03:57 PM
No, that's not what I said or what I meant. I believe I said somewhere else that if it hadn't been that, it would've been something else by somebody else. Of course, it would've developed slightly differently, or even somewhat differently. It happened to be Nirvana; it happened to be that song. To deflect & say it was something else is just plain wrong. Sure there were other factors; the song & its impact didn't exist in a vacuum; and there was already a burgeoning Seattle scene & bands from Metallica on up, PJ, AIC, Soundgarden, you name it. Faith No More. Stone Temple Pilots. They were all around. I know this. But I remember the impact that one song had. What I'm trying to say is that each one of these bands benefited in one way or another because people who either flat-out didn't like anything resembling this music, or had never heard anything about it that they liked, all of a sudden heard something in a piece of music very much like this other stuff where they heard something that they liked. It opened a door in a way that Metallica never did. Remember, Metallica's notoriety spread briskly through people trading mix cassette tapes. The large volume of records that they sold prior to the creation of the radio formats inspired by Teen Spirit is evidence that they had a sizable fan base; but since they had little in the way of exposure beyond what was then a very small slice of a fringe market, it was preaching to the converted in a sense. Nirvana didn't have millions of fans like Metallica did; most of the people who bought their record had never heard of them until they heard that song or saw the video.

But, again, if it hadn't been them, it would've been someone else, possibly Metallica, more likely PJ or Soundgarden. But it was them, and while the numbers don't even bear it out any more, the impact of that one song was immeasurable. That's why I called it a catalyst, as it was more dynamic than most of the output of any of these other bands. The marketplace was so starved for a makeover of the industry that it was going to happen one way or another. That's the form it took, that was the immediate reason, that was the catalyst.

kexodusc
09-14-2004, 05:09 AM
Personally, I have no problems with the words "Nirvana" and "talent" in the same sentence. Cobain was no guitar virtuoso, but what he lacked in guitar ability he made up for in songwriting. On a song-by-song basis he was up there with John Lennon, and that's with only 4 studio albums to his credit.

Hey, I love punk, and rock 'n' roll, and folk, and all those other forms where simplicity, catchy hooks etc. are an asset. I also dig prog and metal, where musicianship and pushing the envelope of what can be done with your instrument are seen as superlative. Good songwriting is good songwriting--simple music is not "low art," and complex music is not necessarily "high art" (contrary to what all the Yes and Rush fans might say). I don't have much taste for pointless wanking, even in prog, and I find most of the guitar shredders you mention above to be monotonous and overly showly (though I do like Mustaine, Smith, Gilmour, Tabor, and even the occassional dose of Petrucci). There's something to be said for 2 minutes of 3-chord, simple yet catchy songwriting and lyrics that express a lot versus 10 minutes of flashy, expertly played jamming that, while impressive from a technical standpoint, ultimately says nothing. Them's my 2 cents.
I couldn't agree with you more on most of what you said. I don't even deny Metallica intentionally made their music more accessible with the Black Album. But, when I read, and see the Nirvana boys thank Metallica for really openning the "underground" up, and think about it, I tend to agree with them. Cobain was a helluva song writer. No doubt. To this day Nirvana remains one of my favorite bands.

As for prog and musicianship, too many Prog fans are Prog-for-the-sake-of-Prog in my books.
I love Satrianni and Vai, but in the end these guys are guitar hero's not music icons...there's a difference.
I don't make the snobby disticntion between prog rock and 3-chord post-grunge alternative stuff as matter of upper class art or lower class art...To me it's more about moods...quite often I'm in the mood for some grand, theatrical stuff, or some large compositions.
Just as often I throw in some Pearl Jam or Rage Against the Machine, Pantera, Cheryl Crow, Allman Brothers, etc...it's all about moods, etc.
But you have to admit, a 12 minute Gov't Mule or Dream Theater song isn't going to be adopted by the 3 minute attention-span Radio or MTV anymore (was it ever?).
Somewhere along the line, the art got commercialized, and the listener got ripped off.

I just defend Dream Theater as a band who isn't about wanking. They have a style, sure but they are definitely about the song first, not 35 minutes of lame ass Yngwie Malmsteen guitar solos (though they could do that if they wanted too). They show off a bit, and if you don't like them fine, but listen to these guy's solo projects, where they do wank, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

kexodusc
09-14-2004, 05:22 AM
No, that's not what I said or what I meant. I believe I said somewhere else that if it hadn't been that, it would've been something else by somebody else. Of course, it would've developed slightly differently, or even somewhat differently. It happened to be Nirvana; it happened to be that song. To deflect & say it was something else is just plain wrong. Sure there were other factors; the song & its impact didn't exist in a vacuum; and there was already a burgeoning Seattle scene & bands from Metallica on up, PJ, AIC, Soundgarden, you name it. Faith No More. Stone Temple Pilots. They were all around. I know this. But I remember the impact that one song had. What I'm trying to say is that each one of these bands benefited in one way or another because people who either flat-out didn't like anything resembling this music, or had never heard anything about it that they liked, all of a sudden heard something in a piece of music very much like this other stuff where they heard something that they liked. It opened a door in a way that Metallica never did. Remember, Metallica's notoriety spread briskly through people trading mix cassette tapes. The large volume of records that they sold prior to the creation of the radio formats inspired by Teen Spirit is evidence that they had a sizable fan base; but since they had little in the way of exposure beyond what was then a very small slice of a fringe market, it was preaching to the converted in a sense. Nirvana didn't have millions of fans like Metallica did; most of the people who bought their record had never heard of them until they heard that song or saw the video.

But, again, if it hadn't been them, it would've been someone else, possibly Metallica, more likely PJ or Soundgarden. But it was them, and while the numbers don't even bear it out any more, the impact of that one song was immeasurable. That's why I called it a catalyst, as it was more dynamic than most of the output of any of these other bands. The marketplace was so starved for a makeover of the industry that it was going to happen one way or another. That's the form it took, that was the immediate reason, that was the catalyst.

Now this post I can agree 100% with...thanks for making your point of view clear. I don't think Metallica ever influenced a 2 or 3 year period of the music scene, pop-culture, fashion, etc as much as Nirvana..not as intense, as fast....but a different kind of influence.
I think they were the first radically different, "loud sound" that wasn't hair metal (which evolved from Zeppelin, AC/DC, Aerosmith etc sound of the 70's gradually, so it wasn't a shock) to achieve huge commercial success, and finally openned people's eyes that the mainstream would accept other sounds. But they didn't do it all by themselves either.

It's sad though, modern-rock music has become exactly what Cobain and crew predicted, and didn't want...a great big parody of itself.
We're still waiting for the next big thing...not sure what it's going to be, but I hope it comes soon.




Metallica owes alot to other groups too, however. We could probably trace this all back to Zeppelin and even urban blues if we want.

DariusNYC
09-14-2004, 07:07 AM
Thanks for the great discussion, guys. Fun reading, and an example of why this site keeps me coming back.