The Ten Most Hated Men In Rock

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/issue...-01/music.html

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?

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.

A beauty, Jay. Thanks.

...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

I even laughed when the nailed the one I like.

jc

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

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?).

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Abstentia

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

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.

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mg196

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Abstentia

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

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.

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).....

:]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Abstentia

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.

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.

>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.

Have I made my hatred for Kurt Cobain's useless, no talent a$$ clear?

Thanks for the post of the year nomination :)

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.

I liked Korn, until the unforgiveable incident: Limp Bizkit

I blame them, and them alone....

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

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 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Abstentia

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dusty Chalk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N. Abstentia

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.

I like Mitch Miller a whole lot. Sounds like teen ennui.

[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.

No doubt, some would. Others would not. Post a new thread on a different topic.

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.

I'll chime in on this thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

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.

>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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

>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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MindGoneHaywire

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).