- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would Kurt Cobain have been more successful than Eddie Vedder?
Posted on 3/24/14 at 9:17 am to Kayhill Brown
Posted on 3/24/14 at 9:17 am to Kayhill Brown
quote:There is nothing punk about Nirvana at all, from a musical standpoint.
Nirvana is punk.
2
Posted on 3/24/14 at 10:10 am to RealityTiger
quote:
There is nothing punk about Nirvana at all, from a musical standpoint.
If you're gonna box punk into some general style, just the fact that Nirvana writes mostly straight-forward, power chord rock disproves this.
I hate when punk is defined "from a musical standpoint". This is contrary to the point of punk.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 10:23 am to Kayhill Brown
From what standpoint is Nirvana NOT a punk band? They are punk from a musical standpoint for their simple song structures, lyrical content, and love of pwoer chords (and musical screaming). But punk is more of an ethos than anything. It is defined sociologically more than musically (which is why it houses bands as diverse as the Exploited to Beat Happening to Dashboard Confessional). The basic musical rule of punk is the concept of Year Zero, and that you reject everything and start from scratch. American punk is also extremely DIY, so the method of self-recording and self-distribution, particularly before file sharing, is vitally important.
Nirvana meets a lot these criteria, and they are one of the core bands of Sub Pop. Sure, they had great pop sensibilities, but that's not a disqualifier. So did the Ramones. I'm sure they'd lose on a "who's punker than you" scale to the Melvins or Mudhoney, but no one really cares about those arguments anymore. And they were silly in the first place.
Nirvana meets a lot these criteria, and they are one of the core bands of Sub Pop. Sure, they had great pop sensibilities, but that's not a disqualifier. So did the Ramones. I'm sure they'd lose on a "who's punker than you" scale to the Melvins or Mudhoney, but no one really cares about those arguments anymore. And they were silly in the first place.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 10:34 am to Baloo
Exactly. Thank you.
Posted on 3/24/14 at 6:00 pm to RealityTiger
quote:
There is nothing punk about Nirvana at all, from a musical standpoint.
Yeah I'm not really sure you understood what nirvana was about..
Posted on 3/24/14 at 9:19 pm to tigerbru17
Lol at this question.
Cobain > vedder
Cobain > vedder
Posted on 3/25/14 at 6:11 am to monsterballads
quote:Well, considering I am an old fart at 40 years old and was listening to Nirvana in high school from Bleach on, I would say I probably have a pretty good understanding.
Yeah I'm not really sure you understood what nirvana was about..
If you want to try and take elements of their sound and your interpretation of what you think punk rock is and somehow go out on a limb and label Nirvana as punk, go ahead. Punk was very much a style as much as ska was. It wasn't just about being crazy rock stars with spiked hair.
You would have never found Nirvana in the punk section of any record store.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 6:31 am to RealityTiger
Punk is an ethos. Not a hair cut or a power chord.
Nirvana was punk rock and represented the counter culture at the time. And when they knocked off Madonna, Prince and Michael Jackson from the pop charts, it was like a victory over mainstream pop music.
Nirvana was punk rock and represented the counter culture at the time. And when they knocked off Madonna, Prince and Michael Jackson from the pop charts, it was like a victory over mainstream pop music.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 7:50 am to RealityTiger
You said there was nothing punk about Nirvana AT ALL.
I mean even if you don't think Nirvana is textbook punk stylistically, it is a HUGE influence on their music and attitude.
I mean even if you don't think Nirvana is textbook punk stylistically, it is a HUGE influence on their music and attitude.
Posted on 3/25/14 at 9:19 am to RealityTiger
quote:
You would have never found Nirvana in the punk section of any record store.
Yes, you would have. Actually, you did. Sub Pop records were all in the punk bin before they all became popular. In the early days, the only people reviewing Nirvana records were punk zines and mags like Punk Planet or maximumrocknroll. Nirvana absolutely came up through the punk scene.
American punk was never about spiked hair, I agree. Those people got laughed at. American DIY hardcore bands looked a lot like, well, Nirvana. Only usually with shorter hair. Nirvana would've fit in fine on SST.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 10:47 pm to tigerbru17
I'm gonna be "that guy" and bump this thread to say Layne Staley and Chris Cornell >>>>> Kurt Cobain and Eddie Vedder.
This post was edited on 11/6/14 at 10:48 pm
Posted on 11/6/14 at 10:57 pm to rebel of fortune
Nirvana is more popular cause of his death than they would have been without it.
I never really liked their shite though.
I never really liked their shite though.
This post was edited on 11/6/14 at 10:58 pm
Posted on 11/6/14 at 11:06 pm to Marciano1
I agree with Cornell but not Layne.
Posted on 11/6/14 at 11:33 pm to Marciano1
Cosign
Posted on 11/7/14 at 2:43 am to tigerbru17
Define success.
If having an enormous mainstream audience is successful, then maybe.
If growing and evolving as an artist, and creating beautiful music that he loves, and that people who understand him love, and his ability to influence other artists defines his success, then maybe also.
Kurt took his art so seriously that he killed himself over it. Even though he died, he was, and still is EXTREMELY successful on both fronts, and maybe even more so than the success that Eddie's complete body of work has produced up to this point, which is saying a lot. Kurt's legacy still lives.
To be honest, it's a matter of opinion, and I love both of them.
If having an enormous mainstream audience is successful, then maybe.
If growing and evolving as an artist, and creating beautiful music that he loves, and that people who understand him love, and his ability to influence other artists defines his success, then maybe also.
Kurt took his art so seriously that he killed himself over it. Even though he died, he was, and still is EXTREMELY successful on both fronts, and maybe even more so than the success that Eddie's complete body of work has produced up to this point, which is saying a lot. Kurt's legacy still lives.
To be honest, it's a matter of opinion, and I love both of them.
This post was edited on 11/8/14 at 8:54 am
Posted on 11/7/14 at 8:18 am to tigerbru17
I imagine that Cobain would have had a later career similar to Paul Westerberg. While Cobain and Nirvana were more successful commercially than The Replacements, there are some similarities between Cobain and Westy.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 8:22 am to Patrick O Rly
quote:
He said that? He was probably full of crap.
Pretty sure it's one of the reasons he committed suicide. Didn't like the direction the music industry was taking his work.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 6:57 pm to tigerbru17
No. Nirvana would've fizzled out.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 11:22 pm to tigerbru17
quote:
I agree with Cornell but not Layne.
This. The acoustic stuff where Cornell does Led Zepplin "Thank You" and his own stuff is incredible. Staley was just meh for me.
I would NEVER have thought Cornell's voice would have held up.
Cobain as has been mentioned, was a total wreck of a person. Heroin and his vocal style would have caused him to implode.
Posted on 11/7/14 at 11:50 pm to JumpingTheShark
I believe cobain was quitting music
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News