Am I the only one who doesn't like Kurt Cobain?

Cafe Society
61

Sorry. I only ever liked two of their songs, Personal Jesus and Enjoy the Silence. Otherwise they seemed kinda like a Smiths knockoff with suicidal overtones. But that’s just me.

marymargaret, FTR, he was my age, and he did not “blow the doors off a new generation.” Grunge was not new; Neil Young had been around for a long, long time. There was also plenty of good music around in the late 80’s early 90’s, but as musical tastes are subjective, what’s considered “good” varies from person to person. He really wasn’t all that talented. As someone said earlier, he was in the right place (Seattle) at the right time (when the Seattle music scene exploded) and happened to get his stuff played a lot. Someone else mentioned Soundgarden, which was easily as good a band as Nirvana. And I would put forth that U2 at that time was edgy and actually original. I always get Nirvana and Pearl Jam mixed up. Whiny and self involved and calling itself art.

62

I’ve been meaning to respond to this, but I don’t know exactly what you’re trying to say here. Are you using phenomenon as a synonym for fad? Or are you saying that music is all advertising and market-driven? I mean, yeah, of course there’s elements of that, but there are agressively marketed acts that are actually quite good. Like, Prince, for instance. Hell, Michael Jackson. Guns ‘n’ Roses. Nirvana. Etc., etc., etc. So what are you saying?

63

You won’t get an argument from me about U2, what with Achtung Baby being the dog’s bollocks at the time. Great album, playful, inventive, danceable. Good music.
But I’m not sure how you get Nirvana and Pearl Jam mixed up–they don’t sound remotely alike to me.

Plus–and I could be very wrong about this, as I don’t know Kurt Cobain’s biography–I don’t think he touted his music as “high art” at all. I get the sense that he was a musician, wrote great pop songs, banged his heart out on his instrument, and just put it out there. I honestly don’t get the feeling that Kurt thought of himself as the next John Lennon or anything, although I would appreciate the input of anybody who is more knowledgable about these things. The only things I can go on is anecdotes from people in the Seattle music scene at the time (friends from The Fastbacks and Flop) who seem to agree that Kurt was just a typical Seattle guy with a band, doing his thing, and not expecting any sort of greatness.

64

I get them mixed up because, to me, their lead singers have the same monotone whine. I will concede Eddie Vedder is a much better songwriter. My opinion about Cobain was not a statement on him, personally, but more the way “suffering, tortured artist” came through in his music. Which is also why I likened their stuff to Depeche Mode.

I’m sure he was an ordinary average guy, although my opinion of parents of very small children who off themselves isn’t especially high; celebrity or no.

65

I’ll put my $0.02 behind the other folks who characterize Cobain, and his legacy, as victims of his success and unwarranted adulation. The was not the greatest anything, as he told anyone who would listen himself. “Grunge” was a marketing label, nothing more, and a damn unfortunate one at that. Sure, there was a sorta-kinda characteristic Seattle Sound, but it’s not like the same anti-hair-metal-and-Madonna thing wasn’t happening earlier in places like Boston (e.g. Pixies, Dinosaur Jr.) and Minneapolis (e.g. Hüsker Dü, Replacements), and the Seattle sound was a natural outgrowth of that 80’s post-punk movement. It’s just that no big label execs fucking noticed. So along comes Nirvana, throw in a little Butch Vig, and some very heavy marketing, and suddenly these three starving punks are now the Horsemen of the Heavy Metal Apocalypse with Cobain the “voice of GenX”.

It’s certainly tough not to hate anyone who aspired to such a thing, but Cobain never did, and clearly was driven more than half-crazy trying to deal with being trumped-up and whored out in such a fashion.

66

Finally, someone who wants to mention music ! I am no big Nirvana fan, but pulykamell got it right. Cobain was sometimes very good at writing original and memorable melodies . “Come As You Are” is a good example. It’s no surprise that he loved the early Beatles.

67

And that’s fair. And he effectively communicated suffering, anger, and frustration through his music. What’s wrong with that? Rock has a long history of expressing these emotions. Look at bands like Black Sabbath, the Sex Pistols, the Smiths, etc.
Pop music need not always be shiny and happy.

And Depeche Mode, while known for there moody, electronic (though always danceable!) songs, don’t forget their pop gem “Just Can’t Get Enough” from their debut, Speak & Spell. They weren’t always a depressing Euro band. (Although I do love them for it.)

68

Oh, there’s nothing wrong with it, at all. As I said, music and what’s “good” is subjective. Suffering angst isn’t my cup of tea. I love The Smiths. This Charming Man is one of my favorites. But coffeehouse/gothy/grunge just isn’t me.

69

OK. I guess I’m just trying to figure it out. It seems a bit ironic that somebody who loves The Smiths would complain about perceived self-indulgency and angst. I mean, come on, Morrissey (god bless him) is the very definition of art angst primadonna-ism. Just an observation.

70

Ah. There is where the whole voice thing comes in. Morrissey’s got a beautiful voice. Cobain sounds like my son when he needs a nap.

71

“Come As You Are” was an unfortunate choice for arguing the band’s originality. The band Killing Joke made a stink about the song supposedly cribbing from their own hit, “Eighties.”

72

I agree - I’d say a better choice for that is “About a Girl”. Very catchy.

73

I offer no argument to anyone who doesn’t like Cobain. Music is at some level about liking what you hear. If you like it, it’s good music. If not, no sweat.

That said, another relevant metric is how Cobain’s music influenced other musicians. IMO, Cobain was a genius, in the sense of seeing things others didn’t. He combined catchy pop melodies with the thunderous dynamics of hard rock and heavy metal, along with the stripped-down starkness of punk. (I remember the first time I heard Nirvana, I thought it was what people like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath had been aiming for). The fact that so many musicians of differing styles have covered his material (IIRC, Herbie Hancock did “All Apologies”) attests to this.

His singing voice (again, IMO) suited his music very well. (I also think his version of Leadbelly’s “Where Did You Sleep Last Night”, especially the blood-curdling heroin voice of the last verse, put the original to shame). But if you compare him with truly great singers like Sinatra, Presley, Fitzgerald – people who could make any song their own – he’ll come up way short.

As far as his opinion of himself, he seemed to bounce from highs to lows. I specifically recall his dismissal of his work as “mostly warmed-over John Lennon” – that seemed to offer a very accurate insight, filitered through the lens of depression.

The fact that he was a very eff’ed up human being (as have been many geniuses) doesn’t really matter to me. If Thomas Edison had been a depressed, self-destructive drug addict, would that change the fact that he invented all that stuff?

74

To be fair, I did enjoy Nirvana’s covers of Bowie’s “The Man Who Sold the World” and Leadbelly’s “Where Did You Sleep Last Night.” Even though I still remain unconvinced of Cobain’s genius as a singer/songwriter, the instrumentation and his voice on those songs by other musicians fit them perfectly.

75

Dave was the talent in that band.

76

Is this a joke?
I guess the Spice Girls were the best too then.

One thing I have to get off my chest before I continue: Nirvana was never even close to being on the same level as Pearl Jam. Let’s keep our usage of both of these band names in the same sentence restricted to ones like, “Pearl Jam was infinitely better than Nirvana could ever dream of being,” or, “Eddie Vedder was 10 times the lyricist and singer that Cobain was, and Pearl Jam as a whole was 10 times better at playing their instruments, and more importantly writing music, than Nirvana was.”

Now for a little experiment. let’s make a list of all of the qualities that make a good band and see which of them Nirvana posessed:

good songwriting – maybe if you expand your definition of “good” to include “somewhat catchy,” and even then, they’re spotty as hell.
good lyrics – eh, they mostly suck, but then again so do most other rock band lyrics
good vocals – check (not a great singer, but he had a great, distinctive voice which did suit their style of music, IMO)
good guitar playing – nope, not even close (and I say this as a guitarist who can respect guitarists for “feel,” or “soul,” and value those qualities more than technical playing ability, which as it happens, is non-existent in Cobain.)
good drumming – average (David Grohl is waaaay overrated as a drummer. I play drums, too.)
good bass – average
drug addiction – check
suicide – check
good, solid discography – nope, very inconsistent, and their best album was composed mostly of songs they didn’t write.
ability to actually play their music live – marginal
put on a good show – probably, but I never saw them.

Draw your own conclusions, but here’s mine: I think the band was okay, Cobain wasn’t anything exceptional, and if not for the suicide deal, I don’t think many people would listen to them, and even if they did, it wouldn’t be because the music was good. People listen to all sorts of terrible music because it has a sound (or an image) that appeals to them for whatever reason.

77

You guess right son. The Spice Girls are one of the most influential and important girl groups in the history of UK pop music, maybe pop music anywhere. This is so demonstrably obvious that it hardly needs stating, does it?

Pearl Jam versus Nirvana!!! The passion, the drama, the personalities. Its all coming back to me. Pearl Jam are good for bringing out your feminine side, I have to admit, although I’d pick Eddie over Kurt in an armwrestle.

78

I’m not going to argue in favor of Cobain, because if pulykamell hasn’t convinced you, there’s nothing I can say that will.

But I will say, anyone who thinks Dave Grohl was more talented is crazy. Grohl’s a good drummer who has written some really nice pop songs, but he is nowhere near the talent Cobain was. And Grohl’s nice pop songs very quickly became bland A.O.R. radio bullshit. If a Foo Fighters’ track comes on the raido now it’s a race to see how quickly I can change the station.

And I’ve also got to take issue with people who are trying to say Nirvana was only the product of hype and marketing. If this is what you believe, you’re being a pompous fool. Are you really trying to say that you’re somehow special enough that all the music you like comes from a real, true connection you have with it, but people who don’t share your taste are only dupes who’ve been tricked by a slick marketing campaign? :rolleyes: Stop the idiocy - people who like music you hate actually genuinely like it.

79

I think this is important – and true (what I bolded especially). To me, there is a big difference between the “I’m the next John Lennon (ala Liam Gallagher)” and the Cobain-style angst-ridden pop “star” who became a star for the “right” reasons. He wrote pop songs, played them loudly, got signed to a record company and screamed out his tunes to whoever would listen and/or buy. I never got the impression he was out to change society etc, that’s why you have to at least appreciate the impact of what they did and who they might have influenced. One of my favorite bands, Radiohead, is said to be influenced by Cobain (among many, many, others), and I’m glad they were, because I think they turned out ok.

80

I recall longing for a new source of music in 1990 or so, having grown up listening to Genesis, XTC, The Smiths, King Crimson, etc… around that time, newer pop bands like Too Much Joy or The Judybats began to emerge, but Nirvana hit a nerve with Smells Lik Teen Spirit… it was a different sound and represented a new genre that would bring us The Screeming Trees, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, etc.

Arguing whether or not Kurt was talented or “a good ____” is silly, as this is a matter of timing and taste, but to say he was the front man for band that experienced considerable success is inarguable (as long as you measure success by sales and revenue).

I saw Nirvana a few months before Kurt killed himself and it was one of the loudest but tightest shows I had seen (Philadelphia at the Drexel Armory). However, he was vacant and detatched and the music really said very little. When I hear Nirviana songs now onthe radio, I kinda feel that detatchment and emptiness and have little interest. However, I think their Unplugged Album is excellent and still throw it into a 6-disc rotation when picking music for a gathering. I like his voice and was thankful that they brought something new to the table, while recognizing that many people just didn’t like it (go figure, I don’t like Garth Brooks or Celine Dion?).

As for this comment:

Last tiem I checked, Pearl Jam was touring America and Canada to sold-out shows without a new album to support. After 10 albums and having a touring catalogue and reputation for live shows which were once reserved only for bands like The Grateful Dead, it is hard to see how they are characterized as having faded away…