I didn't say that all grunge music is shit. However, the genre as a whole is unimpressive. In grunge, you have to weed through a lot of shit to find good, or even decent, music ('tis the current trend, and why there are no good, modern genres). And, of course, for some reason, fans of modern genres tend to favor shit (perhaps since rock and roll has merged with pop music). You have to listen to music that isn't necessarily very popular to listen to music you can enjoy. This is probably what spawns those douche bag, "I have to listen to bands that nobody has ever heard of before," elitist morons. Why is this a recent phenomenon? Because mainstream rock used to be good. As the 80's died, so did that.

I'm generalizing a lot, and I will continue to do so. Of course these statements aren't 100% accurate, but the general ideas I'm trying to express are.

Alice in Chains is a good example of a decent band, in my opinion. I myself most favor Pearl Jam ("Even Flow," anyone?) as far as grunge goes. But Nirvana just makes me want to shoot kittens.

Contrast with the much-slagged hair metal, which produced an abundance of great artists, many of which I have listed in my previous post - all of which were mainstream rock and roll.

it seems like everyone instantly thinks Nirvana when you here the word "grunge," but to be honest im not all that big of a Nirvana fan, i'd prefer Soundgarden and AIC... the 4 biggies of grunge as most people seem to see it are Nirvana, Soundgarden, AIC, and Pearl Jam, but there are so many more that are just as good and sometimes better, like Temple of the Dog (the combination of Chris Cornell from Soundgarden and Mother Love Bone for those who dont know) had one album and its one of my favorites of all time, then there are many others: Green River, Mudhoney, Screaming Trees, Love Battery, and The Melvins, etc.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]1) I'll take glam metal acts such as Def Leppard, Guns 'n' Roses, Kiss, Judas Priest, Motley Crue, Ozzy Osbourne, or Quiet Riot any day over some lame-assed shit like Nirvana.

Seriously, to tout grunge and dismiss hair metal is not only stupid, but warrants death. Disembowel self immediately.[/quote]

Well, I guess I should say goodbye to my innards. I consider every band listed above to be 90% garbage except for Nirvana. :/

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but there's no way I'll ever be convinced that anything Motley Crue did is better than In Utero.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]In grunge, you have to weed through a lot of shit to find good, or even decent, music[/quote]

This is also true for every music genre ever.

[quote="Atomsk Iscariot"][quote="sheerheartattack"]In grunge, you have to weed through a lot of shit to find good, or even decent, music[/quote]

This is also true for every music genre ever.[/quote]

No, it isn't. If you read my post, I made the point that, in the past, rock and roll fans as a whole used to favor what music purists favor today. Nowadays, rock and roll fans as a whole favor what pop music fans currently favor - there's almost no distinction.

Edit:

[quote="Jomei"][quote="sheerheartattack"]1) I'll take glam metal acts such as Def Leppard, Guns 'n' Roses, Kiss, Judas Priest, Motley Crue, Ozzy Osbourne, or Quiet Riot any day over some lame-assed shit like Nirvana.

Seriously, to tout grunge and dismiss hair metal is not only stupid, but warrants death. Disembowel self immediately.[/quote]

Well, I guess I should say goodbye to my innards. I consider every band listed above to be 90% garbage except for Nirvana. :/

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but there's no way I'll ever be convinced that anything Motley Crue did is better than In Utero.[/quote]

I could be biased because I view musicianship on equal terms with expression. While decent at expression, one thing Nirvana utterly lacked was musicianship. I would put [i]Dr. Feelgood[/i] up against [i]In Utero[/i] any day of the week.

I mean, let's face it - Kurt Cobain couldn't sing or play the guitar. His only strong point (if it is a strong point) is his ability to write songs - insofar as simple chords and a vocal melody go (but hey, it worked for Bob Dylan; then again, I don't like him either). The musical complexity of his compositions is near zero. There was no virtuosity in the playing of any of the members.

The metal bands I listed profusely stressed harmonious melodies. They exhibited a high degree of musical competence, as well as skill with their respective instruments.

Their shortcoming, I suppose, is the ability to connect expression-wise with the modern mindset (which seems to be mostly negative and/or serious).

I suppose, however, I will concede that it's all subjective. If someone doesn't like something, "I don't like it" is perhaps all the objective evidence he needs.

[quote="sheerheartattack"][quote="Atomsk Iscariot"][quote="sheerheartattack"]In grunge, you have to weed through a lot of shit to find good, or even decent, music[/quote]

This is also true for every music genre ever.[/quote]

No, it isn't. If you read my post, I made the point that, in the past, rock and roll fans as a whole used to favor what music purists favor today. Nowadays, rock and roll fans as a whole favor what pop music fans currently favor - there's almost no distinction.

Edit:

[quote="Jomei"][quote="sheerheartattack"]1) I'll take glam metal acts such as Def Leppard, Guns 'n' Roses, Kiss, Judas Priest, Motley Crue, Ozzy Osbourne, or Quiet Riot any day over some lame-assed shit like Nirvana.

Seriously, to tout grunge and dismiss hair metal is not only stupid, but warrants death. Disembowel self immediately.[/quote]

Well, I guess I should say goodbye to my innards. I consider every band listed above to be 90% garbage except for Nirvana. :/

Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but there's no way I'll ever be convinced that anything Motley Crue did is better than In Utero.[/quote] any day of the week.

I could be biased because I view musicianship on equal terms with expression. While decent at expression, one thing Nirvana utterly lacked was musicianship. I would put [i]Dr. Feelgood[/i] up against [i]In Utero[/i].

I mean, let's face it - Kurt Cobain couldn't sing or play the guitar. His only strong point (if it is a strong point) is his ability to write songs - insofar as simple chords and a vocal melody go (but hey, it worked for Bob Dylan; then again, I don't like him either). The musical complexity of his compositions is near zero. There was no virtuosity in the playing of any of the members.

The metal bands I listed profusely stressed harmonious melodies. They exhibited a high degree of musical competence, as well as skill with their respective instruments.

Their shortcoming, I suppose, is the ability to connect expression-wise with the modern mindset (which seems to be mostly negative and/or serious).

I suppose, however, I will concede that it's all subjective. If someone doesn't like something, "I don't like it" is perhaps all the objective evidence he needs.[/quote]


I understand what you mean by the fact that Nirvana wasn't all that instrumentally adept; i'm not downing you on that. Once again someone has decided that Nirvana has completeley embodied the genre, which is not true, listen to Soundgarden's Superunknown for true musical/instumental acheivement.

Kim Thayil shows that he can play guitar in his own fairly unique way while staying with the fact that he is just damn good.

Ben Shepherd is a very creative bassist; whether he's just playing with the main riff or using a wah pedal for intensity in the track My Wave.

Matt Cameron is simply one hell of a drummer, he can match, change, and go off with rhythm section perfectly.

Do i even have to say anything about Chris Cornell? Undoubtably one the most amazing singers ever to pick up a microphone, and he's also an excellent songwriter.

These are only a few reasons why i would put [i]Superunknown[/i] against [i]Dr. Feelgood[/i] any day.

1) I edited that post terribly. Ignore "any day of the week." The rest of the paragraph apparently disappeared...

Edit: I [i]think[/i] "any day of the week" belongs after "up against [i]In Utero[/i]." I shall edit that.

2) I was only responding directly to Jomes' reference to Nirvana. While I'll maintain that the musicality of grunge doesn't compare to the musicality of glam metal, I'll openly admit that there exists lots of musical talent in grunge. For instance, I mentioned "Even Flow" before - one of my favorite songs and guitar solos.

[quote="sheerheartattack"]1) I edited that post terribly. Ignore "any day of the week." The rest of the paragraph apparently disappeared...

Edit: I [i]think[/i] "any day of the week" belongs after "up against [i]In Utero[/i]." I shall edit that.

2) I was only responding directly to Jomes' reference to Nirvana. While I'll maintain that the musicality of grunge doesn't compare to the musicality of glam metal, I'll openly admit that there exists lots of musical talent in grunge. For instance, I mentioned "Even Flow" before - one of my favorite songs and guitar solos.[/quote]

i'm glad you brought up the solo in Even Flow, and that recognize good instrumental work. Mike McCready is an excellent guitar player.

Oh, and by the way i hope you dont think that i'm picking on you or anything, this is just good conversation and your kinda on the opposing side for the most part.

[quote="Crazy rainbow"]Oh, and by the way i hope you dont think that i'm picking on you or anything[/quote]

lmbo, you'll learn that sheer enjoys playing Devils Advocate. And before you start in on me sheer: I'll say that I enjoy playing the patsy.

IMO Even Flow isn't that good. Vitalogy > Ten to me.

I also have to disagree that Kurt couldn't play or sing. Sure he's not busting out any incredibly technical solos, but if all you're interested in is playing skill, look to shredders I guess. I think Kurt was a great vocalist for his style of music.

Soundgarden is great too tho lulz.

To CR et Blank:

If I'm conversing, that means I'm enjoying the conversation. However, you may have to disregard any violent aggression, acerbic wit, or personal attacks. The rest is pure argumentative gold.

To Jomei:

There really is no musical complexity to anything Nirvana has ever done. There is very little harmony, as well. It is almost entirely chords (strummed or arpeggiated) with a simple vocal melody. There is a significant emphasis on the vocals and lyrics, rather than the music.

I suppose you can argue that any voice is apt for at least some application. But there really was no technical ability in his singing, or complexity in his vocals. I suppose his vocals fit, but to say they were good is an incredibly long shot (see Sawao Yamanaka).

I don't really see how you can argue that there is a significant degree of competence with the guitar on his part. Skill is only a small part of any good guitarist's repertoire - even with shredders. Actually, [i]especially[/i] shredders. Their technical ability is often overstated by those ignorant in the art of guitar.

Anyway, the point is, Kurt was entirely unimpressive with his guitar ability. You're right - he's not busting out any incredibly technical solos. Actually, he's not busting out [i]any[/i] solos. Even further, he's not really busting out anything at all. He's just like that guy who brings his acoustic guitar to chill by the camp fire. He knows a few chords and can get everybody to sing, but don't ask him to actually learn the guitar.

There are many aspects of the guitar - melody, harmony, technical ability, versatility, creativity, originality...now seriously, which one was Kurt good at?

I do like Soundgarden - or more specifically, Chris Cornell. He's not a personal favorite, but it's really hard to deny his talent.

I guess I'm venting my personal disdain for Kurt Cobain. I'm not really trying to offend anyone, but God damn, he takes overrated to a brand new level.

I like a bit of Nirvana every now and then, but his vocals are FAR from good. Mediocre at best, shit at worst.

But when they were shit they were pretty [i]awesomely[/i] shit. I use the same justification for enjoying Nico's voice.

Sheer, I can see where you're coming from, totally, but for me, musical complexity does not necessarily equal greatness, and in fact often leads to the exact opposite. Of course you're talking to a die-hard Stooges and Joy Division fan here so I actually prefer my bands to [i]not know a goddamn thing about their instruments[/i].

As for Cobain, I think he wrote great pop songs. Nothing more, nothing less.

[quote="Marekenshin"]I like a bit of Nirvana every now and then, but his vocals are FAR from good. Mediocre at best, shit at worst.[/quote]

I challenge you to get vocals as raspy as his without coughing up blood. I'm not saying he's Freddie Mercury or anything like that, but for his kind of music, his voice was perfect, much like Mineta's vocals fit Ging Nang Boyz like a glove.

Also, Sawao sounds a lot worse live lately than Kurt ever did. See: Wake Up! tour.

Iscariot has a good point, just because a piece of music has complexity or creativity doesnt mean you have to like it; it's all about what sounds good to you at that time.

Ok like Yngwie Malmsteen is a very good and complex guitar player with lightning fast arpeggios and sweeps, hammer-ons, etc. But its always possible to over-complicate things, you can respect the ability, but not always enjoy the sound. Thats a reason why I like some Nirvana songs just because its a break from all complexity and you can still enjoy it. Once again though thats if you actually like the sound of it. For example, I can respect Ronnie James Dio's vocal ability, but to be honest I dont really like the way he sings; I'd prefer Chris Cornell, Layne Staley, Robert Plant, or Maynard James Keenan.