View unanswered posts | View active topics
It is currently Sun Jun 15, 2025 7:32 am
i'm bored... and i miss grunge music... a lot
Author |
Message |
sheerheartattack
terra's homie
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:23 am Posts: 5702 Location: New Jersey
|
[quote="Atomsk Iscariot"]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]
Ironically, I'm a big Ramones fan. Of course, I don't respect them so much as I just enjoy their music. I suppose the simple fact is that I just don't enjoy Nirvana's music.
Making something simple sound good is a lot easier than making something complex sound good. Of course, finding the right balance is essential. My only criticism is that Nirvana (along with the Ramones, I suppose) completely ignores this balance, and instead opts for utter simplicity. Unlike the Ramones, Nirvana doesn't really redeem itself with originality, nor fun, memorable songs.
Then again, it's music. It's entirely subjective. Even those people who like that "noise music" have a valid opinion. Of course, that still doesn't spare them from enduring my relentless ridicule.
|
Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:26 pm |
|
 |
GoldenRhino
...don't give a fuck
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:20 am Posts: 5745 Location: vancouver
|
[quote="sheerheartattack"][b]There really is no musical complexity to anything Nirvana has ever done. There is very little harmony, as well.[/b] 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.
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. [b]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. [/b][/quote]
I'll echo Crazy Rainbow and Atomsk by saying that complexity is worthless if you can't write a decent song. Youngster (Kent Arrow), other than some minimalist techno, is probably the least complex thing on my iPod. But will you still catch me singing along and bobbing my head like a little school girl? Hell yes.
While sheer instrumental/vocal skill is generally a great asset, what it really comes down to is if you can move an audience. Can you actually affect people, make them feel an emotion, make them think, just by playing your song?
I'll pretty much never listen to country. I'm sure there are some great country song writers, guitarists, and singers. None of that makes a bit of difference though, considering the fact that I just don't like the "feel" of country. I don't care if they're pumping out beautiful harmonies or what -- at the end of the day, I just don't like country.
And what the hell do you know about Kurt Cobain's knowledge of chords? The Jag-Stang was Cobain's own idea -- I must assume he at least cared SOMEWHAT about the instrument.
You make Nirvana in general just seem really unattractive. Bad vocals. Mediocre guitar. Nothing really interesting. Ultimately a sub-par band. In your opinion then, how in the world did they gain so much fame?
I'll say it again. The key to making music that people will enjoy is if you can get a certain "feel" down that listeners can somewhat identify with.
The truly epic solos and lyrical themes in DragonForce.
The dirty grind of "Breed"* by Nirvana.
The manic, insanely balls-out style of Ging Nang Boyz.
The atmospheric instrumentation of Explosions in the Sky.
[b]If it works for you, then hell, no one needs to complain.[/b]
* [url]http://youtube.com/watch?v=62yf8rc_B10[/url]
_________________ -
|
Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:32 pm |
|
 |
Crazy rainbow
tiny buster
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:33 pm Posts: 51 Location: In a room a thousand years wide
|
i think Rhino just summed it up in the best possible way; i was trying to say something similar earlier, its all about whether someone likes it or not. There are many different factors of course:
The way it makes you feel when you listen to it (intelligent, crazy, depressed, angry, happy, acceptance, etc.) you know if you like it, go with it.
Then there's the atmosphere it creates; Rhino said that he didn't really like country because of the feel that it gives, which i think is the same for me, it irritates me to hear songs like "Redneck Yacht Club" because... well... i just dont get it and/or feel it (although i'm sure there are still many people out there that do like what they here and the image that it creates). I prefer to listen to stuff like older Smashing Pumpkins because i get the feel of acceptance, sadness, and just all out badassedness; i enjoy the atmosphere it creates, it puts me in "my element."
_________________ "Everything is right. Everything works out right. Everything fades from sight because thats alright with me." ~ Robert Pollard
|
Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:54 pm |
|
 |
sheerheartattack
terra's homie
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:23 am Posts: 5702 Location: New Jersey
|
[quote="GoldenRhino"] I'll echo Crazy Rainbow and Atomsk by saying that complexity is worthless is you can't write a decent song. Youngster (Kent Arrow), other than some minimalist techno, is probably the least complex thing on my iPod. But will you still catch me singing along and bobbing my head like a little school girl? Hell yes. [/quote]
It was never my opinion that complexity was a sole determinant of good music. It is only one aspect of it. If Mozart just wrote some chords with a melody on top of it, he wouldn't be a respected composer. However, the pinnacle of musical greatness lies in a skillful mastery of the art, rather than a simple appeal to the masses. "Youngster" is a catchy and fun song, making it good and worthwhile. But really, how much of our respect does it deserve? It makes you feel good (a very important aspect of music, mind you); it doesn't strike you with awe (equally as important, but on a different plane).
I can enjoy a simple limerick, but I'll never respect it as much as a masterful sonnet. I can shoot a deer with a gun, but it's not really as impressive as if I killed it with my bare hands. Good is good, but great is better.
Finally, once again, the assumption is not that complexity is good for the sake of complexity. If you read that, read again.
[quote="GoldenRhino"] While sheer instrumental/vocal skill is generally a great asset, what it really comes down to is if you can move an audience. Can you actually affect people, make them feel an emotion, make them think, just by playing your song? [/quote]
Moving an audience is one of several aspects of music. There are so many different reasons why people listen to music, to pigeonhole its value to one category is not quite accurate. Expression, melody, technique, impact, etc. - they all mesh together, resulting in the enjoyability of a song. Everyone puts a different emphasis on each category, but they all still exist.
[quote="GoldenRhino"] I'll pretty much never listen to country. I'm sure there are some great country song writers, guitarists, and singers. None of that makes a bit of difference though, considering the fact that I just don't like the "feel" of country. I don't care if they're pumping out beautiful harmonies or what -- at the end of the day, I just don't like country. [/quote]
I understand this. I continue to be impressed by country's (even mainstream's) vocal hooks and guitar solos, yet I still can't stand the genre.
[quote="GoldenRhino"] And what the hell do you know about Kurt Cobain's knowledge of chords? The Jag-Stang was Cobain's own idea -- I must assume he at least cared SOMEWHAT about the instrument. [/quote]
All we know is what he demonstrated during his tenure with Nirvana. I don't think I provided an inaccurate description at all. If you can his 755 home runs, you're not Hank Aaron until you do it. Outdated metaphor, isn't it? That's yet another thread...
[quote="GoldenRhino"] You make Nirvana in general just seem really unattractive. Bad vocals. Mediocre guitar. Nothing really interesting. Ultimately a sub-par band. In your opinion then, how in the world did they gain so much fame? [/quote]
Well, I have the same opinion about many famous bands. I mean, the Back Street Boys? Britney Spears? Good Charlotte? Simple Plan? I can find even less redeeming value in them than I can in Nirvana. How do people get fame? I still have no idea. At all. If you have any suggestion at all, I need to know.
[quote="GoldenRhino"] I'll say it again. The key to making music that people will enjoy is if you can get a certain "feel" down that listeners can somewhat identify with. [/quote]
It also helps if everybody else is listening to it. Or if nobody else is listening to it, to some people...
|
Wed Aug 15, 2007 10:59 pm |
|
 |
Crazy rainbow
tiny buster
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:33 pm Posts: 51 Location: In a room a thousand years wide
|
i think that each of us have different pieces to this puzzle here (though there's no way we have all of them) if we can simply put them together i think we can help each other with a good, satisfying answer... despite the disagreements
_________________ "Everything is right. Everything works out right. Everything fades from sight because thats alright with me." ~ Robert Pollard
|
Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:12 pm |
|
 |
BlazingSage
stalker
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:40 pm Posts: 935 Location: Massachusetts
|
[quote="sheerheartattack"]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 [b]lyrics[/b], rather than the music.[/quote]
Not to be an elitist asshole, but Nirvana was never about the lyrics. Kurt would usually write the lyrics to songs minutes before recording. Also, hair metal is retarded IMO. I guess I would rather listen to "In Bloom" rather than "Girls, Girls, Girls".
|
Wed Aug 15, 2007 11:56 pm |
|
 |
GoldenRhino
...don't give a fuck
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:20 am Posts: 5745 Location: vancouver
|
[quote="Crazy rainbow"]i think that each of us have different pieces to this puzzle here (though there's no way we have all of them) if we can simply put them together i think we can help each other with a good, satisfying answer... despite the disagreements[/quote] [
I think we're coming down to a dispute between the mind and the heart.
We can think about songs technically, keeping in mind the complexity or proficiency of who's singing. The harmonies, the layers of instrumentation. We can think about how a band has "grown" through the years. And there's also the "how the hell are talentless produced 'groups' like Backstreet Boys and Good Charlotte so popular?!"
Thinking about all of these things is sort of fun for a while. But god damn, it always comes down to "lol, opinions".
People will form their own musical perspectives from...hell, whenever they start listening to music and really embracing it.
Random person in the South listening to Aphex Twin: "What in tarnation is this computer techno sheeeyit!?"
Me, listening to Aphex Twin: "Dude, this IS the shit!"
I guess it's sort of like religion in a way. Much of our "direction" is based environment and those who we associate with. I probably wouldn't be on this message board if my friend hadn't purchased FLCL on DVD oh so long ago and watched it on my computer.
_________________ -
|
Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:33 am |
|
 |
Blank
_
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:03 pm Posts: 5560 Location: Nowhere
|
[quote="sheerheartattack"]How do people get fame? I still have no idea. At all. If you have any suggestion at all, I need to know.[/quote]
Good timing and sex appeal.
_________________ [quote="GoldenRhino"]AHM POSTIN' ON INSTANT MUSIC AND TOUCHIN MAH HARBL.[/quote] [quote="StevenB130"]Yeah, gay porn [i]is[/i] pretty sweet.[/quote]
|
Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:04 am |
|
 |
sheerheartattack
terra's homie
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:23 am Posts: 5702 Location: New Jersey
|
[quote="BlazingSage"][quote="sheerheartattack"]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 [b]lyrics[/b], rather than the music.[/quote]
Not to be an elitist asshole, but Nirvana was never about the lyrics. Kurt would usually write the lyrics to songs minutes before recording. Also, hair metal is retarded IMO. I guess I would rather listen to "In Bloom" rather than "Girls, Girls, Girls".[/quote]
Preference noted. However, to call a genre of music because you prefer another genre over it? I don't get your point.
And guys, if anything, Motley Crue is like the Nirvana of glam metal. Hardly representative.
And to GR:
It is all about opinions, but it's always interesting to see how people rationalize their opinions. Of course, it can get redundant.
|
Thu Aug 16, 2007 12:36 pm |
|
 |
Jomei
moderator
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:52 pm Posts: 6497
|
Kurt also had a sense of humour. Here's a clip from a show on which they were expected to sing along with a recording of their instrumental tracks.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mHrqkefrm50
|
Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:42 pm |
|
 |
BlazingSage
stalker
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:40 pm Posts: 935 Location: Massachusetts
|
I hate arena/glam rock, so I guess I do prefer other stuff over it. Your point?
|
Thu Aug 16, 2007 3:47 pm |
|
 |
Crazy rainbow
tiny buster
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:33 pm Posts: 51 Location: In a room a thousand years wide
|
i dont hate arena and 80s metal, actually i like most of it, but i guess i prefer alternative, but still i love like Iron Maiden, Van Halen, Judas Priest, Tesla, and a lot of others, but there are a few i dont really like to (Motley Crue... sorry Sheer)
_________________ "Everything is right. Everything works out right. Everything fades from sight because thats alright with me." ~ Robert Pollard
|
Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:17 pm |
|
 |
sheerheartattack
terra's homie
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 1:23 am Posts: 5702 Location: New Jersey
|
[quote="BlazingSage"]I hate arena/glam rock, so I guess I do prefer other stuff over it. Your point?[/quote]
If you actually understood what I wrote, you can't dismiss a genre of music as "retarded" just because you don't like it. There is nothing objective about that at all. It's not even subjective. It's just wrong.
As to Crazy Rainbow, Motley Crue isn't even among my favorite glam rock acts. They had some good, catchy songs, but nothing overly impressive.
|
Thu Aug 16, 2007 11:14 pm |
|
 |
zenkalia
:dizzy:
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:40 am Posts: 1659
|
1. paul gilbert fucking sucks.
2. alice in chains sucks. by some freak occurence, they made "jar of flies", which is just completely and utterly beyond amazing.
3. pearl jam REALLY sucks.
4. soundgarden? haven't listened to enough to give a real opinion. probably sucks though, honestly.
5. go to zomb torrents and download a nirvana bootleg. one that was shot with an old vhs camcorder, preferably (just before he starts doing ridiculous stage antics because he started hating his fans or some shit). then tell me that nirvana sucks. then download another and notice that kurt's spastic guitar solos are exactly the same. then freak out and download another one and realize that he's doing it on purpose and he's actually a very very good musician.
6. when something is bad, that is not justification for it being good. fucking indie fags stop it.
7. a metaphor does not an argument make.
8. blazing sage likes to just make things up, apparently.
9. seriously, just because paul gilbert is a weaboo doesn't make him cool.
_________________ "In the end, it is my wish that there will be no more secrets worth keeping, and no more fear worth running from...all that should remain is the clear heart and a vibrant joy, and of course, music..." -Billy Corgan
|
Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:52 am |
|
 |
GoldenRhino
...don't give a fuck
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 12:20 am Posts: 5745 Location: vancouver
|
[quote="zenkalia"]1. opinion 2. opinion 3. opinion 4. fact, followed by irrational formulation of an opinion 5. command, followed by an opinion 6. unintelligible 7. maybe 8. hatin' 9. opinion.[/quote]
Good job, you changed no one's mind.
KILL YOURSELF. 
_________________ -
|
Fri Aug 17, 2007 5:15 am |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|