The Smiley Smile Message Board

My dad has turned me onto their music and I'm loving Vedder's powerful singing voice and McReady's hypnotic guitar playing..
So far I must say that Yield is my favorite album by them with No Code & Binaural following closely behind..Many people like to compare them and Nirvana but they sound nothing alike and has been changing their sound ever since the 1st album..I wouldn't even consider them a Grunge band.
If any of you haven't heard anything by them that really blew you away check these out...(If any of you are fans already then give me your top 3 songs/albums by PJ)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7aNZlNnyvI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex8skOBObmU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoC82RuAxqw

Not a huge fan but I have Binaural and I love Nothing as it seems and Light years if the whole was as well written as those songs it would kick ass. Worldwide suicide was a pretty good recent rocker.

Eddie Vedder also did a couple of killer covers for movies. Reign over me, Hard sun.

I can't believe I've ignored them for this long ..I'm glad my dad made sure I checked them out. I actually enjoy Stone Temple Pilots more because they have those sweet harmonies/melodies that remind me of the Beach Boys.

England was where it was at in the 90s.

It's Eddie Vedder's 48th birthday - today!

Nirvana were English?

No, but I think the music culture was far more interesting and provacative and engaging in England than it was in the United States at the time.

I think the best music was coming from the U.S., but that it wasn't the Seattle stuff or the blahcollegerock touted as "alternative" by mid-decade: Native Tongues groups, Tom Waits's output, Beck's output, and the best E6 albums are, to me, the best of that decade. Oh, and Flaming Lips in the latter half of the decade.

I do love Beck. I'm becoming increasingly of the belief that The Flaming Lips are only capable of one great album, which did come out in 1999, as the great British period was dying out. But, to me, rock music in general was all but flat dead by the 90s and there were only a few examples that kept the candle lit. I think most of those examples were in England.

England seemed to produce more talented songwriters in the 90s. Yorke, Gallagher, the techno/dance boom...but Cobain was probably the most influential songwriter of the decade and Korn and Tool among others were pushing the metal music while metal in Britain was dead and buried in the 90s.

Pearl Jam is the underground Nirvana, and far better if you ask for my opinion. The grunge scene in general was a pretty good fad which resulted in well-aging music and a highlight for the otherwise dismal 90's as a music decade.
Saw Pearl Jam live in London at the O₂ a few years ago and it was a great experience. Also they come across as very nice blokes!

Hey you guys ever seen this incredible performance? (This completely blew me away *Brian Wilson voice*) lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raM_67F432w

Umm, no. Nirvana were the underground band.

I really liked their version of "Last Kiss" when I was in the 2nd grade, which I bought as a cd single at Borders. It also had a version of, IIRC, "Soldier of Love". I haven't listened to it in at least a decade, and can't imagine I'd like it nearly as much, but I do still have it!

I've always liked the group, but not Eddie Vedder. Are there any fans of Temple of The Dog here?

Do you like Stone Temple Pilots?

They aren't bad. They had three or four good songs. I have fond memories of seeing them on Unplugged. Hard to believe that was damn near twenty years ago.

90s American music is much better than 90s British music, I think. I do love Blur and like Radiohead alot. Pearl Jam always strikes me a great band with mediocre songs.

Check these out and give me your honest opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4t2VSB5EJxc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXFB78DNBEg

Check this performance out and tell me if you see Scott take a hit of *&%^*%*&^% before he finishes the song lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raM_67F432w

Well, 90s American music had one major achievement which was to remove every rebellious element of the genre.

Rebellion is constantly (or cyclically) being removed from and reintroduced to popular music, partly in the form of new or reinvented subgenres. There's always another batch of adolescents and young adults with a new sense of self, raging hormones, righteous fury, and an instrument.

That's true, but there was a particular strain of rebellion that hadn't been processed by the US mainstream radio culture till the grunge thing happened. Had to happen eventually, tho. It happened in the UK by the end of 1977.

There is some truth to that I think but I hardly think that Brit-Pop was breaking much new ground, either. Some of them did have some bratty snottiness, but so did Billy Corgan or whoever. As far as the music goes, I thought that there was a little more originality in the American scene than the British one, although I'll admit it was maybe not the best decade for music overall anywhere.  It was really interesting how fast the underground thing got commodified and started sucking.

Too many folks judge the Brit scene by Oasis. The real deals were Pulp, Spiritualized, Suede, Blur, etc.

I didn't know Spiritualized were British. Couldn't really tell from the vocals.

I'd say the Canadians and Scots had some of the best 90s bands....Barenaked Ladies, Sloan, Rheostatics...Teenage Fanclub, Belle and Sebastian, BMX Bandits...  Us yanks had some good stuff, too. Weezer, Flaming Lips, Magnetic Fields, That Dog, Neutral Milk Hotel, Apples In Stereo, Pavement, Yo La Tengo, Gin Blossoms, Presidents of the United States of America, Spin Doctors, Nada Surf, Primitive Radio Gods, Beat Happening... And of course the UK stuff...Stereolab, High Llamas, Super Furry Animals, early Radiohead, early Oasis, Blur, etc. The 90s was a great decade for music if you ignore the Shania Twains, Mariah Careys, and the endless refried post-grunge and nu-metal bands.

Mods please lock this thread because this has gotten ridiculous :p

With the exception of Spiritualized, don't you think they are kind of backwards looking?

 In the end, I'm just not very moved by a lot of that stuff,  though Spiritualized and Blur are great. I guess it's just personal taste(as always.)

Well, maybe some of it is backwards looking, but a lot of the greatest rock and roll is. It has gone downhill since the end of the 70's, and most of the originality moved to the dance and hip-hop fields. Now, those genres are fairly played out as well.
But, a good song will always be a good song, even if it is a ripoff.

With the crappy economic conditions currently worldwide, I am surprised punk/ alternative hasn't gotten big on the charts again. I think this way because the young people should be rebelling against the crappy overproduced top-40 radio/ government conditions.

By the time a real trend hits the charts now, it's been co-opted. Check youtube or bandcamp (or whatever other) hits instead.

Ian's point about the shift in creativity away from natural instruments beginning some 35 years ago is important, too: a lot of young, musical minds don't pick up a guitar, but rather a computer.

I am not particularly interested in what broke new ground or what was original - neither are particularly important factors to me when evaluating art. British music in the 90s though cultivated an enormous culture - it brought the youth back to music and it did so with a major political force. It was a reaction against years of conservative rule and reflected and, perhaps, even inspired, a major sea change in mainstream thinking that had been for years reducing the English working class to little better than the criminal element and the shame of the nation. Britpop not only gave the crowd that had been virtually silened during Thatcherism a voice, they also gave them songs of hope. The American music movement during the same period was nowhere near as culturally relevant. While British musicians were reviving a silenced element of the population, American rock stars were busy trying to prove that the genre in which they worked really was dead while hip hop artists embarrassed them every single day when it came to being culturally relevant and motivating the youth.

So what is an important factor? Whether or not the youth of a particular nation respond positively to it? I mean, I see what you're saying and it's a good case. It's just that I'm not really interested in 'movements' and 'trends' as a means to judge music-- we are just coming at it from different points of view, I think.
Also, I would guess that it is nearly impossible for a musical trend to be as culturally significant in the States as it could be in the UK, anyway The culture in the States was just too fractured back then. Within their various subcultures the music of the US was relevant, but yeah, didn't mean much in the vast scheme of things.
 

Be quiet. This convo is far more interesting that some stupid thread about Pearl Jam.

Start your own thread and get off of mine!

Really? I must have been living in a different UK at the time. Britpop was mainly middle class twits like Blur/Pulp pretending they were working class. Honestly, I think Blur were one step away from covering "My Old Man's a Dustman"!
The 'Baggy' scene from a few years earlier was the last time Britain had anything decent to offer the music scene - Britpop was just bands blatantly recycling The Beatles and The Kinks.

I never saw Pulp pretending to be anything they weren't but, yeah, Blur I can see. But anyway, what would be wrong with Blur covering "My Old Man is a Dustman." I don't know why English musicians revere American musicians in touch with their roots and simultaneously deny their own. You don't think The Stone Roses and The La's weren't just the earliest examples of what ultimately became Britpop?

Erm...thank you for mentioning the Rheostatics! We need to talk about this! I'm about to start a Whale Music thread in the General Discussion.

I don't think that's a uniquely British phenomenon: how many generations of American musicians decided everything great came from the UK and practiced their British accents? (Answer: a lot.)

Perhaps part of that adolescent angst / spirit that makes the right kind of kid pick up a guitar (or paintbrush or pen or whatever) is precisely that lack of identification with their own roots. What 17-year-old thinks, "you know, my parents and grandparents have it just right. Society is perfect. I'm going to join a rock band!"? Rather, that dissatisfaction probably often turns the kid's attention elsewhere, and he sees the ideal as being outside his own circumstances.

Rock and roll has always been largely escapist, so middle-class kids pretending to be working class, that's no shock (any more than flat-broke kids pretending to be millionaires in a certain type of hip-hop) is. As much as we may not want the music to be anything but itself, it is definitely created from or in, and heard in, a bigger context. A scene, I suppose. And the one thing that I'd say is rarely or never the case is that the scene is literal reality: it's always a projection of some kind.

This is how message boards work sometimes. Tantrums won't make people stop having a conversation they're enjoying. You're just going to have to calm down and handle it.

Or the opposite, as famously (semi-autobiographically) shown in Eminem's final rap battle at the end of the film 8 Mile when he lays out the phony rapper. There was just a fairly new rapper shown on TMZ this week who was accused of claiming street roots when he came from money.

And I'd say the most famous charge of trying to lower one's financial status was those who would point out that John Lennon's roots and background was more upper-middle class (which is a bit different in UK than US) than the image some felt he was portraying.

You're correct, it's not just a trait among rockers or a certain style of music to try shifting levels of status for more credibility with your fan base. To single out individual bands doesn't serve a purpose at this point, because it's been somewhat standard in all of entertainment for decades.

If not, the concept of a "stage name" in entertainment would not be necessary.

I'm a big pearl jam fan, nirvana fan, grunge fan.  It was what was cool when I was in school.  Also a girl i really liked was into it, so as she went so did I.  When "Last Kiss" came out, though, I had to draw.the.line.  I mean I love Eddie Vedder, but when you take a song that was pretty cool originally, and then sing it off key and turn it into this dreary nonsense like he did, I can't get down with it.  Probably my LEAST favorite Pearl Jam song. 

Who wants to hear a great band do a shitty cover completely out of their style?  I don't. 

A comment about Nirvana. 


- It's my opinion that Nirvana the band, and Kurt Cobain the songwriter/singer, have gone completely misinterpreted by not only most casual fans, but also by history (lol), and by the bands that followed and were influenced by Nirvana.

You can trace a ton of the modern 'rock' bands back to Nirvana.  I think Cobain's influence was seismic. 

He had a pathetic, hurt, pitiful style.  I don't believe, however, that he intended it that way.  I don't think he always took himself so seriously.  I have a bit of evidence to back that up.  First, the way he wrote his music: He would literally write poems, then just scramble the sh*t up and record it that way!  I think he knew that what he was singing about wasn't important and didn't make much sense, he was just making his type of music.  He didn't see himself as deep, I don't think he was as pretentious as he's made out to be.

Second, a famous story about him and Axl Rose.  Kurt and Courtney are backstage at an awards show... Courtney mouths off to Axl Rose, Axl says "Kurt, you better tell your bitch to shut up!".  So Kurt turns to Courtney, and says "Shut up Bitch!".... and they walk off leaving Axl to think about it. 

This was a guy who wasn't caught up in what people thought of him, didn't particularly think anything he said was very important or deep, and had a serious drug problem.  That was Kurt Cobain. 


I also think he was extremely talented, one of the most talented songwriters of the past 30 years.  He couldn't help but influence the young ears around him, and after his death of course became a martyr which just magnified it all. 

What you're left with, though, is A. people giving him a bad rap because of the perceived pretentiousness of Grunge music which he helped create, B. a nation full of bands making pussified, wimpy music because they think that's what Kurt was doing. 

If you listen to all these modern rock bands whine like little babies, that's their best Kurt Cobain impression.  I can't tell if they're doing it subconsciously or what.  They should lock all these lead singers in a room with "Bleach" and don't let them out until they drop all the pretention and apologize for what they've done to misrepresent Kurt's legacy. 

Not directed at you, but I think that's ridiculous.  I never heard of John representing himself as anything insincere.  He was a very mallable, impressionable person, imho, but I see him a lot like the above mentioned Cobain, a guy with problems who didn't take himself as seriously as others did.  I mean 'baggism' and all that stuff, he knew how silly it was, that was the whole point.  Or his explanation of "the Beatles are bigger than Jesus"... very down to earth, common sense guy in my opinion.  Lennon was refreshing to me... a hippy who was against ALL war, not just the ones his least favorite president started.  No hypocrisy.  "You may say I'm a dreamer" indeed.  He knew how he looked, and was fine with it. 

Best example of John's honesty: in the Imagine movie when he tells that bum that jumped the fence that all of his songs were about himself, or maybe Yoko.  He told the guy if he woke up that morning and had a good sh*t, he might write a song about it. 

I jsut can't get down with saying John Lennon misrepresented himself. 

Highly disagree. Weiland's voice was better back then, but STP's best stuff came after the hooplah died down. They never recorded a bnad song, well, up until their reunion album (which fucking sucked). It's funny, but so many people only know of STP for Core , and that was their worst album (again, until the reunion).

Kind of like Pearl Jam, and Ten , come to think of it....

I'd agree.  I'm not super versed in the ways of the Jam and the Pilots, but my very favorite STP stuff was the later stuff.  I know a lot of people hated Lady Picture Show, but I thought it was fucking awesome.  I saw STP with Weiland in about 2003, they were A.W.E.S.O.M.E f*cker put on one hell of a show.  The whole damn band was awesome, not just him, they were all a really tight cohesive band.  Reminds me of Alice in Chains more than Pearl Jam. 

Oh and for Pearl Jam, my favorite was Vitalogy.  Very creative imho, I liked that song Immortality, where they've got the damn guitar so detuned you can hear the strings slapping the neck.  Crazy.  Courduroy, even Better Man.  Awesome songs, awesome memories.  I could listen to that whole album front to end.  It's probably a little poppy for most people but I love pop. 

sh*t., bro, to me Cobain was at his best pre-Nevermind, which nevertheless was a great album. Anybody who tries to say otherwise is just one of those hipster bullsh*t jobs who loves something until it become popular. I don't care what kind of revisionist bullsh*t is out there, that was a damn good album.  Really, though, what finally broke Nirvana through IMHO was Dave Grohl on drums, because that was the one weak spot of Nirvana before he joined. When you're a trio, and you have a dodgy drummer, you aren't going to cut it. With that in mind, though, the stuff off of Incesticide was my favorite.



Ron, who hated Lady Picture Show? Were they deaf and just hated a sign language version or something?!

It's in the deeper histories of the Beatles, specifically in the early days, those pre-stardom days which only a few individuals can describe with any sense of honesty or authenticity. Not directed at you either, but I'd suggest giving those accounts another look or a first look if you've not read them.

For one, the Beatles scouse accents. John's upbringing was not with that working class dialogue, and his Aunt Mimi who raised John was your typical proper English lady. And it would make her angry when she would hear John talking that way, even as a Beatle and with his fame and money, when she felt it wasn't him.

Another was Paul McCartney. McCartney was an admitted cheapskate, a spendthrift even as a kid, and he'd never go into debt buying things like exotic Rickenbacker guitars on hire purchase and preferred to buy the cheaper models he could afford. He also commented more than once about the money John would come into as a kid among the starving artist crowd, and to John's credit he did share it with his friends. But the notion of John taking a sum of money and inviting Paul to travel around France blowing through that money - as young men - was startling to Paul who at that time did not enjoy those luxuries.

John's upbringing was not with a scouse accent, nor was it the starving art student who he was photographed as an art student living in squalor. He had access to literature, was comfortable through his aunt and his extended family with money, and that family also afforded him some connections which simply do not get written about.

You cannot choose who you are or how you were raised, even though obviously the choices made after a certain point become your own. But at least from Paul and from his Aunt Mimi, John's outward appearance, accent, mannerisms, behaviors, etc. were not in line with the kind of financial stability he was raised around.

Obviously the fact that both his parents weren't there was the ultimate factor in what and who he became, but the atmosphere he was in as a kid was not a hard-scrabble, "working class hero" kind of Liverpudlian life which would have been fitting of that kind of accent, for one.

So hearing McCartney bristle a bit after so many proscribe that working class hero tag to John isn't surprising considering the John he knew from age 16 and the John who had thrown money around which Paul certainly couldn't afford was not that working class John.

I don't claim Lennon was acting a phony or whatever, but I do know how his aunt and musical partner knew him as regular John the non-celebrity Beatle and reacted to him doing or saying certain things which they knew wasn't from his background, and may not have been 100% authentic in their eyes.

But it worked for John, and that 1970 song only added to the fire for those who would idolize him as that same working class guy.

And if you listen to or read the Rolling Stone or Playboy interviews with him, post-Beatles,  note how he describes himself, too.

I remember exactly the first time I listened to Nevermind on CD, a copy someone had loaned me when it was new, and it was on headphones, loud. The thing that left the biggest musical impression on my ears at that time was the drums, and I had no idea who or what Dave Grohl was or where he came from. But those drums were solid as hell, sounded great, and glued the songs together.

I thought there are not many who could rip off, note for note, a drum fill from Boston's "More Than A Feeling" and use it as an intro for a song like Teen Spirit. And to this day, I don't know if it was homage, a total joke, a put-down, or simply a drummer re-purposing a good rock drum fill without a trace of irony or sarcasm, or idol worship or tongue-in-cheek stuff. All I knew was the drums on that song and that whole album were terrific, and it is 100% true that none of the other drummers would have been as good for that kind of studio album, and Nirvana wouldn't have broken.

You can see what an impact Nirvana's popularity had on music by watching them appear on MTV's "Headbangers Ball", which was a metal and hard rock showcase, and obviously they did not know how to "sell" Nirvana, they had no idea where to categorize them or their music, and Cobain being the sarcastic S.O.B. which he was played it up in grand style by mocking the whole scene and appeared in a ball gown.

Ask someone who was around music at that time what "hard rock" meant to see just how funny all of that actually was.

One of the few times I questioned Nirvana was when I heard they had to ask permission to smash their instruments on SNL.

Is that the performance where Kurt mock-played guitar by waving his hand in front of it the whole performance? 

I hear what you're saying on the Lennon thing.  I've read the 'early' accounts of some of the things he did, but wrote it off as something people do when they're 18.  "Working Class Hero" is one of several Lennon songs I'm not a big fan of because of the negativity involved, John was a man with self confidence issues he suffered from his entire life.  As for the playboy interview, I have no problem with anything he said.  I'll defer to Paul's opinion I suppose, he would know much better than I do. 

Idiots!  They were Idiots!  lol  I think part of it was some people were put off by the slightly... ergh... "homo" vibe of the song/video/the way he acted around that time.  I love that Glam rock sh*t, I didn't care. 

We're beating a dead horse, we're painfully close to saying something's cool, just for the sake of being cool about the people who say cool is not cool... urgh... you get what I mean.  What it breaks down to is, when I heard Nevermind (first cd I bought... bought because a girl I liked liked it, I was 15) when I heard Nevermind, it Blew.My.Mind.  I had never heard anything like it before.  Not saying there wasn't anything like it before, just saying it was the first I heard of it.  It was my introduction into Rock music that actually stood up to the oldies I had grown up listening to in my father's car.  Everything I liked about the Beach Boys, the Beatles, Motown, Sam Cooke, etc... everything I enjoyed about music, I could hear on that album too.   I guess I wasn't listening very hard before then. 

It's funny that you say that, because when it first was released, I hated it. At the time, I wasn't listening to any current rock, and thought it was all noise and screaming. I was more into pop and 60 & 70s rock at the time. What a tosser I was...I mean, I was bashing music that was bringing back the vibe of the music I loved, and I was too up my own ass to realize it. When I actually sat down and listened to it about 7 years later, I wished I could go back in time and kick my own ass.

I think the people who say Bleach was a great album are the revisionist "hipsters". I was a musician in the same time frame as that, was a Sub Pop fan, knew tons of other fans of the label and the indie music scene, and I never met anyone who thought it was anything more than a good-to-fair record by a band with potential. It was actually the worst-selling album released by Sub Pop up to that time.

This is the full Headbangers Ball Nirvana appearance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vKwLM93yKg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vKwLM93yKg)

Well hipster or not, I bought Nevermind when I was 15, then we all bought Bleach because it was 'the other' Nirvana album.  We liked both.  It had nothing to do with being cool, it had more to do with trying to get laid. 

Yeah... I did that with 'Pet Sounds' when I first heard it.  So don't feel bad! 

I hate Nirvana with a passion. Ditto for Kurt Cobain. *ducking from the rocks being thrown*

SOrry, but what is their "reunion album"? I don't really know much at all about STP apart from Plush, Creep and Interstate Love Song. Sour Girl was interesting, but the video terrified me. lol I was just watching them on Letterman doing Between The Lines, and I thought it was a pretty damn good song.  8)

The funny thing is the drummer from Nirvana put together a greater group and well can sing and play the guitar much better than Kurt. (Kurt was incredible but he wasn't the full package like Dave.)

Wait, the drummer from Nirvana had a group????   ::)

No

I liked Pearl Jam but I find Vedder's solo albums (Into the Wild and Ukulele Songs) are far better.

I find that the better someone's voice is, the less I like their singing. The better someone can play guitar, the less I like their guitar playing. Most good voices are boring and most good guitarists are boring.

So wtf?!

Exactly right. Once they released Sliver as a single though, that was a bit different and my ears definitely perked up when I first heard that.

I'm going to guess as to what Aegir meant, as it sounds like a variation on a relatively common theme: that he equates technical proficiency with soullessness in music, and that when an artist relies on that proficiency, the artist him- or herself isn't as interesting because it is more about technique than creation.

If that's what he meant, I'll just say I can relate to that in part: a musician who is purely technical can be dull, while a musician who is far less technically proficient but communicates something interesting (deep, exciting, terrifying, sexy, et al) is breathtaking. I don't find that it is all or nothing, though. There are many, many aspects to any art form, and different combinations of those aspects can result in successful art. That's my two cents (on what was just my interpretation, anyway).

Their 2010 self titled album. Besides between the lines, it pretty much sucked, apart from a track or two.

Ian, im probably the last person in the world that can be called a hipster. I mean I'm a fan of Rod Stewart for f*** sake. that said I thought bleach was a very good album with s***** drumming.

I hope that's what he meant too lol. I can understand that a bit, as that's why I like Brian's voice in the early seventies much much better than the early sixties.

you know what? I actually feel the same way! I mean, I really do like Nirvana, but prefer the Foo Fighters.

Dave Grohl is a boring version of Tom Petty. Which is really something.

Same here. My favorite song of theirs. Kurt's favorite, as well.

Dave expanded the sound way past grunge :) Kurt never did that but he did perfect his little sound.
When you hear songs like these and compare them to anything Nirvana has done it's not fair because it completely blows them away...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGL-ojxKkTo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K1gyc9sGRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXg5bNXmY0k

You can tell you never listened to their music and from past comments I seen of yours I can tell your taste is trash. (apart from being a Beach Boy's fan)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like calling someone else's tastes 'trash', as everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Great music is subjective.

You're right but most of the songs he posted about/brought up were just horrible.  :p
Then he attacks Dave Groul a talented young man that escaped from the shadow of Kurt and became the front man to one of the greatest rock bands of our time.

So... you're comparing Dave's music he made in the 15 years after Kurt died, to the music Dave & Kurt made for 5 years while he actually still had a pulse (which was the hottest sh*t out at the time, and gave Dave his career).  Classy. 

In any case, Nirvana and Foo Fighters are two completely different bands, and not the same kind of music. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

Not to mention that neither Dave nor Kurt would be into all the idolatry that surrounds either band.

Dave Grohl blows! I'm sorry and all due respect to those who like him, but he's an overrated drummer (Chad Channing played with much more personality), and an awful singer/songwriter and he fronts one of the worst bro-bands of all-time while riding off the fumes of being in a legendary band with far more talented band-mates (not to mention Pat Smear being 100 times more awesome than him in his own band) . I get sick to my stomach having to watch this smirking jackass play with every great hero of rock and showing up at every tribute show/awards show as if he's carrying the mantle for rock and roll all by himself.... He sucks ass.

Listen to this and you'll take back everything you just said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K1gyc9sGRs

The Foo Fighters debut album (which was released only 2 years after Nirvana's last album) sounds so much better then In Utero.
I understand Nirvana was extremely influential to rock and roll but if you just compare music you'll see why Foo Fighters were a stronger band.

Didn't work. He still blows.

But, of course, this is all just personal taste, ya know?

"You can tell you never"? I have listened to their music plenty, I have seen them live a few times. You are a retarded little boy, and I am 40 years old, you waste of space. Have some respect, then go f*ck yourself, you know-nothing, unintelligent, no-taste little waste of come. So stand the FUK down.

Jeez! I think we need to bring in OSD to moderate this one!

Agreed, long live OSD!

Well hey, I'm sorry, but this kid thinks he's something because people patronize him to even get in a discussion with his illiterate ass, and he's too dumb to realize it. That's cool, but I'm not going to take his crap, I knew more about music when I was 5 than he does now. He sucks, most of the music from his generation sucks, and the attitude and intelligence level of most of his generation is crap as well. Teenage nimrods might think just because they can type words on a screen that their little thoughts are equal to people who have been listening and studying music for decades. I call bull, wake up, no sale on that.

OSD: the emergency moderator!

I'm all for it.

I don't give a f*** if you were 60 years old..your taste will still be horrible. It's a shame that I'm more than 20 years younger than you and I know more about music from your era/time than you do.

Stop being a twat, the world would be lame if everybody like the same music. Though Nirvana kicks the foo fighters in the music department.

No they don't their music sounds great but Foo Fighters sound grew withing just 3 albums they flipped so many genres. Every Nirvana album sounds the same. (The first 3 FF albums sound like it could've been by 3 different bands and that's the beauty of it. Nirvana was just a one trick pony.)

Lets look at it this way, which group that Dave was a member of be remembered?

Bitch, you're not gonna win this, so get on your knees and get it over with. You don't wanna keep going down this road, believe me. I'll f*ckin' knock you out, wordwise.

Well, it's been almost 20 years since Nirvana died and they are still talked about and are as legendary as ever and will stay that way. Foo Fighters is still just "that band with the guy from Nirvana" .... Only frat boys and bros buy their albums.

You need to get some sleep you Rumpelstiltskin.  :lol

Foo Fighters duh  ;)

Nirvana :wall

I said shut up. Shut the f*** up. You are a stupid little reject, and it is a shame there are no massacres at your school. But then again, you'd probably be the one to do it, sh*theel.

You seriously have issues to even say some sh*t like that.  :-\ I'm in high school you idiot we have metal detectors.

Most people don't even know that Dave was in Nirvana because Kurt out-shined everyone else in that group.

Ain't this taking it a bit far?

Did sumone piss in sumhone's weaties???  Is Myke Luhv dictating this via Brooce?

I think there can be a meeting of the minds here. We can't just write off where Newguy is coming from just because we're older than him. I don't think things could ever be that simple....

Standards must be pretty low in schools of that region. Standards of everything must be low, apparently folks such as your mother couldn't even afford to get an abortion. Or maybe she tried the home method, and it didn't work properly, accounting for your astoundingly infinitesimal intellect.

Yeah, you're right, it isn't his age, he's just a particularly incredible moron.

Alright, everyone needs to quit with the personal attacks.


Next one results in a ban.

Period.


I take offense to that. Neither me nor my wife fit that.

But, whatever.

edit

Wait...a school massacre reference? Seriously?! f*** that, this kid's gone. That is unacceptable.

Alright, sorry, man.

I was being a bastard. I know there are many many exceptions......

Grohl does something similar to me that Myke Luhv seems to do to many people. I can't completely help it.

Who's singing voice do you guys enjoy more Dave's or Kurt's? (My vote goes to Scott Weiland.)  ;)

I think Weiland in the later STP era wins it hands down. Far more versatile than Kurt or Dave

I banned NewGuy for that Sandy Hook reference. It's a temp ban (3 weeks) but that's just me being charitable. My patience is wearing thin at this point. I don't care who it is; people need to respect other's opinions. Absolutely no need for that nonsense.  Sometimes this board makes me hang my head in shame.

Kurt had one of the greatest and most distinctive of rock voices, nearly equal to John Lennon's in my opinion. Technically, Chris Cornell is by far the best male singer of his generation.

It was me who did that, sorry. So go ahead and ban me, I accept it. I flew out the box and lost it. I apologise.

I didn't say anything about that Sandy Hook incident.  :( (I actually have relatives that live in Connecticut that was affected by that massacre.)

Oh, most definitely. Hell, the outtakes from No.4 and Shangri La-Di-Da were the best material they ever did!

Now see, this is where opinion comes in, because I've never liked Cornell at all. Early Soundgarden, okay, maybe, but that's it.

I agree with you 100%.  ;D Ever heard Samba Nova? (The way he sings his heart out in the chorus makes me melt.)

Man, you're an idiot.  They recorded their entire output in less than 5 years, the Foo have been recording for what, 17?  You're saying Nirvana all sounded the same (which is bullshit) but even if we took your point, DAVE WAS A HUGE PART OF NIRVANA.  The sound you're criticising is the sound of his early career, idiot.  

That was weird...the system unbanned you. Odd. In any case, saying someone should have a school massacre a couple of weeks after that happened is unacceptable. I'll let the system glitch lie for now, but that is a final warning.

This goes for everyone. This thread degenerated too quickly, and that shouldn't have ever happened.

I don't really like him, either. But technically, the guy sings his damn ass off.

I'm not the one that wrote that I. Spaceman was. (I would never stoop that low to make a hateful comment like that.)

This is the problem with your whole argument.  News flash.  EVERYBODY knows Dave Grohl was in Nirvana, because WE ALL LISTENED TO IT WHEN IT CAME OUT.  Imagine a world where you got to see cool sh*t like that headbangers ball interview the guy posted up earlier... when you just turned your T.V. on.  I know now you look back at all that sh*t as romanticized, but don't come on here acting like you know more than the people who actually experienced it when it was happening.  

You can like who you want but you've got a hard row to hoe when you say the stuff you've been saying.  

Yeah...it fucking owns. That and About a Fool happen to be my two favorite songs by them.


In case you didn't get the memo, no need to throw any name calling in here. I know you're just responding, but let's end it here.

Okay?

Cool.

Oh sh*t...then retracted. My bad.

I admitted that above, if you look up.

DEFINATELY!  I'm serious, when I hear Cornell, it's like listening to Frank Sinatra.  Not that he's got the greatest voice ever, but that he could literally sing anything and sound great.  Chris Cornell is easily the best Rock singer of the past 30 40 years. 

Wow About a Fool is my 3rd favorite from STP.. :) (good choice) Scott is really a slept on singer ..Sure he can sing the hardcore stuff better than most but he really shines when it comes to the smooth/jazzy songs.

Everything got posted so fast I got mixed up. That seriously offended the f*** out of me, especially as a parent and one who has lost two kids.

I got enough health and financial issues that I don't need this additional stress.

I hated Hunger Strike when it came out, but I heard that recently, and holy crap, he wails on that one especially.

I can dig it.

It's also offensive to someone like myself that has family in CT that are deeply affected by that massacre.

It (a comment, yes, I shouldn't have made) was meant to be offensive to you. I was just as offended, having had published writing well before you were born, to have my musical taste called crap. It isn't, trust me.

This was the 3rd time I seen you post something absolutely ridiculous about a great singer. I can understand you not liking Foo Fighters but how about Pearl Jam? Stone Temple Pilots?

Lets just call it a night..... :)

It is the 1838th time I have seen you post something absolutely ridiculous, and I don't follow you around. I can understand you liking Pearl Jam, The Foo Fighters and Stone Temple Pilots, but how about Funkadelic? James Brown? The United States Of America? Carl Perkins? Bikini Kill? Edgard Varese? The Shangri-Las? The New York Dolls? Terry Reid? Buddy Guy? Essra Mohawk? Laura Nyro? The 5th DImension? The Free Design? Mose Allison? Sarah Vaughan? Billie Holiday? Spiritualized?

I do enjoy James Brown music and love his performances. (Well at least the dozen I've seen on Youtube.) Carl Perkins is pretty decent too (not my taste in music but can respect what he brought to rock n roll...Most of my older friends are rockabillies that love his stuff.) The New York Dolls are a group that my father put me on and I've been a fan ever since..Personality Crisis was one of the first songs I heard as a child. Billie Holiday is another singer my brother showed me but I could never get into her music (besides strange fruit of course) but I do love Amy Winehouse which is a huge fan/admirer of Billie's music.

People's music tastes are their own. Not everybody likes the same stuff. I mean, there's artists I love that other people don't and vice versa. It's what makes us different and individuals. That said, even for artists I don't like, I try to find something good to say about them, even if it's not my cup of tea. As a writer/producer myself, I know all too well what it's like to labor over a song, and put everything into it. I have a hard time saying something sucks when someone has put hard effort into it. Now, if I don't like something, I'll definitely say something about it, but very rarely if ever will I say someone lacks talent. It is nigh-impossible to have a career in music without having some sort of talent; hell, oftentimes somebody becomes famous for something that they aren't good at, but have more talent in other areas that end up getting ignored.

Yeah... he's got the typical issues a lot of these guys have, you get tired of him whining after a while, but every once in a while he does something amazing and your jaw drops.  Cornell, better than anybody, can fill an arena with his voice.  When he hits a chorus, and it's a huge venue, and you can hear that tone echoing off every inch of the building, it's something extraordinary, imho.  

I'm not a huge fan either, but gotta give props where due.  

You can see it a little bit here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uD7u41E12U

He starts off mumbling like he always does.  He's generally pretty crappy live... but by the time he gets to the chorus, you start getting chills, he just has that 'sound'.  

Sadly I think he's starting to lose it, though.  He doesn't sound as good there as he did back in the day, and he doesn't sound as good now as he did then.  The guy doesn't strike me as particularly taking care of himself very well.  

Well, Amy is very, very near and dear to my heart, I lighten at the very thought of her, so I'll cease hostilities of any form. But don't go after me in the future, mate, it ain't cool.

Agreed. He is likely ashamed of what a good voice he has, a backward inferiority complex.

What are your top 3 songs by Amy?

Well, today, I guess I'll say Love Is A Losing Game, Tears Dry On Their Own and Wake Up Alone. Those all slay me. But I love em all, all the Frank songs, B-sides, etc. I just recently was able to handle listening to Lioness, and it knocked me out. I imagine a couple of those will work their way up my favorites list given time.

Finally we can agree on something musical...Those songs are absolutely stellar. (especially love is a losing game) Whenever I hear that song it makes me happy but also sad because we lost a legend (Yes I said a legend!!) She single handedly revitalized modern jazz more than Norah Jones but her lifestyle and drug addiction took her down a deadly road. My top 3 are Love is a losing game, Me & Mr. Jones & Our Day Will Come. (Her cover of that song truly is the definitely version for me.)

Great choices. Me And Mr. Jones is incredible. I remember the first time I heard Back To Black. When I heard Rehab, I thought I understood what she was about, and immediately categorised it: retro production/arrangements with modern lyrics. Then, You Know I'm No Good came on. I thought "Hey, she's actually a really great singer and songwriter!". Then, Me And Mr. Jones came on. I thought "Oh, I see. This is one of the greatest albums OF ALL TIME".
Her version of Our Day Will Come is absolutely incredible. If you can, check out Isaac Hayes' version as well, with the Ike's Rap before it. Very moving.

When I first heard Rehab I was like pretty young and was like Ughhh Here we go with another silly song by a one hit wonder. Then I heard two "Me and Mr. Jones" & "Love is a Losing Game" while me and my partner (at the time) were being intimate and I asked her after we were finished who sung those songs and she told me it was Amy Winehouse. (I was surprised that it was the same woman that did Rehab. Sure her voice didn't sound much different but the whole feel of those songs were completely different and actually stood out to me.) Then I did my research and checked out Frank and ever since I became a fan. Back to Black was a solid album but in my opinion it didn't top Frank..It would have to be a mircal to top such an increidble debut like Frank. (She was way beyond her time and it's a shame that she is no longer here with us but at least we have her beautiful music that will continue to live on forever...bless her soul.)
I will check out Haye's version of Our Day Will Come right now.  :)

Well.  Now I can't enjoy Amy Winehouse anymore. 

Lol Jerk  :lol

I always thought Chris Cornell was a great singer. Hunger Strike came out when I was young, so it has a nostalgic quality for me. I agree that Chris really sang the crap out of it, especially near the end. Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Say Hello To Heaven, by Temple of The Dog? In my opinion, it's one of the great underrated songs of the 90's. Chris Cornell really gets crazy on that track!  The guitar work is awesome too.  ;D

I always really liked Amy Winehouse. I guess you could call it a guilty pleasure, because after a while not liking her became the popular thing to do. She was always ridiculed in the press and treated like a screwed up junkie who didn't belong in the music profession. But she was a hell of a singer, and had some great songs. Love Is A Losing Game is, in my opinion, a masterpeace. I sometimes wonder what Dennis Wilson would think of it, or how a version by him would sound. It is one of the rare songs that make me cry. The line "over futile odds, and laughed at by the Gods" is especially heartbreaking. It's like she saw that there was no hope, and was resigned to her fate.

You are absolutely correct about it becoming popular to hate Amy, this was driven by the despicable British media who painted her as a no-talent, drug addled wreck instead of celebrating her as one of the most important artists we'd had in a long time. What really got to me was when she died it was 'drug users get what they deserve' attitude from the media and the majority of the public, a few months later the coroner report comes back and showed that she died from alcohol intoxication but none of these media outlets found it necessary to apologise.

When I read newguy's posts I picture a wee puppy acting like a big dog. It's cute. Sometimes annoying. But rarely ever worth responding to.

For the record Nirvana was one of those rare entities that really defined a moment, across the board, for a wide and diverse audience. That is why they kicked major ass then and why they are still kicking major ass now.

Like a chihuahua barking in a room full of pit bulls? :lol

Yes my father used to force their music on me when I was a child and I eventually just got used to and eventually ended up liking it. With the Foo Fighters & Stone Temple Pilots I automatically enjoyed their music once I heard it it just clicked.
When I first heard the BB's/Beatles/Ramones the same thing happened but with David Bowie,Velvet Underground,Radiohead it took a while to get into them all but once I did I grew to love them.

I used to hate the  vegetables my parents forced on me, while I instantly liked bubblegum.

See what I did there?

It took me time to get used to Nirvana's music but everything clicked with the Foo Fighters from the first listen.

And that's your opinion, which you have the right to have. Just like how the Beatles' music doesn't appeal to me (and that's a good example of music that was forced down my throat at times). I recognize its brilliance, but it's not to my liking (there are songs I like, but overall I don't get that warm fuzzy feeling I do with artists I love). Guess what? That's my own opinion, which I also have the right to have. Some people really like the Four Seasons; I don't. I love the sh*t out of Daniel Johnston's music. Others are turned off by his voice.

I agree. The Pearl Jam guys mostly came from a hard rock/glam rock background, Nirvana was punk.