You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Bumblefoot not happy? Speculating....
-D- wrote:faldor wrote:maybe "nothing" to do with quality is a bit of a stretch but other than that I stand by my statement. Since you added nothing to "prove" my opinion is a fallacy I will continue to believe so. Thanks for your permission though. Very big of you.
Revisioniist history at its best
DUDE every radio station was chomping at the bit to play this new GNR song. Played it on the hour every hour
but no one liked it cause it is mediocre so they stopped playing it.
Slash doesn't even have a fucking label and hit number 1.
They were not chomping at the bit to play it, so stop that revisionist history. Some douche DJs actually refused to play the singles because of Slash not being there. So stop, already. CD did chart well, despite everything. We've already said a song doesn't have to be good to be a hit, and chart rankings have nothing to do with quality..
Wow talk about completely making shit up. A very small minority of dj's may have refused to play it but most, and by most I mean the overwhelming majority of dj's and radio programers were chomping at the bit to play NEW Guns N' Roses. To suggest this wasn't the case is simply refusing to live in reality. You pick a few isolated incidents of dj's not wanting to play it and passing that off as the norm across the board? Gimme a break 
Also had it caught on with listeners of the other stations that did play it it would've become a big hit and the "rebels" not playing it would've caved and thrown it inot rotation. Fact is it didn't catch on because it wasn't what people cared for. Whether it was good or bad is subjective but the fact remains it was given a fair chance and the public rejected it. That's it, that's all. Twist it anyway you want but that is reality.
- monkeychow
- Rep: 661
Re: Bumblefoot not happy? Speculating....
Cobain was the greatest American songwriter this side of Dylan. CitR wouldn't have been fit to wipe Kurt's ass.
I guess it depends what you're after.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Nirvana.
As I said, I think it captures moods really well.
But from a composition point of view it's nothing special, simple chord structures, simple melodies, Cobain doesn't have strong guitar technique, lyrics were nearly almost secondary to music writing in his songs - and while sometimes they hit an amazing phrase, there were large chunks of unintelligible words and places where the words struggle to have any co-herent meaning even to poets.
It's just not the most musical of bands..the backing synth just in November Rain shows an understanding of chord structure and melodies beyond the entire Nirvana catalogue.
That said....Nirvana were a great fucking band.
Their real talent was in:
1. Arrangement and Dynamics - as I said Kurt can hardly play the guitar - but damn he uses what he can do well - lots of changes between loud and soft...making the most of simple things....clever use of arrangement and strengths and weaknesses.
2. Emotion and Mood - Kurt can scream out some nonsense about Bananas but you can feel in his voice he really for real hurts down in his soul that it's painful. The same kind of stuff that drove him to drug addiction and to death...it's all there in his music.
So as a performer he's fucking a genius because he can convey that something from that other place, but I wouldn't call it songwriting talent as such in the normal sense.
Re: Bumblefoot not happy? Speculating....
misterID wrote:-D- wrote:Revisioniist history at its best
DUDE every radio station was chomping at the bit to play this new GNR song. Played it on the hour every hour
but no one liked it cause it is mediocre so they stopped playing it.
Slash doesn't even have a fucking label and hit number 1.
They were not chomping at the bit to play it, so stop that revisionist history. Some douche DJs actually refused to play the singles because of Slash not being there. So stop, already. CD did chart well, despite everything. We've already said a song doesn't have to be good to be a hit, and chart rankings have nothing to do with quality..
Wow talk about completely making shit up. A very small minority of dj's may have refused to play it but most, and by most I mean the overwhelming majority of dj's and radio programers were chomping at the bit to play NEW Guns N' Roses. To suggest this wasn't the case is simply refusing to live in reality. You pick a few isolated incidents of dj's not wanting to play it and passing that off as the norm across the board? Gimme a break
I didn't make anything up. These were things listed on these boards at the time it was released. And I didn't say it was the reason, or that's what every DJ was doing, which is why I said "some" not all, not a bunch, not most, not widespread, but "some", to make my bigger point that people were not "chomping at the bit" to play a new GN'R single.
And that the single did fairly well, but I don't remember anyone "chomping at the bit" to play it. I also said chart positions didn't mean anything. Several times.
Sorry you didnt take time to read what I said before you posted that long, knee jerk, over-reactionary rant. 
Re: Bumblefoot not happy? Speculating....
If he's America's great songwriter, we suck.
I like Nirvana; I just have a realistic opinion of what they were.
so what is it, do you lke them or do you think they suck? 
What is popular isn't always great, what is great isn't always popular. Nirvana was just a much about pop culture, image, etc.
the fuck does this even mean?
you think they werre built like some preening pop-stars? like nicki minaj? where the industry made them?
they recorded one of great debut albums for something like $600.
why don't you accuse GnR & Slash of using their place in pop culture & their tired old cartoon images for success? at least Nirvana brought something relatively different to the table.
The big joke when it came out was that no one could even understand what Kurt was saying.
again, what are you talking about?! i don't understand what YOU'RE saying?! what's your point?
johndivney wrote:Cobain was the greatest American songwriter this side of Dylan. CitR wouldn't have been fit to wipe Kurt's ass.
I guess it depends what you're after.
Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed Nirvana.
As I said, I think it captures moods really well.
But from a composition point of view it's nothing special, simple chord structures, simple melodies, Cobain doesn't have strong guitar technique, lyrics were nearly almost secondary to music writing in his songs - and while sometimes they hit an amazing phrase, there were large chunks of unintelligible words and places where the words struggle to have any co-herent meaning even to poets.
It's just not the most musical of bands..the backing synth just in November Rain shows an understanding of chord structure and melodies beyond the entire Nirvana catalogue.
That said....Nirvana were a great fucking band.
Their real talent was in:
1. Arrangement and Dynamics - as I said Kurt can hardly play the guitar - but damn he uses what he can do well - lots of changes between loud and soft...making the most of simple things....clever use of arrangement and strengths and weaknesses.
2. Emotion and Mood - Kurt can scream out some nonsense about Bananas but you can feel in his voice he really for real hurts down in his soul that it's painful. The same kind of stuff that drove him to drug addiction and to death...it's all there in his music.
i think we're listening to different bands, mate.
or for different reasons.
that first bolded point is baffling me. if you guys can't see the power of cobains words well then its obv not happening.the depth, humour & wit of his lyrics are an integral part of his genius.
it all had meaning.
in terms of that seconded bolded point, we're definitely listening for different reasons.
for me, kurt resides in the folk music idiom - where all the greatest music should. he's in that lineage descending from the great bluesmen all down thru country & rock n roll. his songs can be played as easily around campfires (All Apologies, anyone?) as they can in stadiums. there is a lot to be said for immediacy & simplicity. less is more. just because you add layers doesn't specifically mean you have a 'better understanding' than someone who doesn't, you're just reaching for different things.
i firmly believe he's a song-writer & storyteller in the mould of the greats. going back to robert johnson/blind willie mctell thru to hank williams. he is tapped into that same vein or brutal honesty & brilliant immediacy. in fact you list any of the great american songwriters - holland/dozier, dan penn, dylan, townes, prine... he sits alongside them comfortably in whatever way you wanna come at it - he had the tunes & he had the stories. & he was able to rock as hard as any of his contemporaries. he was extraordinary. or as extraordinary as only the greats.
Re: Bumblefoot not happy? Speculating....
Well, D said Chinese Democracy lyrics weren't relatable and was reptitive and that's why it wasn't a #1 hit single.
I responded that SLTS was repetitve and also no one could even understand what he was singing at the time. And when they did, a lot of people didn't get what the song was even about. So lyrics aren't the sole reason a song is a hit. And lyrics don't have to be relatable. We were saying just because he song is or isn't a hit, doesn't mean it's a good or bad song.
You didn't like that I was bashing SLTS lyrics.
Which I wasn't, by the way.
Buzz is saying he likes Nirvana, but Kurt is not the greatest American songwriter next to Dylan.
Hope that clears it up.
Re: Bumblefoot not happy? Speculating....
We were saying just because he song is or isn't a hit, doesn't mean it's a good or bad song.
whatever.
SG said originally said "overrated". he didn't say good or bad.
you don't have the impact that song has had by being devoid of value.
you don't have the impact that song had if "no one could understand [it]".
i don't care whether you bash it's lyrics or not. i just didn't see your point.
i still don't if i'm honest.
but whatever. we're going round in circles.
Re: Bumblefoot not happy? Speculating....
I think you're being sensitive and picking and choosing your argument out of certain posts. The only reason it was even brought up is that certain songs just hit and others don't. No one was demeaning SLTS or saying it didn't have a cultural impact or that it was "devoid of value."
It was funny because people didn't know what he was saying, but it was still a hit. Again, the point was countering what D said, that lyrics NEED to relate to people and shit. And this song was a hit where he mumbled most of the words. But people had their own interpretations to what it meant. The sound and the song itself reached people.
And when a song is a POP hit, it means it also reaches a superfical group of people who don't look too hard, or think too hard on a song, they just like it.
It was a popular rock song, like SCOM was. No one is bashing it.
Here, from wikipedia:
The lyrics to "Smells Like Teen Spirit" were often difficult for listeners to decipher, both due to their nonsensicality and because of Cobain's slurred, guttural singing voice.
The whole article on Lyrics and Interpretation should explain it and is very interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smells_Lik … rpretation
If you don't understand that now, then yeah, whatever.
Re: Bumblefoot not happy? Speculating....
Russ derailed the thread a few pages back!
but we should ask Ron his opinion on SLTS just to see!
