Latest Comments
| About Yo La Tengo, Vagempig-online wrote: | |
| Si, probablemente lo sea | |
| Wednesday, 03.10.10 @ 00:53am | |
| Leave your own comment about Yo La Tengo here. | |
| About Sex Pistols, Joe wrote: | |
| If anyone is offended by the language in my prior posting, I sincerely apologize. I wasn't attempting to disgust; I quoted the fax verbatim, or at least as verbatim as I could (although, if I want to be REALLY verbatim, there should be an unexplained period after "stem" in the last sentence). | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 21:14pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Sex Pistols here. | |
| About Sex Pistols, Joe wrote: | |
| (For those that haven't seen the poisoned fax:) "Next to the SEX-PISTOLS rock and roll and that hall of fame is a piss stain. Your museum. Urine in wine. Were (sic) not coming. Were (sic, again) not your monkey and so what? Fame at $25000 if we paid for a table, or $15000 to squeak up in the gallery, goes to a non-profit organisation (sic) selling us a load of old famous. Congradulations (sic). If you voted for us, hope you noted your reasons. Your (sic) anonymous as judges, but your (sic) still music industry people. Were (sic, a third time) not coming. Your (sic, again) not paying attention. Outside the shit-stem (storm?) is a real SEX PISTOL" I guess this proves something for both sides: If you're a fan, this proves that the Sex Pistols are true to their rebellious spirit. And if you're not a fan, this proves that they're as stupid as you thought they were. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 21:09pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Sex Pistols here. | |
| About Chicago, Sam wrote: | |
| "Sam If you were talking to me, I don't know what I wrote to make you think that I didn't know the Rolling Stones were in the Rock Hall. I know they are." Sorry about that Roy. I was not talking to you. This was the quote in question: ON ANOTHER NOTE: WHAT ABOUT THE ROLLING STONES AND THE DO0BIE BROTHERS? WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THIS CIRCUS? MJB...SEATTLE Posted by MJB on Saturday, 06.23.07 @ 14:46pm I saw that and I wrote that people should do their homework before they come on here. I think I'd pick Deep Purple and T. Rex before the Doobie Brothers (part of that's logic and part of that's personal taste.) | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 20:07pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Chicago here. | |
| About Styx, Sam wrote: | |
| FINALLY! Someone who sees the light. I would agree that Rush should be in for their influence (not that big a fan). Popularity probably is taken into account when they discuss whether you should be considered, then discussed for nomination, and so on, and I think it should be a factor (but only to a small degree) but you need much more than popularity to be worthy. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 19:59pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Styx here. | |
| About New York Dolls, Sam wrote: | |
| Cheers. Feel free to comment. Hopefully you'll stick around. Just be warned, we don't always play nice or have regard for others' feelings. It can get very hot in this kitchen, I've noticed. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 19:55pm | |
| Leave your own comment about New York Dolls here. | |
| About Bryan Adams, Sam wrote: | |
| An apology from Canada. Posted by Philip on Saturday, 02.14.09 @ 22:11pm I cannot believe it took me this long to find that funny. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 19:37pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Bryan Adams here. | |
| About Steve Perry, Sam wrote: | |
| Yeah... A session bassist, actually. Perry had most of the control on the Raised on Radio album, so he had Steve Smith (the drummer) and whoever was playing bass fired and recruited some session players, and Jackson was one of them. Firing people for no reason... what a dick. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 19:30pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Steve Perry here. | |
| About Lindsay Lohan, Sam wrote: | |
| I didn't even know she recorded any music. I just thought she was famous for her partying habits and doing a couple of D list movies and TV shows (no, haven't watched them.) She is pretty hot. Who knows, maybe she'll put together a HOF worthy career? If she lives long enough, of course. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 19:27pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Lindsay Lohan here. | |
| About New York Dolls, Steatodrida wrote: | |
| Hey i am new here. Hopefully i mighnt be able to contribute to this forum, Just though i would pop in and say hi! cheers. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 19:18pm | |
| Leave your own comment about New York Dolls here. | |
| About the 2010 Inductees, Lax27 wrote: | |
| Roy, the inductee biographies on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame website are usually not posted until the induction ceremony occurs. I have noticed this before. I must say that I am a bit weary of the selected performers for this upcoming ceremony. Though not by all of them. I think Faith Hill is quite good: not rock, but maybe a country crossover type that has been quite sucessfull. I could see Faith Hill performing one of the Hollies' country-fied hits in their Hicks/Sylvester/Calvert era. Maroon 5 are not that great of a band. The first time I heard of these guys, about seven years ago, was when "Harder To Breathe" came out. Initially, I thought it was Justin Timberlake. In my opinion, Maroon 5 have gotten stale ever since. Same goes for Train. When first hearing "Drops Of Jupiter", I initially thought it was The Black Crowes. Yet again, Train have gotten lamer ever since. It does not bode well for a band to have a hit song and have people thinking it is a much better act. Exhibit Q: Klaatu, whom were supposed to be The Beatles. They were not, of course, and their importance dried up pretty fast. By the way, Eric Burdon on his own does not bode well for me. Would it be that much of a problem for the Animals to re-unite for one more time? Regarding whom performs Genesis: I still think, at the very least, Tony Banks and Mike Rutherford will perform along with Phil Collins in one point; then, for the most part, Steve Hackett will join in. Do not be surprised if Peter Gabriel does not attend, due to his dates on the "New Blood" tour. Although, it would be nice for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation would induct Gabriel by next week if only to give an added incentive to appear. This will likely not occur until the Class of 2011; for which an induction for Peter Gabriel on his own is a certainty, both in an induction and in his appearing at the ceremony. KISS might go in for the RRHOF Class of 2011, or they might not. These guys will certainly be finalists for the second time. With respect to the chicago cutlery cutting board: thank you for the free advertisement. However, I am not interested in your products. Well, less than one week to go. Let us hope this induction ceremony is memorable. I am still not feeling the need for Maroon 5 and Train to be performing. Now, if it were Justin Timberlake, or even the Black Crowes, then I would be intrigued. The Carpenters were infinitely better than Klaatu, Lax27 | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 19:15pm | |
| Leave your own comment about the 2010 Inductees here. | |
| About Nirvana, Cheesecrop wrote: | |
| 1. They made Grunge popular. 2. 80's glam rock suddenly died when Nirvana was born. 3. A lot of vocalist today sound like Kurt Cobain. 4. Whenever you think about the 90's decade, first thought that comes out of your mind is Nirvana. 5. Most Seattle bands became popular because of Nirvana. 6. Kurt Cobain killed himself cause he is sick and tired of being too famous! Posted by Edgar on Thursday, 03.4.10 @ 23:58pm -------------------------------------------------- You know, now that I read Edgar's comments, I too shall wade in w/a few thoughts (cause I'm a mindless simpleton who needs to follow the pack at all times): 1. Yes. In the literal sense that the market for such music in a mainstream environment was nil at the time, then yes. 2. Once again, yes, in that the market for this distinct style of glam metal also went away. The idea that there weren't still glam acts on labels as late as 92/93 strikes me as rather foolish. There were acts left behind, probably trying to figure out just what happened. 3. No. Precious few vocalists today sound like Cobain. Certainly no Emo act has Cobain influenced vocals, much less the Animal Collective style psych bands. 4. That's anybody's call. 5. Yes. Saying they didn't help out everyone around them is denying the power that album had on the world in 92/93. 6. He was on drugs & needed help. The drugs won, as they often do. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 19:03pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Nirvana here. | |
| About Tool, Sam wrote: | |
| I'm certain it won't bother them if they don't. I like to think I know which artists do and don't deserve to be in. Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley are the only Eligible's who have made a big deal about not being in yet, so if it doesn't bother the bands who should be in then it certainly shouldn't bother me (though it does.) | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 18:46pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Tool here. | |
| About Nirvana, Cheesecrop wrote: | |
| I've been reading these posts here, & there is a reference to PJ's TEN being released before NEVERMIND. The way I always heard it, NEVERMIND was released in Sept. of 91, while TEN was released in Dec. of 91. Last time I checked, September comes before December (at least I think it still does?). If this is no longer the case, you still needn't fear. Tis' I who shall be deemed to be waist deep in the big muddy... | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 18:44pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Nirvana here. | |
| About Chicago, chinolefan wrote: | |
| Reading back, I am jarred by the comment that Leonard Cohen "is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Chicago isn't!" That has nothing to do with the path chosen by Chicago and its "handlers" in my humble opinion. Obviously, there are plenty of artists in the RRHOF who are known ONLY because they were on the radio. That issue is way to tedious to waste on this board. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 17:39pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Chicago here. | |
| About Schooly D, Joe-Skee wrote: | |
| Pioneering Gangster rapper. One of Philly's first rappers. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 17:13pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Schooly D here. | |
| About Avril Lavigne, Joe-Skee wrote: | |
| I use to listen to El-P back when he was one third of the group Company Flow. They had one classic album. "Funcrusher Plus". | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 17:01pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Avril Lavigne here. | |
| About Nirvana, Sam wrote: | |
| "It doesn't matter if Alice in Chains had an MTV hit first - no one cared about Seattle at the time and they were perceived as a hard rock/heavy metal band. It was Nirvana that placed the focus on that region." True. They were being marketed as a metal band (appeared on the Clash of the Titans Tour, which was a thrash and speed metal billing.) No one denies that Nirvana helped get those bands to a whole new level (after Nevermind got big AIC were then marketed by Columbia as an alternative band for the release of Dirt, and when Facelift came out some people within Seattle apparently made fun of them because they started when the local scene was already booming, and called them a cheap Soundgarden imitation.) The point that some of us were trying to make was that some things were already in place for the Seattle explosion and thus for Nirvana to break out. "And that reflects poorly on him, but only because those bands (I assume you mean Seether and the like) don't understand where he was coming from artistically at all and aren't really part of that tradition of bands." I listened to Bush for the first time recently and they kind of sound like Nirvana. As I said, you more often hear Layne Staley and Eddie Vedder in post-Seattle bands (see Creed, Stone Temple Pilots.) "It needs to be noted that sales of Ten didn't rapidly increase until after Nevermind came out. Alice in Chain's Facelift only went gold, which was on par for ascending bands at the time. Soundgarden, similar. Nevermind went multiplatinum by the end of 1991, unprecedented for any of the Seattle bands." True. "Still, I would consider 1991 the rise of post-grunge rather than grunge (Mudhoney)." Interesting. Usually when post-grunge comes to mind we're thinking of Creed, Nickleback, Candlebox, Bush, Live and the like, but technically what you said is true, as the whole Seattle thing had been going on for at least five-seven years when Nevermind came out. "Nirvana didn't play grunge anymore, Pearl Jam wasn't, Alice in Chains wasn't, Soundgarden was in the process of moving away from it. Grunge was associated with that scene and became a buzz word for bands that were centered there but it's not that simple." PJ kind of showed up when all three other bands had formed their sound, and they were a hard rock band with a slight bluesy tinge (a "Classic Rock revival band" is what some people call them.) AIC was basically a metal band, and the core of their sound was metal meets post-punk (one of the first alternative-metal bands.) Soundgarden basically became a hard rock/metal band with some incorporations of prog and psychedelic. By the time Nevermind came out, Nirvana were a hard rock band with the quiet-loud technique, some pop elements and a slightly raw edge. "Grunge" the term was invented by someone in Mudhoney as a joke to describe their music, and it stuck. I belive it's defined as a mixture of garage rock, punk and metal with a raw edge to it, and none of those 4 bands had that sound by 1991. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 16:50pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Nirvana here. | |
| About Ted Nugent, danny wrote: | |
| The Nudge is a star of more than just Rock. He brings the young rockers along on his military tours and gives way more than he takes. i'd love to see him debate any single artist in the HOF on current events!!! | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 15:32pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Ted Nugent here. | |
| About the eligibility class of 2010, Gassman wrote: | |
| ^ Van Halen is already in | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 15:16pm | |
| Leave your own comment about 2010 here. | |
| About the eligibility class of 2010, Steven Tau wrote: | |
| Def Leppard- over 3o years in The Rock/Music Scene & still waiting. With Two very influential rock albums.( Hysteria & Pyronmania) Part Of The "NWOBM" New Wave Of British Metal. Judas Priest Iron Maiden Boston Alice Cooper Journey Van Helen Guns N Roses Motley Crue Foreigner Slayer all have helped establish Rock/metal in there ways. \m/ | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 12:39pm | |
| Leave your own comment about 2010 here. | |
| About Green Day, Chris wrote: | |
| Love them or hate them, they're a lock. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 12:36pm | |
| Leave your own comment about Green Day here. | |
| About Avril Lavigne, Chris wrote: | |
| "If he didn't like Public Enemy, I'm pretty sure he's a lost cause, but just in case, direct him to some Youtube videos of El-P, Immortal Technique, or Aesop Rock. Then at least you won't be out any money." Public Enemy is way to old school for a teenager, and El-P, Immortal Technique, and Aesop Rock are boring nerd rap. I don't blame him for not liking that crap. "I actually blame the decline of mainstream rap on the perennial ruiner of music, middle-class teenage white kids. They tend not to be particularly interested in the racial and social issues and more interested in unchallenging, mindless entertainment." No, teenagers in general really. Most people that listen to political rap are white anyway. "Nah, he's really opposed to anything resembling "rock" or "pop", unless it's that crappy nu-metal. The best I could have hoped would have been to get him onto good 80s/90s rap (Public Enemy, N.W.A etc.) and then turn him onto rock via Faith No More and that sort of stuff." Why don't you just let him listen to what he likes? (Btw it's obvious that this "cousin" of your's is made up.) | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 11:55am | |
| Leave your own comment about Avril Lavigne here. | |
| About Chicago, Carollugiano wrote: | |
| It's always easy to revert to the "what if" in life and to project our own opinions into what we believe would have happened if decisions were different. No one (including Danny and the band members themselves) has any idea how their career would have turned out if they remained an album oriented band and did not modify their songs to fit radio airplay. In fact, if it wasn't for these choices, the band may have fizzled out (as so many other bands have) as a result of not going in that direction. I think that the airplay gave the band a wider audience and, although the prevailing view is that being labeled a "ballad band" was a detriment, it couldn't have done that much damage if they're still touring. Obviously, the music industry has changed over the years and if Chicago would have remained "true" to their roots, they may not have been able to survive as long as they have. I agree that they've experienced difficulty in selling new material, but the true fans value what the band has put out over the years. I don't know that many musicians start out with the goal of being a "Top 40" band, but that's not necessarily a negative means to an end. It's the Top 40 stuff that has kept the band alive and well in the eyes of the paying public and allows them to live the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to. Nothing wrong with that!!! Lots of people love the classic Chicago songs and that's all part of their longevity. The fact that the band still fills venues; albeit not the arenas that they did in the past, is a testiment to their musical legacy. Speculation about what would have happened had they not deviated from their original innovations is wishful thinking at best. You can't rewrite history and fantasizing about what could have been can be fun, but I accept the band just as they are....warts and all!! | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:18am | |
| Leave your own comment about Chicago here. | |
| About Chicago, ftg3plus4 wrote: | |
| Art and money have always been an uneasy mix. My main problem with the music industry, particularly in regards to how a band like Chicago got treated by it, is that it's primarily concerned with selling to the vast majority of consumers who are not truly "music" people. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:17am | |
| Leave your own comment about Chicago here. | |
| About Chicago, chinolefan wrote: | |
| Thanks for your perspective, stratwoman. I am not trying to be overly critical of Danny - I enjoy his new work, and I greatly respect his contributions to the legacy that is Chicago. Whether or not he's "criticizing" the band isn't really the point. I just find his comments and his actions are somewhat in conflict with one another. I also recognize and agree that there are a number of original fans who couldn't or wouldn't accept that the band has changed over the years. Furthermore, I agree that some members of the band (past and present) may not have liked the more commercial direction that was taken. They didn't have complete control over their future - there were some trade-offs. Where our perspectives diverge relates to what the band's following might be today if they hadn't made some of the afore-mentioned changes and even some trade-offs throughout the years. One of the many reasons that I continue to be a die-hard fan of Chicago is that their musical history is diverse, and they continue to tour extensively. With all due respect to Grateful Dead (since that is the example shared in the original post), there is no comparison on those terms. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:16am | |
| Leave your own comment about Chicago here. | |
| About Chicago, stratwoman wrote: | |
| With all due respect, chinolefan, I don't see Danny's comments as negative at all towards the band - just the opposite. It would have been great had Chicago had that attitude with the biz in the beginning, and I remember Robert saying that they never intended to be a Top 40 singles band. They were innovative and daring with their writing in the beginning but they strayed from that, I'm sure largely in part from pressures from the label to crank out more radio-friendly songs. This was a sacrifice that was necessary (at least from the way they viewed things) in order to get more radio play and to reach a wider audience. However, once Chicago turned to more ballads and more music that abandoned their original vision, it's no secret that a number of the diehards from the early days became confused and Chicago's loyal fan base changed. Yes, they developed a new following with a new generation of fans. But I believe what Danny says is true to a certain degree. It's disappointing that Chicago can't sell out stadiums like they did in the '70's and early '80's because they should be able to. The majority of their audience is different now, I think, as there are many more casual fans that just want to enjoy some great music on a summer evening and not nearly as many diehards like you and me that have followed the band through most if not all of their career and been there for them through all the changes through the years. I don't think Danny is criticizing the band's work at all. Rather, he is paying tribute to all the great music from the early days of the band and wants to keep it alive (as well as throwing in some GREAT covers from other groups as well in his fantastic live shows). I believe he is proud of what he and the band accomplished in the '70's and I admire and respect him for what he is doing today. I also respect your view on this issue as well. This is just the way I see it. Oh, and Roy, I understand what you are saying about what the band should have said. However, the music business doesn't exactly work that way. Artists signed to a major label do not call the shots. It might be a little more liberal today, but it definitely wasn't in the '70's. Artists back then were at the mercy of a record label and if they didn't agree with what the label wanted for them, there would have been no chance of being signed. If Chicago had not gone the route of going through a major label like Columbia (thanks to Jim Guercio's connections) there would have been no way they would have become as popular as they did in such a short time. They would have struggled a lot in the beginning for recognition without that influence. Record companies spend a lot of money to promote musicians and that is why they exert so much power over them if they are signed. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with major labels and all their decisions. I am just stating facts. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:15am | |
| Leave your own comment about Chicago here. | |
| About Chicago, chinolefan wrote: | |
| Fair enough, but there are probably also a number of fans who became fans because of airplay on popular radio, too. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:14am | |
| Leave your own comment about Chicago here. | |
| About Chicago, ftg3plus4 wrote: | |
| Interesting thoughts. I know I was one fan they lost when they got too "radio-oriented." | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:13am | |
| Leave your own comment about Chicago here. | |
| About Chicago, chinolefan wrote: | |
| But that isn't what happened. I'm not sure that I agree with your perspective. I find Danny's comment very interesting. In the first clause, he speaks from the perspective of someone who wasn't a member of the band and part of the decisions that "cost them" a huge following in his opinion. Certainly that was not the case. And now he performs covers of some of the very songs that his comment appears to criticize because they were popular on the radio. Hindsight's always 20/20. In this case, I am not sure I agree with your conclusion. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:12am | |
| Leave your own comment about Chicago here. | |
| About Erykah Badu, Sip Sip wrote: | |
| yes please. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 07:33am | |
| Leave your own comment about Erykah Badu here. | |
| About Skid Row, Milestones wrote: | |
| Hey Karen, can I also be faced in court? Please? | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 06:42am | |
| Leave your own comment about Skid Row here. | |
| About The Carpenters, bourgeoise wrote: | |
| well said R J ROGGERO, by the way when did BB King say "no Carpenters no Hall OF Fame"? | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 05:32am | |
| Leave your own comment about The Carpenters here. | |
| About the 2010 Inductees, Roy wrote: | |
| It's starting to look like the all-star jam at the end of the ceremony will be for the Non-Performer inductees music. That would be a first I think! I highly doubt it will be the music of Jimmy Cliff, The Stooges or ABBA. It will most likely be The Hollies or Genesis, if not the non-performers. The Rock Hall has not posted the inductee bios yet on their site. They are really behind this year! | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 05:30am | |
| Leave your own comment about the 2010 Inductees here. | |
| About Skid Row, KAREN wrote: | |
| slack thanks,, yes so he should be interduced in the rockhall fame ,, for sure skidrow ,,came over to peterbough ontario recorded the album there began thats where it all happend 1997 1999 around the time frame year of my conflic my ex is look like we have one daughter i was injured ina car back then my ex got in to a conflic with real rockstar i havedaughter whom was born aug 12th 1994 and he won all rights i was abused from car crash and im suing for what did happed i havent saw my daughters in years now she grew up as a rockteenager top model bless herand i lost all rightsand my ex myself got in conflic fight wiht the real rockstar sebachti n bach or was it seabchtin bach my ex and my god all media its ll so wrong ,, and un called for , no w 2005 i gave birth to my high school sweet heart axelrose look like he played part after rreal rockstar olol.. and i becamea victimof crime my son went missing ,,three dasy at birth then my indety was stolen i was robbed by dangeroud criminal and he got adopted i bevlei it wasa kidnaping abducation iin my eyes investgations on the cases now ,, so befor any thing says any thing think how i feel and how this is fair itsnot | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 04:32am | |
| Leave your own comment about Skid Row here. | |
| About Skid Row, KAREN wrote: | |
| LOOK BRAIN YOULL BE FACEED IN A COURT IN LAW AS WELL.ALL NOTES ANY THING TO DO WITH THIS ROCKSTAR MYSELF AREBEGING RECORDED UPDATED IN AND UNDER COUR LAW POLICE INVESTGATIONS ,, | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 04:23am | |
| Leave your own comment about Skid Row here. | |
| About Nirvana, Elastic Man wrote: | |
| Posted by Edgar - "1. They made Grunge popular. 2. 80's glam rock suddenly died when Nirvana was born. 3. A lot of vocalist today sound like Kurt Cobain. 4. Whenever you think about the 90's decade, first thought that comes out of your mind is Nirvana. 5. Most Seattle bands became popular because of Nirvana. 6. Kurt Cobain killed himself cause he is sick and tired of being too famous!" My thoughts on that and others who have commented on the same. 1. It doesn't matter if Alice in Chains had an MTV hit first - no one cared about Seattle at the time and they were perceived as a hard rock/heavy metal band. It was Nirvana that placed the focus on that region. Still, I would consider 1991 the rise of post-grunge rather than grunge (Mudhoney). Nirvana didn't play grunge anymore, Pearl Jam wasn't, Alice in Chains wasn't, Soundgarden was in the process of moving away from it. Grunge was associated with that scene and became a buzz word for bands that were centered there but it's not that simple. For one, Cobain's music was very much informed by things that none of the other 3 bands were exhibiting. Cobain's work is reflective of the entire Washington underground music scene, and the national underground scene, whereas the others are not (Alice in Chains had absolutely nothing to do with groups like Beat Happening who were playing a type of music just was popular in the underground in the late 1980s.) There weren't clones of Mudhoney and The Melvins on MTV. The point is that the medis perception of grunge is lacking and inaccurate. 2. Like others have said, this was already in the process of happening. Types of music fall in and out of favor, it was bound to happen. 3. And that reflects poorly on him, but only because those bands (I assume you mean Seether and the like) don't understand where he was coming from artistically at all and aren't really part of that tradition of bands. 4. Dameon, that's completely irrelevant and beside the point again. Don't split hairs. This is like saying The Beatles or Bob Dylan wouldn't immediately come to mind when saying "Music -1960s." 5. It needs to be noted that sales of Ten didn't rapidly increase until after Nevermind came out. Alice in Chain's Facelift only went gold, which was on par for ascending bands at the time. Soundgarden, similar. Nevermind went multiplatinum by the end of 1991, unprecedented for any of the Seattle bands. 6. No, No, No. That's a gross simplification that only peripherally had to do with what was wrong with him (and it wasn't simply heroin either, for that matter.) But of course it must be reiterated: NONE OF THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHY NIRVANA WAS A GREAT BAND! | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 03:55am | |
| Leave your own comment about Nirvana here. | |
| About Beastie Boys, Elastic Man wrote: | |
| Sorry Darrell, the massively influential Paul's Boutique is one of the genuinely great records of the 1980s and for a decade afterward they were never less than imaginative and stellar. Limp Bizkit could never make anything remotely like Paul's Boutique. And for the last time, it's not a simple rap meets rock thing that make the Beastie Boys important, it's a blend of every conceivable type of sound. Paul's Boutique is the root of the kaleidoscope/collage of sound aesthetic that much 90s music came from (Beck and DJ Shadow being the most obvious examples.) | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 03:15am | |
| Leave your own comment about Beastie Boys here. | |
| About Mushroomhead, David wrote: | |
| Mushroomhead are pretty good for there genre but I'm gonna have to say no. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 01:21am | |
| Leave your own comment about Mushroomhead here. | |
| About Deftones, Kris wrote: | |
| Deftones are one of (if not) the best band in the class of 2020. I think they deserve to get in. | |
| Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 01:20am | |
| Leave your own comment about Deftones here. | |