----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 12:34 PM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
> > >From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica > >Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 12:21:29 -0600 > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, February 16, 2004 11:15 AM > >Subject: RE: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica > > > > > > > > > > > > I think what made Nirvana so "great" can be summed up in one word - > > > INNOVATIVE. Cobain could do a lot with only a few chords, and that > > > particular style of music was taken to the mainstream with Nirvana. Add > >that > > > to their anti-rockstar image and you have popularity. > > > >I really can't see Nirvana as being all that innovative. Granted, the > >competition for innovation at that time was close to zero. But, the > >general type of music they played had been out for roughly 15 years. Think > >about "Tonight's the Night" by Neil Young and Crazy Horse, or Ziggy Pop or > >the Ramones from the mid-70s. > > I beg to differ sir. Innovative is indeed the operative word. From the > structure of the music to the ultimate presentation of it. No other band at > this time (or before this time) channeled so much hate and angst through > such a simplistic and beautiful medium. Bullshit! You've missed out on tons of music over the past decades if you believe this. The only thing that made Nirvana different was that it became popular with them, but they didn't in any way invent it or even popularise it or even do it better than it had been done before. Nirvana was just another band who became popular because kids refuse to listen to music that is decades old. I'm sure you have listened to skads of classic rock stations, but what you wouldn't get from listening to them is the other 90% of music that was not so popular but still was played on contemporaneous radio. > And I fail to understand the > comparisons to Neil Young, the Ramones and Ziggy (did you mean Iggy?) Pop. > Other than the fact that no band is 100% original, and must be influenced > from somewhere along the line by someone, I simply do not see your point. > Note however that being influenced does not mean imitating another band or > artist. Styles are reworked and made ones own. As is the case with any and > all bands, with little or no exceptions. > You are making Dan's point for him. > > > > >Then compare that to the innovation of the Beatles, Jimi, the Dead, > >Santana, Zepplin, the Who, Zimmy the elder, Yes and the Stones. Granted > >much of that sounds like chiche now, but it wasn't then. > > Some of those bands/artists listed are right on the mark so to speak. But it > still doesn't downplay Nirvana in the least. > > > > >At their best, > >the Beatles showed more innovation from album to album than Nirvana did in > >its whole career. > > > >Dan M. > > > > Fair enough. Especially considering the time-frame. But yet again, I must > say that it doesn't downplay Nirvana in the least. > Who's songs stand a better chance of being remembered or even known 100 years from now? There's plenty of bands that sell a ton of albums for a few years and then fade into complete obscurity. Nirvana is likely to be one of those because their music will not have lasting relevance in that they are a product of a "scene" and a "time". 1990 Seattle ~ xponent Mersey Beat Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
