--- blonde in the bleachers
> Nirvana and Cobain changed the
> landscape of music in the
> 90s and brought back music that was original and
> music that had something
> to say. His death is as much a milestone as that of
> Jimi Hendrix, Janis
> Joplin or Jim Morrison.
I'm genuinely curious about this. To me, Nirvana is a
band that produced, at best, one or two half-decent
albums. In addition to himself, Cobain also managed
to kill the use of real musical dynamics in rock
music. The grunge musical equation of "heavy
distortion = Chorus" is today, as cliche as the guitar
licks and panty-dancers of the pop-metal bands they
were reacting to.
In fact, there's a credible argument to be made that
Cobain & Co. ushered in the precipitous fall of Rock's
overall appeal as a genre to it's lowest levels in
history. That the major label publicity machine
attempted to counteract this by making Cobain's
suicide look like some kind of martyrdom to rock 'n
roll creativity, and that so many people subsequently
bought into it, simply escapes me.
In any case, there's hardly a legacy to equal the
likes of Hendrix & Joplin ... though I'll grant you
that Morrison's self-indulgence makes a somewhat
better comparison.
Just my take on it ... and one for which I'll beg
forgiveness if I've seemed a bit harsh. I really
would like to hear what others think about it.
Don Rowe
=====
Visit me anytime at http://www.mp3.com/donrowe
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
