blonde in the bleachers wrote:
> Being part of what people like to label "Generation X" Kurt Cobain's death
> was a
> horrible event. Nirvana and Cobain changed the landscape of music in the
> 90s
I think this is true, for better or worse, more with regard to culture than
music. However, I think historically, Radiohead will prove to be more
important musically and will have more resonance in terms of impact on
budding rock artists.
Don Rowe wrote:
> 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.
I agree that there isn't a musical legacy equal to Hendrix & Joplin but there
is definitely a cultural one for the generation that believed that Kurt
expressed how they felt and a historical legacy when you view Nirvana and its
"commercial" spawn in the context of school shootings and the despondent
upper middle class youth violence of the 90's.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My biggest gripe
> is that there is so little originality in the industry today. Nirvana was
> not
> an original iMHO.
I think there is definitely originality in the industry today, there's just
very little of it in "rock" music. And historically originality has always
played second fiddle to the commercial designs of the recording industry;
today is nothing new. Common, Mos Def, Lemon Jelly, Roni Size, Talvin Singh
and Air are just a few of the artists who are doing some interesting things
to my ears.
Brenda
n.p.: Lemon Jelly - A Tune For Jack
