Cobain v.s. Hendrix

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartWell I think we can all agree on one thing.Cobain lowerd the bar for us all...

lol good one

I hear that!

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartI can't say the same for punk

you're {wrong}. you're even more {wrong} if you really think that **** on mtv is punk.

as far as nirvana helping out metal: i know damn straight that pantera would have still been rocking glam and in spandex if nirvana hadn't come along and kicked that whole disgusting trend in the ass.



"Thank you nirvana for helping us get out of these disgusting spandex clothes and makeup!"

{Edit: read and heed!}

How am I wrong?I was talking about death metal and sub-genres,not Pantera.

Also,black metal,death metal and all non-lipstick metal was doing just fine before nirvana heaped its steaming excrement on everyone who was near a radio...

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartAlso,black metal,death metal and all non-lipstick metal was doing just fine before nirvana heaped its steaming excrement on everyone who was near a radio...

If by "fine" you mean "had never been performed in anything bigger than a "small end of medium" sized club, even in the biggest city you could find," then I guess you're right.

I can't think of a single BM/DM band then that was doing any better then than, say Stinking Lizaveta is today.


To be honest, until Nevermind broke, the underground Metal bands and the underground Alternative stuff were probably doing equally well (read: a lot of skipped meals).

Originally Posted by: HambergOk but who was more revolutionary. We know hendrix had way more skill.

That's a tough call, because we have to remember that Hendrix was radical because rock and roll was considered white music, and he had to deal with hostility from white crowds (at first) because he was playing that kind of music, and the black community regarded him as something of a sell-out by playing white music.

Cobain went against the grain too and used music as an avenue for his own demons and inner turmoil in a way perhaps not seen since the Velvet Underground in my opinion. Nirvana was loud and sonically disturbing to some, but beautiful to others.

But then again, Hendrix was innovating style AND building his own effects equipment.

Cobain was doing his thing in a time when a lot of what he had done had already been done by others- sure he defied convention, but so did the Pistols, Adolescents, Sonic Youth, etc...

I guess what I am saying is that both made such huge contributions to pop music that both deserve respect but I think I have to give it to Hendrix.

Add em both up and Seattle gave a lot to modern music!

When I read the question. I swear I laughed my ass off. It such a stupid question! It's like asking who is better John Cage or Mozart. I mean seriously can you really compare them?

Hendrix was a very soulful player and help add an aspect to guitar and musc in general. He was helpful in bridging the racial gap and bring guitarist to take more risk.

Kurt on the other hand. He was motivation for tons of kids to pick up the guitar and learn how to play. After years of thinking guitar was not for them they see a guy like them playing on MTV making money. I think Kurt did a good job at the moviation part; however, most of those kids ended up playing the 2 chord songs and refused to expand.

Overall, Hendrix was more a person using the guitar and lyrics to show his emotions. Kurt was a guy whose talent was song writing and used the guitar for the catch lines.

Why bother comparing them.

ok jimi hendrix all the way

Maybe I dont litsten to enough alt rock, But I really dont hear any Kurt influences on anything.
The only thing that's changed because of him is that we no longer see people playing solo guitar on MTV nowadays.

now dudes lets take a chill pill sooooooo kurt cobain v hendrix well kurt cobain was a amazing song writer and influenced many people wat a amazing guy

But............ HENDRIX is the man wid the tricks he did some vry kl stuff wid a wah wah pedal i must say and he is 1 of the most ledgendry if not the best guitar players that ever lived!!!and a amazing song writer 2

SO I ANOUNCE JIMI HENDRIX THE WINNER lol but thats just my opinion

Originally Posted by: ZeppelinMaybe I dont litsten to enough alt rock, But I really dont hear any Kurt influences on anything.[/quote]
I have not heard a single Puddle of Mudd song that didn't have numerous elements borrowed directly from Nirvana.

They may be an extreme example, but if you know what to listen for, the signs are everywhere -- even if it's nothing more than a songwriter or band stopping to ask himself/herself/themselves "should there even be a solo here? Does it really add anything of value to the song?"



[QUOTE=Zeppelin]The only thing that's changed because of him is that we no longer see people playing solo guitar on MTV nowadays.

Yeah, but Hip-Hop isn't exactly known for guitar playing of any kind.

Originally Posted by: chucklivesoninmyheartWell I think we can all agree on one thing.Cobain lowerd the bar for us all...

I have to respectfully disagree here. Well, I guess I agree in fact, but disagree with the philosophical implication raised.

Kurt's playing was simplistic without a doubt, and I would say to an extent sloppy as well, but the thing that Kurt proved, and I mean NO disrespect to anyone here, that you don't need to be a whiz-kid to get on stage; if you can only play 3 chords, play them like you mean them, and be inventive about how you use them. For him, I think Nirvana was a way of getting his emotional baggage out on paper, to be cathartic and let it out.

I for one was very much encouraged by what he did musically, I found that it was good to see someone get out there and just let raw emotion take control (sadly, it became more and more an issue of letting raw drug abuse take control).

I'm going to say something that will be very unpopular here- no matter how intricate or complex these players abilities are, I personally cannot stand the sound of "shred" playing. To me that has always epitomized where the guitarist ego went wrong. Maybe it's why I was into punk rock and the kind of music that is called "primitive" in academic circles. I always felt that a simpler style was more able to get the point across if for no reason other than the fact that guitarists more often than not try to (and please pardon the cliche) gild the lilly. What I'm saying is that we tend to play more notes when fewer are needed to show our level of skill, we tend to look at things like "who's the better player?"

The answer is neither. It is all in the ears of the listener. I personally find Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Kerry King, Kirk Hammett, Randy Rhoads, and especially Eddie Van Halen to bore me to tears. Not that they aren't amazing players; they are. They deserve respect and they certainly have mine, but I see the guitar as an ensemble instrument, and I feel that the rock guitarists who handle solos best are Trey Anastasio and Carlos Santana. They play what fits into the song and fills the space and creates a sonic atmosphere. They are musically like the person who leaves the party before it gets old, ends the conversation while it is still interesting, and I always admired their sense of that, knowing when it was still fresh and ending it then.

I have always been bothered by the deification of guitarplayers by other players. If someone is called a guitar-god, I tend to change the station, because as another musician, sure I hear what they're doing, and while it may be interesting, it seems to be little more than self-gratifying fretboard-masturbation. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I haven't offended enough people (and guys, I seriously am not trying to offend anyone's taste-for real), I always said similar things about Glass, Cage, Stravisky, and especially Arnold Schönberg-compositionally mindblowing, musical geniuses, as are all the players I've singled out. I want to emphasize again, just because I don't like them, I do respect them, and I take nothing away from them, especially since I am not even in the same class as they are, but I think we as musicians need to move away from the "who'd win in a fight, Freddy or Jason?" contests that have been going on for years now.

I mean in all seriousness, from a technical perspective, Al DiMeola, John MacLaughlin, and Pat Metheny (I never spell his name right- apologies if butchered!), just to name a few could put most of these guys to shame, but that's not what they're out there to do- they are just musicians- they are good, but they do not seek to be gods.

I don't know if I make any sense here, or if I just got put on the guitar-player's union's hit list or what, but I see music as being something that can be as minimal or as ornate as anyone would like, but we need to respect the minimalistic players just as much for the choices they make to not play as we do for the guys who want to play basically what I would call contemporary pop-fugues. Neither is better than the other. One group has developed skill and precision and speed, and the other leans more toward soul and sparcity. Perfection lies somewhere in between yet it varies from ear to ear. None is better, but all are worth respecting and learning from.

I'm going to get out from behind the pulpit though.

peace

Originally Posted by: paradymeI have to respectfully disagree here. Well, I guess I agree in fact, but disagree with the philosophical implication raised.

Kurt's playing was simplistic without a doubt, and I would say to an extent sloppy as well, but the thing that Kurt proved, and I mean NO disrespect to anyone here, that you don't need to be a whiz-kid to get on stage; if you can only play 3 chords, play them like you mean them, and be inventive about how you use them. For him, I think Nirvana was a way of getting his emotional baggage out on paper, to be cathartic and let it out.

I for one was very much encouraged by what he did musically, I found that it was good to see someone get out there and just let raw emotion take control (sadly, it became more and more an issue of letting raw drug abuse take control).

I'm going to say something that will be very unpopular here- no matter how intricate or complex these players abilities are, I personally cannot stand the sound of "shred" playing. To me that has always epitomized where the guitarist ego went wrong. Maybe it's why I was into punk rock and the kind of music that is called "primitive" in academic circles. I always felt that a simpler style was more able to get the point across if for no reason other than the fact that guitarists more often than not try to (and please pardon the cliche) gild the lilly. What I'm saying is that we tend to play more notes when fewer are needed to show our level of skill, we tend to look at things like "who's the better player?"

The answer is neither. It is all in the ears of the listener. I personally find Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Kerry King, Kirk Hammett, Randy Rhoads, and especially Eddie Van Halen to bore me to tears. Not that they aren't amazing players; they are. They deserve respect and they certainly have mine, but I see the guitar as an ensemble instrument, and I feel that the rock guitarists who handle solos best are Trey Anastasio and Carlos Santana. They play what fits into the song and fills the space and creates a sonic atmosphere. They are musically like the person who leaves the party before it gets old, ends the conversation while it is still interesting, and I always admired their sense of that, knowing when it was still fresh and ending it then.

I have always been bothered by the deification of guitarplayers by other players. If someone is called a guitar-god, I tend to change the station, because as another musician, sure I hear what they're doing, and while it may be interesting, it seems to be little more than self-gratifying fretboard-masturbation. Maybe I'm wrong, and if I haven't offended enough people (and guys, I seriously am not trying to offend anyone's taste-for real), I always said similar things about Glass, Cage, Stravisky, and especially Arnold Schönberg-compositionally mindblowing, musical geniuses, as are all the players I've singled out. I want to emphasize again, just because I don't like them, I do respect them, and I take nothing away from them, especially since I am not even in the same class as they are, but I think we as musicians need to move away from the "who'd win in a fight, Freddy or Jason?" contests that have been going on for years now.

I mean in all seriousness, from a technical perspective, Al DiMeola, John MacLaughlin, and Pat Metheny (I never spell his name right- apologies if butchered!), just to name a few could put most of these guys to shame, but that's not what they're out there to do- they are just musicians- they are good, but they do not seek to be gods.

I don't know if I make any sense here, or if I just got put on the guitar-player's union's hit list or what, but I see music as being something that can be as minimal or as ornate as anyone would like, but we need to respect the minimalistic players just as much for the choices they make to not play as we do for the guys who want to play basically what I would call contemporary pop-fugues. Neither is better than the other. One group has developed skill and precision and speed, and the other leans more toward soul and sparcity. Perfection lies somewhere in between yet it varies from ear to ear. None is better, but all are worth respecting and learning from.

I'm going to get out from behind the pulpit though.

peace

Very nice post indeed. I'm not going to flame you for what you said, we need more discussions on the board like this.

I certainly don't care for Cobain's music, but to some the simplicity of music is better.

I enjoy Steve Vai. Not because he can play a million notes a second, but because he can tell a story with his guitar. He doesn't need vocals, just a guitar to get his message across. That's what I enjoyed.

On the other hand, I don't care for Satch. I don't know why, but his music just doesn't do it for me.

Cobain may have lowered the bar to some people. Which isn't a totally inaccurate thing to say. But I'm sure he inspired a lot of people to pick up the guitar as well.

I may get flamed for this, but a lot of people when it comes to music only prefer to listen to what isn't popular, or what makes them seem more cool. There's the people that dig only the underground music scene, and if you've made it big, you're either a sell-out, or your music sucks. Then there's the people that don't listen to the so-called "Guitar Gods" but tell everyone here that they do, just so they look cool. Now don't get me wrong, not everyone is like that, and some people really do enjoy the undiscovered musical talent of the underground.

But, I don't think there should be such a competition between artists, the "Who's better?" threads and the "vs." threads, are all nonsense. These are totally objective (or is it subjective) matters.

We should learn to share the music, not put each other down because of what we like or dislike. I don't like seeing on here, "Punk sucks, and so do you, listen to Steve Vai and play his song, then tell me you're good." That's just dumb. If you like punk, awesome. Instead say, "I'm not a big fan of punk music, I prefer Steve Vai. Have you ever heard of him? If not, give him a listen, you might enjoy it." Bashing each other over what music we like is pointless. Might as well bash each other for what kind of car we drive, or what kind of clothes we wear, or how our hair is styled. Stop the madness and enjoy music for what it is, an art form, and entertainment.

When I first read the starting of this post I was like "Oh my god Hendrix all the way." Yes, I love Kurt Cobian's must but like others said, Hendrix is the king.
Now that I think about it though, Kurt Cobain had more emotion in his music and maybe that is why I like it so much. It takes more talent and determination to make a beautiful song out of simple chords then it does to just let loose on an amazing guitar solo. Emotion is what makes music so great, that is what every artist usually writes about or at least that is what gets them started with writing.

Originally Posted by: paradymeI personally find Steve Vai, Joe Satriani, Kerry King, Kirk Hammett, Randy Rhoads, and especially Eddie Van Halen to bore me to tears. Not that they aren't amazing players; they are. They deserve respect and they certainly have mine, but I see the guitar as an ensemble instrument, and I feel that the rock guitarists who handle solos best are Trey Anastasio and Carlos Santana.

I don't want to nit-pick too much in this thread, but having seen Trey Anastasio live, I can tell you with great certainty that he can be as guilty of technical guitar wankery for the sake of technical guitar wankery (and in total ignorance of what the song/jam needs) as (and in a few cases, more than) anybody you mentioned in that first sentence.

In The Mismeasure of Man Stephen Jay Gould took on the issues of racism and classism in the scientific community. One of the things he warned against was the "reification of statistics" by which he meant "finding some kind of numerical correlation (say... an IQ test score) and assuming that it measures a physical thing (ie: 'General Intelligence')."

His point was that it is very easy to do and that people need to be conscious of it so that they don't fall victim to it.

I think the same general point can apply here.

Originally Posted by: Pantallica1Very nice post indeed. I'm not going to flame you for what you said, we need more discussions on the board like this.

I certainly don't care for Cobain's music, but to some the simplicity of music is better.

I enjoy Steve Vai. Not because he can play a million notes a second, but because he can tell a story with his guitar. He doesn't need vocals, just a guitar to get his message across. That's what I enjoyed.

On the other hand, I don't care for Satch. I don't know why, but his music just doesn't do it for me.

Cobain may have lowered the bar to some people. Which isn't a totally inaccurate thing to say. But I'm sure he inspired a lot of people to pick up the guitar as well.

I may get flamed for this, but a lot of people when it comes to music only prefer to listen to what isn't popular, or what makes them seem more cool. There's the people that dig only the underground music scene, and if you've made it big, you're either a sell-out, or your music sucks. Then there's the people that don't listen to the so-called "Guitar Gods" but tell everyone here that they do, just so they look cool. Now don't get me wrong, not everyone is like that, and some people really do enjoy the undiscovered musical talent of the underground.

But, I don't think there should be such a competition between artists, the "Who's better?" threads and the "vs." threads, are all nonsense. These are totally objective (or is it subjective) matters.

We should learn to share the music, not put each other down because of what we like or dislike. I don't like seeing on here, "Punk sucks, and so do you, listen to Steve Vai and play his song, then tell me you're good." That's just dumb. If you like punk, awesome. Instead say, "I'm not a big fan of punk music, I prefer Steve Vai. Have you ever heard of him? If not, give him a listen, you might enjoy it." Bashing each other over what music we like is pointless. Might as well bash each other for what kind of car we drive, or what kind of clothes we wear, or how our hair is styled. Stop the madness and enjoy music for what it is, an art form, and entertainment.

Exactly, and well put- I agree with what you said about Steve Vai and as you rightly point out, he does tell a story with his playing (and after the time he played with Frank Zappa, I'm sure he has TONS of stories!) His speed and his abilities are something that even though his work doesn't appeal to me, it is something I could study and learn from. I remember one of my old friends who studied composition in college who HATED Hector Berlioz- he thought he was a total meglomaniac, but I saw him studying scores of Berlioz's work, and I asked why he would do that since he hated him, and he said basically that no matter what he thought of the man, his music was absolute genius. Pretty neat attitude, I thought.

In any event, you nailed the issue on the head with some people- the problem of image- like they front and force themselves to like certain stuff because of an image that goes with it- that always seemed silly to me. Like the kid who refuses to listen to Phish because it's all "commercial-crap" and forces themselves to listen to abrasive underground music because it's cool. Well, I would say this- I love Phish and Dead Kennedys, and for different reasons, and both have influenced me- not like I'd want to see them on the same bill.

I always felt that the attitude of so-and-so versus so-and-so seemed like something that would occur to me in a time when I wasn't sophisticated enough musically to understand that they were equal but individual preference would dictate who was "better." But again, I am no one to judge anybody else.

The most crucial point you made, I think, is this:

I'm not a big fan of punk music, I prefer Steve Vai. Have you ever heard of him? If not, give him a listen, you might enjoy it." Bashing each other over what music we like is pointless.

If we are dismissive of others for their tastes, we neither offer them nor gain nothing, whereas maybe if we say hey, I know this isn't your style, but check Steve Vai out, you might dig some of what he does. And maybe that punk rock kid will say "right on- check out Black Flag, Greg Ginn has some crazy noveau jazz influence in his playing style- it's abrasive, but inventive.

those of us stuck in corporate selloutland would call that a win-win situation! :D

The key really is keeping your ears and more importantly, your mind open. That's why the greatest musicians often have insane music collections and wildly diverse influences.

excellent post though!

peace

Originally Posted by: RaskolnikovI don't want to nit-pick too much in this thread, but having seen Trey Anastasio live, I can tell you with great certainty that he can be as guilty of technical guitar wankery for the sake of technical guitar wankery (and in total ignorance of what the song/jam needs) as (and in a few cases, more than) anybody you mentioned in that first sentence.

In The Mismeasure of Man Stephen Jay Gould took on the issues of racism and classism in the scientific community. One of the things he warned against was the "reification of statistics" by which he meant "finding some kind of numerical correlation (say... an IQ test score) and assuming that it measures a physical thing (ie: 'General Intelligence')."

His point was that it is very easy to do and that people need to be conscious of it so that they don't fall victim to it.

I think the same general point can apply here.

Makes sense, and well argued- you are right about Trey though- and he knows it. I read an interview with him where he talked about nights where he was playing some (what he called) "contrived-bull****" like he was just doing scales exercises on stage, and he got down on himself about it, but he can do it too- maybe if I knew more, I might do it also!

:D

Originally Posted by: guitarkim5588Now that I think about it though, Kurt Cobain had more emotion in his music and maybe that is why I like it so much. It takes more talent and determination to make a beautiful song out of simple chords then it does to just let loose on an amazing guitar solo.

Hello? "Little Wing," anyone?

Skill wise, Hendrix is alot better.

It's almost impossible IMO to find out who was more revolutionary. It's like saying who had the bigger impact, Jesus, or Mohammed. To me its almost impossible to tell.

I would like it to be Hendrix, becaus ei was never really a Nirvana fan.