Tell Me :
Talk
sorry, but that actually is a stupid comment.
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
what do you expect from stupidguy2? cleverness and pragmatisism? The Hendrix reference has no business here. He was so far above either of these two burnouts (musically speaking) that I object to it (the reference). Like that's going to do any good. I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
great words Baxter, that rings true to me...peace.
Why? People keep making some point about how Nirvana sold gazillions, played to gazillions at mammoth stadiums...
Bon Jovi, I'm sure, can make that same claim. Means nothing.
And as for 'relatability', I'm talking about a broader appeal.
You can say Nirvana inspired a 'movement', I'll give them that. But it's mass appeal was limited and unless you provide a real counterpoint to that, that's how I see it. Im not talking about making the cover of Rolling Stone or Spin 20 times either (because the music had a hard-on for this sad little boy and he, despite his endless protestations otherwise, fed off of it), or inspiring kids to wear flannel....or play really loud and write songs about how much they hate life.
Cobain just made it into an entire genre. I won't deny his lyrical prowess. I liked his morbidity. But that can only appeal to a limited fan base, and I stand by that. You may love Nirvana, that's fine, but don't pretend that they're the @#$%& Beatles and everyone has to love them and entire musical landscape was transformed by them...apart from industry-wise.
The original point was that AW is as deserving as Cobain when talk about great artists lost too soon. And it turned into a pissing contest about how Cobain turned the world on to flannel and depressing songs.
Get a grip.
I've already acknowledge I can appreciate Cobain's talent, but how can you so easily dismiss AW's possible legacy, which is still unwritten. We don't know yet do we? SO why so certain she will just be a footnote?
SO Cobain invented grunge, fine. But those Beatle-esque melodies and Mekons-ish chord progressions came from his influences...and they sounded cool turned up really loud and distorted, but it wasn't like he re-invented music or rock and roll......ANd it was a different world back then, because the music industry was in a vacuum. Something had to come along eventually.
AW took her influences from hip hop to old jazz, from hip hop to Motown, girl groups, and from Thelonious Monk to James Taylor and Carole King...and then fused it all together and created something her own, and original. And her songwriting was just as potent as Cobain's. SO she didn't start a beehive craze....she came along when it was harder to stand out, to be different and unique.
I argue that AW's music is much more accessible to a wider, more diverse group of people, music fans...from older music fans, to younger people and not to mention older artists like Mick, Keith, Patti Smith, Lou Reed, from Nas, Jay Z and Duff from G&R to @#$%& Bette Midler and Tony Bennet who acknowledged her as an artist.
What is it, a guy thing? Time will tell, but Nirvana just sounds like 1992 to me....and I don't want to go back there. It as a depressing place.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 03:37 by stupidguy2.
its OK stupidguy2, we're on your side. I am anyway. Thanks for the post. Drugs are the easy way out and I am sorry to see AW took it too far. Blame the @#$%& Columbians who are flooding her country with tons of cocaine and overzealous fans who make her want to get out of her skin. RIP Amy, you MIGHT have achieved greatness to be discussed here if you only knew how to ask for help. peace.
Hard to say, only that Betty who was with him that fateful night knows for sure. But the body of work he left behind speaks for itself. If he didn't play another note and lived till 100 he would still be my All Time Favorite guitar player (sorry Keith). In Amy's case , I'd say the case for burnout is a bit more clear and I doubt she will have a lasting impact on American music anyway.
Look, I appreciate your comments and even your rant...your comment, what I said was stupid, was Nirvana was a bunch of guys who played really loud music. That's always going to be massive internationally
Really?
Just playing loud is going to be massive internationally?
That is a little delusion I think.
I've never said Amy Winehouse doesn't deserve to be recognized, and you have your own reasons for being so passionate about this.
But it is a stupid comment to say that Nirvana is bigger than Amy Winehouse, simply because they play loud music. You may not have meant that, but that's what you've said.
You may now feel free to continue your rant...
Where are all the Amy fans? Sheesh...
"Rehab" is not the only song she made or that people know....but I will say that her death may have led many to re-discover her music.
When you guys say things like that, its just sounds like an evident refusal to even listen to her music beyond that.
I can't argue with that. I'm talking about an artist individually, not as some kind of mass movement where gazillions of kids mimic its style, or where a record industry is invigorated...that's about ebbs and lows of music trends.... That's a different argument. Janis did not spark a 'movement'. Billie Holliday did not spark a 'movement'. People, audiences responded to their voices, music, story. That's what ultimately lasts, not how many people wore beehives.
Whatever...nevermind...
I've always enjoyed your posts whitem8, and we're just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Gracias.
I'm not saying Amy was more 'popular' than Nirvana and maybe your getting mass popularity with mass appeal. I know, that's sounds contradictory, but I mean in the sense of what lasts....that;s the whole point here, not level of fame, but whether an artist will be remembered..
I give up,
Nirvana had a bigger dick.
But for me, Amy had more soul....and that's timeless.
I guess I should have just started a thread with my original rant concept: that Nirvana was overrated.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 06:47 by stupidguy2.
The most sensible thing said on this thread...
When Kurt offed himself people were comparing Nirvana to The Beatles. I like Nirvana very much but their body of work was exactly two major releases. Amy is in the same category.
Yeah, I'll buy that. To each his own....my original point was why one was deserving and not the other when both had roughly the same volume of material.
And Tele, we may disagree on Amy, and Waits for that matter, but ditto on Nirvana.
So we're even.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 07:11 by stupidguy2.
Sorry do I know you? Do you control who posts here? Are you the gate keeper for who is a real stones fan and who isn't? I guess I missed the memo.
Why do I post here? Well because I love the stones. Anything else you need to know?
I like her. Remember my first post I said I didn't say either was better than they other, just tried to offer a rational answer to your question.
Disagree. Lennon was great in the Beatles, but he went down the crapper in his solo career. Lennon solo is the most overrated shite I've ever heard. OK, fair is fair. The first two records were great, but the rest is hit and miss... Mostly miss.
I like Nirvana a whole lot more than Lennon solo.
I think that when people favor the likes of Pearl Jam over Nirvana, they never quite got what it was all about. Nirvana is from the inside and out, while Pearl Jam is from the outside, trying to get in (And failing... To me).
JumpingKentFlash
A little clarity does help in making a point.
I like both artists, although never a huge fan of either. I don't get why you feel it so necessary, to compare these two artists as if it were a competition.
You can either prefer one, or the other, or neither or both.
Who cares? Why not compare Amy to the Rolling Stones?
It makes as much sense as comparing her to Nirvana.
Never considered a member of the 27 Club? Hell, Robert Johnson started the 27 Club.
ROBERT JOHNSON AND ALL HIS FRIENDS FORM 27 CLUB
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 19:26 by FreeBird.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 17, 2011 18:39
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
whitem8
Sorry but there is no way that Amy Winehouse outsold and played to larger crowds than Nirvana. No way.
Not saying that. Nirvana was a bunch of guys who played really loud music. That's always going to be massive internationally.
I don't mean marketability, but relatability.
sorry, but that actually is a stupid comment.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
sweetcharmedlife
()
Date: August 17, 2011 18:48
Quote
The SicilianQuote
whitem8
Sure it comes to different tastes. But at the end of the day Nirvana was much more of an international phenomena than Amy...not saying either is better, just that Cobain has far more impact internationally and commercially than Amy did.
Then I'll say it for you, Nirvana was and is 100% better than Amy Winehouse ever was.
"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 17, 2011 22:29
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
whitem8
Sorry but there is no way that Amy Winehouse outsold and played to larger crowds than Nirvana. No way.
Not saying that. Nirvana was a bunch of guys who played really loud music. That's always going to be massive internationally.
I don't mean marketability, but relatability.
sorry, but that actually is a stupid comment.
what do you expect from stupidguy2? cleverness and pragmatisism? The Hendrix reference has no business here. He was so far above either of these two burnouts (musically speaking) that I object to it (the reference). Like that's going to do any good. I may make you feel but I can't make you think.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 17, 2011 23:17
Quote
Baxter Thwaites
If Kurt Cobain can be mentioned with Hendrix then so can the Spice Girls.
great words Baxter, that rings true to me...peace.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
Glam Descendant
()
Date: August 17, 2011 23:29
>Plus this all happened in 1970, minus Brian.
Jim Morrison died in 1971.
Jim Morrison died in 1971.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
MadMax
()
Date: August 18, 2011 01:12
Although not a great fan of grunge or Nirvana, Cobain deserves his legend status.
Great sense of melodies.
Great sense of melodies.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 18, 2011 03:12
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
whitem8
Sorry but there is no way that Amy Winehouse outsold and played to larger crowds than Nirvana. No way.
Not saying that. Nirvana was a bunch of guys who played really loud music. That's always going to be massive internationally.
I don't mean marketability, but relatability.
sorry, but that actually is a stupid comment.
Why? People keep making some point about how Nirvana sold gazillions, played to gazillions at mammoth stadiums...
Bon Jovi, I'm sure, can make that same claim. Means nothing.
And as for 'relatability', I'm talking about a broader appeal.
You can say Nirvana inspired a 'movement', I'll give them that. But it's mass appeal was limited and unless you provide a real counterpoint to that, that's how I see it. Im not talking about making the cover of Rolling Stone or Spin 20 times either (because the music had a hard-on for this sad little boy and he, despite his endless protestations otherwise, fed off of it), or inspiring kids to wear flannel....or play really loud and write songs about how much they hate life.
Cobain just made it into an entire genre. I won't deny his lyrical prowess. I liked his morbidity. But that can only appeal to a limited fan base, and I stand by that. You may love Nirvana, that's fine, but don't pretend that they're the @#$%& Beatles and everyone has to love them and entire musical landscape was transformed by them...apart from industry-wise.
The original point was that AW is as deserving as Cobain when talk about great artists lost too soon. And it turned into a pissing contest about how Cobain turned the world on to flannel and depressing songs.
Get a grip.
I've already acknowledge I can appreciate Cobain's talent, but how can you so easily dismiss AW's possible legacy, which is still unwritten. We don't know yet do we? SO why so certain she will just be a footnote?
SO Cobain invented grunge, fine. But those Beatle-esque melodies and Mekons-ish chord progressions came from his influences...and they sounded cool turned up really loud and distorted, but it wasn't like he re-invented music or rock and roll......ANd it was a different world back then, because the music industry was in a vacuum. Something had to come along eventually.
AW took her influences from hip hop to old jazz, from hip hop to Motown, girl groups, and from Thelonious Monk to James Taylor and Carole King...and then fused it all together and created something her own, and original. And her songwriting was just as potent as Cobain's. SO she didn't start a beehive craze....she came along when it was harder to stand out, to be different and unique.
I argue that AW's music is much more accessible to a wider, more diverse group of people, music fans...from older music fans, to younger people and not to mention older artists like Mick, Keith, Patti Smith, Lou Reed, from Nas, Jay Z and Duff from G&R to @#$%& Bette Midler and Tony Bennet who acknowledged her as an artist.
What is it, a guy thing? Time will tell, but Nirvana just sounds like 1992 to me....and I don't want to go back there. It as a depressing place.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 03:37 by stupidguy2.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 18, 2011 03:33
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
whitem8
Sorry but there is no way that Amy Winehouse outsold and played to larger crowds than Nirvana. No way.
Not saying that. Nirvana was a bunch of guys who played really loud music. That's always going to be massive internationally.
I don't mean marketability, but relatability.
sorry, but that actually is a stupid comment.
Why? People keep making some point about how Nirvana sold gazillions, played to gazillions at mammoth stadiums...
Bon Jovi, I'm sure, can make that same claim. Means nothing.
And as for 'relatability', I'm talking about a broader appeal.
You can say Nirvana inspired a 'movement', I'll give them that. But it's mass appeal was limited and unless you provide a real counterpoint to that, that's how I see it. Im not talking about making the cover of Rolling Stone or Spin 20 times either (because the music had a hard-on for this sad little boy and he, despite his endless protestations otherwise, fed off of it), or inspiring kids to wear flannel....or play really loud and write songs about how much they hate life.
Cobain just made it into an entire genre. I won't deny his lyrical prowess. I liked his morbidity. But that can only appeal to a limited fan base, and I stand by that. You may love Nirvana, that's fine, but don't pretend that they're the @#$%& Beatles and everyone has to love them and entire musical landscape was transformed by them...apart from industry-wise.
The original point was that AW is as deserving as Cobain when talk about great artists lost too soon. And it turned into a pissing contest about how Cobain turned the world on to flannel and depressing songs.
Get a grip.
I've already acknowledge I can appreciate Cobain's talent, but how can you so easily dismiss AW's possible legacy, which is still unwritten. We don't know yet do we? SO why so certain she will just be a footnote?
SO Cobain invented grunge, fine. But Pearl Jam did not spring from that vacuum. They were already creating something on their own, at the same time.
ANd it was a different world back then, because the music industry was in a vacuum. Something had to come along eventually.
AW took her influences from hip hop to old jazz, from hip hop to Motown, girl groups, and from Thelonious Monk to James Taylor and Carole King...and then fused it all together and created something her own, and original. And her songwriting was just as potent as Cobain's. SO she didn't start a beehive craze....she came along when it was harder to stand out, to be different and unique.
I argue that AW's music is much more accessible to a wider, more diverse group of people, music fans...from older music fans, to younger people and not to mention older artists like Mick, Keith, Patti Smith, Lou Reed, from Nas, Jay Z and Duff from G&R to @#$%& Bette Midler and Tony Bennet who acknowledged her as an artist.
What is it, a guy thing? Time will tell, but Nirvana just sounds like 1992 to me....and I don't want to go back there. It as a depressing place.
its OK stupidguy2, we're on your side. I am anyway. Thanks for the post. Drugs are the easy way out and I am sorry to see AW took it too far. Blame the @#$%& Columbians who are flooding her country with tons of cocaine and overzealous fans who make her want to get out of her skin. RIP Amy, you MIGHT have achieved greatness to be discussed here if you only knew how to ask for help. peace.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 18, 2011 03:39
How pragmatic and clever, but didn't Hendrix also burn himself out?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 03:40 by stupidguy2.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 03:40 by stupidguy2.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
SoulPlunderer
()
Date: August 18, 2011 03:52
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
whitem8
Sorry but there is no way that Amy Winehouse outsold and played to larger crowds than Nirvana. No way.
Not saying that. Nirvana was a bunch of guys who played really loud music. That's always going to be massive internationally.
I don't mean marketability, but relatability.
sorry, but that actually is a stupid comment.
Why? People keep making some point about how Nirvana sold gazillions, played to gazillions at mammoth stadiums...
Bon Jovi, I'm sure, can make that same claim. Means nothing.
And as for 'relatability', I'm talking about a broader appeal.
You can say Nirvana inspired a 'movement', I'll give them that. But it's mass appeal was limited and unless you provide a real counterpoint to that, that's how I see it. Im not talking about making the cover of Rolling Stone or Spin 20 times either (because the music had a hard-on for this sad little boy and he, despite his endless protestations otherwise, fed off of it), or inspiring kids to wear flannel....or play really loud and write songs about how much they hate life.
Cobain just made it into an entire genre. I won't deny his lyrical prowess. I liked his morbidity. But that can only appeal to a limited fan base, and I stand by that. You may love Nirvana, that's fine, but don't pretend that they're the @#$%& Beatles and everyone has to love them and entire musical landscape was transformed by them...apart from industry-wise.
The original point was that AW is as deserving as Cobain when talk about great artists lost too soon. And it turned into a pissing contest about how Cobain turned the world on to flannel and depressing songs.
Get a grip.
I've already acknowledge I can appreciate Cobain's talent, but how can you so easily dismiss AW's possible legacy, which is still unwritten. We don't know yet do we? SO why so certain she will just be a footnote?
SO Cobain invented grunge, fine. But those Beatle-esque melodies and Mekons-ish chord progressions came from his influences...and they sounded cool turned up really loud and distorted, but it wasn't like he re-invented music or rock and roll......ANd it was a different world back then, because the music industry was in a vacuum. Something had to come along eventually.
AW took her influences from hip hop to old jazz, from hip hop to Motown, girl groups, and from Thelonious Monk to James Taylor and Carole King...and then fused it all together and created something her own, and original. And her songwriting was just as potent as Cobain's. SO she didn't start a beehive craze....she came along when it was harder to stand out, to be different and unique.
I argue that AW's music is much more accessible to a wider, more diverse group of people, music fans...from older music fans, to younger people and not to mention older artists like Mick, Keith, Patti Smith, Lou Reed, from Nas, Jay Z and Duff from G&R to @#$%& Bette Midler and Tony Bennet who acknowledged her as an artist.
What is it, a guy thing? Time will tell, but Nirvana just sounds like 1992 to me....and I don't want to go back there. It as a depressing place.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 18, 2011 03:53
Quote
stupidguy2
How pragmatic and clever, but didn't Hendrix also burn himself out?
Hard to say, only that Betty who was with him that fateful night knows for sure. But the body of work he left behind speaks for itself. If he didn't play another note and lived till 100 he would still be my All Time Favorite guitar player (sorry Keith). In Amy's case , I'd say the case for burnout is a bit more clear and I doubt she will have a lasting impact on American music anyway.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 18, 2011 04:44
Quote
georgeV
I have no idea what she actually recorded other than her song: going to rehab. quote]
That kind of sums it up for many....
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 18, 2011 04:53
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
treaclefingersQuote
stupidguy2Quote
whitem8
Sorry but there is no way that Amy Winehouse outsold and played to larger crowds than Nirvana. No way.
Not saying that. Nirvana was a bunch of guys who played really loud music. That's always going to be massive internationally.
I don't mean marketability, but relatability.
sorry, but that actually is a stupid comment.
Why? People keep making some point about how Nirvana sold gazillions, played to gazillions at mammoth stadiums...
Bon Jovi, I'm sure, can make that same claim. Means nothing.
And as for 'relatability', I'm talking about a broader appeal.
You can say Nirvana inspired a 'movement', I'll give them that. But it's mass appeal was limited and unless you provide a real counterpoint to that, that's how I see it. Im not talking about making the cover of Rolling Stone or Spin 20 times either (because the music had a hard-on for this sad little boy and he, despite his endless protestations otherwise, fed off of it), or inspiring kids to wear flannel....or play really loud and write songs about how much they hate life.
Cobain just made it into an entire genre. I won't deny his lyrical prowess. I liked his morbidity. But that can only appeal to a limited fan base, and I stand by that. You may love Nirvana, that's fine, but don't pretend that they're the @#$%& Beatles and everyone has to love them and entire musical landscape was transformed by them...apart from industry-wise.
The original point was that AW is as deserving as Cobain when talk about great artists lost too soon. And it turned into a pissing contest about how Cobain turned the world on to flannel and depressing songs.
Get a grip.
I've already acknowledge I can appreciate Cobain's talent, but how can you so easily dismiss AW's possible legacy, which is still unwritten. We don't know yet do we? SO why so certain she will just be a footnote?
SO Cobain invented grunge, fine. But those Beatle-esque melodies and Mekons-ish chord progressions came from his influences...and they sounded cool turned up really loud and distorted, but it wasn't like he re-invented music or rock and roll......ANd it was a different world back then, because the music industry was in a vacuum. Something had to come along eventually.
AW took her influences from hip hop to old jazz, from hip hop to Motown, girl groups, and from Thelonious Monk to James Taylor and Carole King...and then fused it all together and created something her own, and original. And her songwriting was just as potent as Cobain's. SO she didn't start a beehive craze....she came along when it was harder to stand out, to be different and unique.
I argue that AW's music is much more accessible to a wider, more diverse group of people, music fans...from older music fans, to younger people and not to mention older artists like Mick, Keith, Patti Smith, Lou Reed, from Nas, Jay Z and Duff from G&R to @#$%& Bette Midler and Tony Bennet who acknowledged her as an artist.
What is it, a guy thing? Time will tell, but Nirvana just sounds like 1992 to me....and I don't want to go back there. It as a depressing place.
Look, I appreciate your comments and even your rant...your comment, what I said was stupid, was Nirvana was a bunch of guys who played really loud music. That's always going to be massive internationally
Really?
Just playing loud is going to be massive internationally?
That is a little delusion I think.
I've never said Amy Winehouse doesn't deserve to be recognized, and you have your own reasons for being so passionate about this.
But it is a stupid comment to say that Nirvana is bigger than Amy Winehouse, simply because they play loud music. You may not have meant that, but that's what you've said.
You may now feel free to continue your rant...
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: August 18, 2011 05:10
You may argue that he music is more accessable, but she didn't have near the international influence that Nirvana had. As many have said, Nirvana was the head of a new movement in rock, it didn't really sound new, but the youths embraced it as their music. Amy was great, but she just didn't have the mass appeal or influence. And as was said above, her most famous claim was Rehab and her drug use...not her records. Sad, but true.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 18, 2011 06:41
Quote
whitem8
You may argue that he music is more accessable, but she didn't have near the international influence that Nirvana had. As many have said, Nirvana was the head of a new movement in rock, it didn't really sound new, but the youths embraced it as their music. Amy was great, but she just didn't have the mass appeal or influence. And as was said above, her most famous claim was Rehab and her drug use...not her records. Sad, but true.
Where are all the Amy fans? Sheesh...
"Rehab" is not the only song she made or that people know....but I will say that her death may have led many to re-discover her music.
When you guys say things like that, its just sounds like an evident refusal to even listen to her music beyond that.
I can't argue with that. I'm talking about an artist individually, not as some kind of mass movement where gazillions of kids mimic its style, or where a record industry is invigorated...that's about ebbs and lows of music trends.... That's a different argument. Janis did not spark a 'movement'. Billie Holliday did not spark a 'movement'. People, audiences responded to their voices, music, story. That's what ultimately lasts, not how many people wore beehives.
Whatever...nevermind...
I've always enjoyed your posts whitem8, and we're just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 18, 2011 06:43
Quote
treaclefingers
But it is a stupid comment to say that Nirvana is bigger than Amy Winehouse, simply because they play loud music. You may not have meant that, but that's what you've said.
You may now feel free to continue your rant...
Gracias.
I'm not saying Amy was more 'popular' than Nirvana and maybe your getting mass popularity with mass appeal. I know, that's sounds contradictory, but I mean in the sense of what lasts....that;s the whole point here, not level of fame, but whether an artist will be remembered..
I give up,
Nirvana had a bigger dick.
But for me, Amy had more soul....and that's timeless.
I guess I should have just started a thread with my original rant concept: that Nirvana was overrated.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 06:47 by stupidguy2.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
stonesrule
()
Date: August 18, 2011 06:51
Every generation has a right to their favorites so rock on White,8. You're entitled to your opinion but what are you doing posting here on the Stones board?
Cobain did nothing for me...a couple of good songs but he clearly was a mess. His death was no surprise.
Keith was an addict, too, but he was also a born survivor, who made life hell for his band and his family.
Cobain did nothing for me...a couple of good songs but he clearly was a mess. His death was no surprise.
Keith was an addict, too, but he was also a born survivor, who made life hell for his band and his family.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
ab
()
Date: August 18, 2011 06:53
Nirvana's (Never Mind) and Amy Winehouse's (Back to Black) recorded legacies are essentially based on one major studio album each. Each helped inspire movements, albeit very different ones that appealed to very different audiences. Say what you will about their respective live acts, the first albums that got limited exposure prior to the big one (Frank is clearly superior to Bleach), and In Utero (half of which is unlistenable), this one's basically a draw. To each his own....
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
71Tele
()
Date: August 18, 2011 06:55
Quote
ab
Nirvana's (Never Mind) and Amy Winehouse's (Back to Black) recorded legacies are essentially based on one major studio album each. Each helped inspire movements, albeit very different ones that appealed to very different audiences. Say what you will about their respective live acts, the first albums that got limited exposure prior to the big one (Frank is clearly superior to Bleach), and In Utero (half of which is unlistenable), this one's basically a draw. To each his own....
The most sensible thing said on this thread...
When Kurt offed himself people were comparing Nirvana to The Beatles. I like Nirvana very much but their body of work was exactly two major releases. Amy is in the same category.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
stupidguy2
()
Date: August 18, 2011 07:10
Quote
ab
Nirvana's (Never Mind) and Amy Winehouse's (Back to Black) recorded legacies are essentially based on one major studio album each. Each helped inspire movements, albeit very different ones that appealed to very different audiences. Say what you will about their respective live acts, the first albums that got limited exposure prior to the big one (Frank is clearly superior to Bleach), and In Utero (half of which is unlistenable), this one's basically a draw. To each his own....
Yeah, I'll buy that. To each his own....my original point was why one was deserving and not the other when both had roughly the same volume of material.
And Tele, we may disagree on Amy, and Waits for that matter, but ditto on Nirvana.
So we're even.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 07:11 by stupidguy2.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: August 18, 2011 07:46
I think the downgrade in not including Amy in the 27 Club (FIVE members, not four, with Robert Johnson the lead off hitter) is her perceived lack of output. At this point she really had only two albums, with Frank relatively unknown to the general public. Her claim to greatness is really based on what we thought she was going to do. She owned the Summer of 2007. Have we already forgotten the great 'You Know I'm No Good'? And to know she was writing this material, too. 'Love Is A Losing Game' is all the more haunting now. Unfortunately she went into meltdown soon after and we were left with only her potential.
Please, all you Nirvana haters. Kurt Cobain was a massive talent. His was more the three-year shooting star story along the lines of Jimi, Janis and Jim Morrison. He forged a new sound out of melding punk and pop. A great songwriter and inventive guitarist. Amy just needed to play a few more cards and unfortunately she fell apart. A great talent who only displayed a sliver of her talent.
Please, all you Nirvana haters. Kurt Cobain was a massive talent. His was more the three-year shooting star story along the lines of Jimi, Janis and Jim Morrison. He forged a new sound out of melding punk and pop. A great songwriter and inventive guitarist. Amy just needed to play a few more cards and unfortunately she fell apart. A great talent who only displayed a sliver of her talent.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
keefriffhard4life
()
Date: August 18, 2011 08:15
i always thought most of cobain's lyrics were borderline nonsense
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: August 18, 2011 08:53
Quote
stonesrule
Every generation has a right to their favorites so rock on White,8. You're entitled to your opinion but what are you doing posting here on the Stones board?
Cobain did nothing for me...a couple of good songs but he clearly was a mess. His death was no surprise.
Keith was an addict, too, but he was also a born survivor, who made life hell for his band and his family.
Sorry do I know you? Do you control who posts here? Are you the gate keeper for who is a real stones fan and who isn't? I guess I missed the memo.
Why do I post here? Well because I love the stones. Anything else you need to know?
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
whitem8
()
Date: August 18, 2011 08:55
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
whitem8
You may argue that he music is more accessable, but she didn't have near the international influence that Nirvana had. As many have said, Nirvana was the head of a new movement in rock, it didn't really sound new, but the youths embraced it as their music. Amy was great, but she just didn't have the mass appeal or influence. And as was said above, her most famous claim was Rehab and her drug use...not her records. Sad, but true.
Where are all the Amy fans? Sheesh...
"Rehab" is not the only song she made or that people know....but I will say that her death may have led many to re-discover her music.
When you guys say things like that, its just sounds like an evident refusal to even listen to her music beyond that.
I can't argue with that. I'm talking about an artist individually, not as some kind of mass movement where gazillions of kids mimic its style, or where a record industry is invigorated...that's about ebbs and lows of music trends.... That's a different argument. Janis did not spark a 'movement'. Billie Holliday did not spark a 'movement'. People, audiences responded to their voices, music, story. That's what ultimately lasts, not how many people wore beehives.
Whatever...nevermind...
I've always enjoyed your posts whitem8, and we're just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I like her. Remember my first post I said I didn't say either was better than they other, just tried to offer a rational answer to your question.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
JumpingKentFlash
()
Date: August 18, 2011 09:44
Quote
Elmo LewisQuote
frankotero
Agree with FreeBird. Also, it seems kind of morbid to try to add people to this misfortunate club. Plus this all happened in 1970, minus Brian. However, I can understand saying it's strange these famous people died at the same age. That's the only similarity I see. Sidenote, hasn't it been said Cobain is as great as John Lennon? No offense to him or his fans but I don't see it. Maybe just a generation gap.
Cobain being compared to John Lennon is the biggest bunch of bull ever.
Cobain = a few moments of brilliance and killed himself.
Lennon = a career of brilliance and was murdered.
Disagree. Lennon was great in the Beatles, but he went down the crapper in his solo career. Lennon solo is the most overrated shite I've ever heard. OK, fair is fair. The first two records were great, but the rest is hit and miss... Mostly miss.
I like Nirvana a whole lot more than Lennon solo.
I think that when people favor the likes of Pearl Jam over Nirvana, they never quite got what it was all about. Nirvana is from the inside and out, while Pearl Jam is from the outside, trying to get in (And failing... To me).
JumpingKentFlash
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
FreeBird
()
Date: August 18, 2011 12:36
Where does this historic revisionism suddenly come from? Robert Johnson was never considered a member of the 27 Club before. Why is he now? I don't get it.Quote
24FPS
27 Club (FIVE members, not four, with Robert Johnson the lead off hitter)
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 18, 2011 17:13
Quote
stupidguy2Quote
treaclefingers
But it is a stupid comment to say that Nirvana is bigger than Amy Winehouse, simply because they play loud music. You may not have meant that, but that's what you've said.
You may now feel free to continue your rant...
Gracias.
I'm not saying Amy was more 'popular' than Nirvana and maybe your getting mass popularity with mass appeal. I know, that's sounds contradictory, but I mean in the sense of what lasts....that;s the whole point here, not level of fame, but whether an artist will be remembered..
I give up,
Nirvana had a bigger dick.
But for me, Amy had more soul....and that's timeless.
I guess I should have just started a thread with my original rant concept: that Nirvana was overrated.
A little clarity does help in making a point.
I like both artists, although never a huge fan of either. I don't get why you feel it so necessary, to compare these two artists as if it were a competition.
You can either prefer one, or the other, or neither or both.
Who cares? Why not compare Amy to the Rolling Stones?
It makes as much sense as comparing her to Nirvana.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: August 18, 2011 19:11
Quote
FreeBirdWhere does this historic revisionism suddenly come from? Robert Johnson was never considered a member of the 27 Club before. Why is he now? I don't get it.Quote
24FPS
27 Club (FIVE members, not four, with Robert Johnson the lead off hitter)
Never considered a member of the 27 Club? Hell, Robert Johnson started the 27 Club.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
FreeBird
()
Date: August 18, 2011 19:25
I can just see the headlines back in '38:Quote
24FPSQuote
FreeBirdWhere does this historic revisionism suddenly come from? Robert Johnson was never considered a member of the 27 Club before. Why is he now? I don't get it.Quote
24FPS
27 Club (FIVE members, not four, with Robert Johnson the lead off hitter)
Never considered a member of the 27 Club? Hell, Robert Johnson started the 27 Club.
ROBERT JOHNSON AND ALL HIS FRIENDS FORM 27 CLUB
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 19:26 by FreeBird.
Re: If Kurt Cobain is mentioned with Hendrix, then Amy Winehouse sure as hell can...
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: August 18, 2011 19:55
The whole issue is stupid per se, but, since it's only r&r, it's alright.
I see the idea of thinking Kurt Cobain being somehow more 'important' in terms of musical significance or influence than Amy Winehouse is seriously misguided to a given issue. Does anyone ask from Janis Joplin how can she be claimed to join the the club of 27 if there is someone like Jimi Hendrix there to be compared to? C'mon. As far as I'm concerned not any bloody Kurt Cobain make the club if the criteria is to be influential like Robert Johnson or Jimi Hendrix. So if Cobain makes it, surely Amy makes it too! Besides, for the sake of equality, there are females needed there in that place too. I suppose Amy will going to have a great 'girls' party there with Janis, and let's see how the boys manage... Brian will do alright, anyway..
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 19:55 by Doxa.
I see the idea of thinking Kurt Cobain being somehow more 'important' in terms of musical significance or influence than Amy Winehouse is seriously misguided to a given issue. Does anyone ask from Janis Joplin how can she be claimed to join the the club of 27 if there is someone like Jimi Hendrix there to be compared to? C'mon. As far as I'm concerned not any bloody Kurt Cobain make the club if the criteria is to be influential like Robert Johnson or Jimi Hendrix. So if Cobain makes it, surely Amy makes it too! Besides, for the sake of equality, there are females needed there in that place too. I suppose Amy will going to have a great 'girls' party there with Janis, and let's see how the boys manage... Brian will do alright, anyway..
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-18 19:55 by Doxa.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
DEmerson , Irix , jason8903 , letitloose6 , liddas , Mabru , marclaff , MJAGGER123 , MonkeyMan2000 , Monkeytonkman , More Hot Rocks , Nosnibourbos , PaintMonkeyManBlack , rogerriffin , straycatuk , TooTight , TW2019 , vlaci66
Guests:
1748
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10