i do. i think its time that it be closed
Anything worth doing, is definatly worth over doing!
GlamRock.com Forum » GENERAL Music forum
Kurt Cobain
(150 posts)-
rockNrollstar
offlineMemberPostCount: 97
Posted 4 years ago # -
GlamRose
offlineMemberPostCount: 200
I think all musicians desserve at least some respect.
Even if you don't like their music, you should respect them.
It's like rap. I can't stand it, but it's just a different type of music.
I love glam, but going around like, "GLAM ROCKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS"
is extremely stupid. And from some of the things people have written on here,
it makes me wonder if some people are 13 years old.ADD ME ON MYSPACE! http://www.myspace.com/misty_riversPosted 4 years ago # -
metalrulesall
offlineMemberPostCount: 1837
hey did i mention to you all that im gay ...its sorta embbarassing but i had to tell everyone because i can't live another lie in my life .. i am now engaged as well
..well i hope me being bio sexual doesn't make you all want to hate me!!!
" into the flood again same old trip it was back then "Posted 4 years ago # -
metalrulesall
offlineMemberPostCount: 1837
p.s......that was my freind mitch and hes the fuckin fag not me.....fuckin homo bastard
" into the flood again same old trip it was back then "Posted 4 years ago # -
Syndrome477
offlineMemberPostCount: 1132
bio sexual...more like a bio hazard...hhaaaaahaaahaaaa
"I even had a little mini skirt and waistcoat made for Wig Wam Bam. The skirt was so short, my undercart hung beneath the hem. I thought it best to keep my underwear on"-Steve PriestPosted 4 years ago # -
metalrulesall
offlineMemberPostCount: 1837
hey you watch ur tounge or ill have to fuckin beat'cha !!! lol.....just fuckin with ya
p.s.....im not gay ive got a gf so yeah" into the flood again same old trip it was back then "Posted 4 years ago # -
glamster
offlineModeratorPostCount: 303
If you got something else you want to talk about, please start another thread. Keep the discussion on the topic at hand.
*cheerz&glamrock.com*bobbyPosted 4 years ago # -
carroll13
offlineMemberPostCount: 185
Hmm...maybe there should be a "coming out" thread..
I'd start one myself, but I'm not sure a transvestite *needs* to "come out" on a Glam BBS.
But bringing it slightly back to the subject, and my experience seeing Kurt, he joked at one point that one of the reasons he was playing the benefit was because he was gay, and his proof was "Why do you think I married a fucking hermaphrodite?"
...we have cruel sarcasm in the Northwest...
Posted 4 years ago # -
rkfs
offlineMemberPostCount: 38
I happen to enjoy Nirvana's music just as I enjoy Glam. Kurt Cobain was a weird guy (nothing wrong with that) who had a lot of mental and drug problems and and didn't seem to like being a rock star. Sad that he died, but he wasn't a hero or great musician; just a weird guy who made some nice songs with his band.
Posted 4 years ago # -
rockNrollstar
offlineMemberPostCount: 97
still, i think that the only thing nirvana's music did was cause the music industry to become more dark. as was said before its no longer cool to have a good time. celebrities who go out and party are viewed as bad influences now. they probably were before, but now its considered sad or soemthing when someone spends a few days in rehab. lol yeah, nirvana had some nice songs but obviousely he didn't think so. otherwiese he would have stuck around longer. Its always sad when the musician himself doesn't even like his own music.
Anything worth doing, is definatly worth over doing!Posted 4 years ago # -
rockNrollstar
offlineMemberPostCount: 97
woops sorry. computer was fuckin up
Anything worth doing, is definatly worth over doing!Posted 4 years ago # -
poisonfan5
offlineMemberPostCount: 248
kurt cobain is a depressed worthless piece of shit who deserves to die!
i know it seems like we are never coming back. i know it feels like we r never coming back. you tryed ur best and you knew it wouldnt last. they were the words they wrote on her casket!Posted 4 years ago # -
rkfs
offlineMemberPostCount: 38
Maybe Rock, but look at the modern mainstream Rap, Hip-Hop or whatever."still, i think that the only thing nirvana's music did was cause the music industry to become more dark. as was said before its no longer cool to have a good time.
Posted 4 years ago # -
metalrulesall
offlineMemberPostCount: 1837
kurt cobain was never a worthless piece of shit so you can fuck rite off ya here me ?! p.s....do me a favour and rott in hell
" into the flood again same old trip it was back then "Posted 4 years ago # -
rkfs
offlineMemberPostCount: 38
Children, children...
Posted 4 years ago # -
carroll13
offlineMemberPostCount: 185
Honestly, if he was an ineffective musician, he wouldn't stir up so many extreme reactions on either side.
He touched nerves, gave some people a party soundtrack, and others an enemy....can't get much more Rock & Roll than that.Posted 4 years ago # -
metalrulesall
offlineMemberPostCount: 1837
carroll13...youve always made perfect sense on this thread and for that youve got my respect
" into the flood again same old trip it was back then "Posted 4 years ago # -
rockNrollstar
offlineMemberPostCount: 97
bottom line! whoever started this thread knew it would cause negative reactions on this site! He was controversial. we've all got that. but obviously he didn't care a whole lot otherwise he would have stuck around. i think this topic is just gettin old. its just goin in a big circle.
Anything worth doing, is definatly worth over doing!Posted 4 years ago # -
Tara
offlineMemberPostCount: 113
If there's on thing I do hate, it's people who narrow mindedly impose their own opinions on others. This is a DISCUSSION forum innit? Sure, I like glam rock, but I'm not gonna like ANYTHING to the exclusion of everything else in this funny little thing called life. In the 20 years since I discovered metal, well, I also discovered punk and indie and pub rock too.
As for Kurt vs. Axl, yeah K. and Courtney gave him shit that day, but by then (93) Axl had pretty much dissappeared up his own arse anyway, and was a big slow-moving target. Remember that big overblown production of November Rain, complete with full stage set and Elton John? Anyway, Courtney jokingly said to Axl in passing something like 'Do you wanna be Frances's godfather?' and Axl replied to K. "Shut your bitch up or I'll take you to the pavement'. So kurt told Courtney to 'Shut up bitch' and that was that. Except for Old Duff trying to beat up Dave Grohl on the same day... ah great days. Nirvana's performance of Lithium was ace that day, esp. how they started with the opening chords of Rape Me to piss MTV off.
Art is not always fun. Artists are not always 'all there'. And sometimes I like depressing music just as much as I like poppy fun stuff. I have what's called a 'personality'!
Kurt shook shit up, didn't stand for the shocking sexist attitudes that were prevalent in glam metal at the time. How did 'grunge' kill glam? it had already done a pretty good job of killing itself. And note the mass exodus of glamsters rushing to jump on the 'grunge' boat, even bruce dickinson had a grunge band!Also: Junkys are people too for fuck sake! So are people with mental illness!
"Personally monsieur," said Poirot, "I don't give le fuck."
You shouldn't talk to me. Find better company. There's better people to know. You'll only end up like Rimbaud. Get shot by Verlaine...Posted 4 years ago # -
motleyguy
offlineMemberPostCount: 253
Kurt was a human being whose vocals, music and sound made me cringe. Never liked a single bar is any song. It was just shit to my ears.
Rock & roll over babePosted 4 years ago # -
carroll13
offlineMemberPostCount: 185
I'm in agreement with Tara mostly.
Glam Metal didn't get killed by Grunge, a lot of former Hair bands simply changed their look, slightly altered their sound(usually trying to sound like Pearl Jam or Alice In Chains, rather than an actual Grunge band), and started the Pseudogrunge Metal everybody associates with "Grunge" these days.
They went where the money was.
Thus: Candlebox, etc..Posted 4 years ago # -
velvetangel
offlineMemberPostCount: 16
I dont agree nirvana killed glam metal or neither wanted to kill it, they just got big without expecting it and I am personally a huge nirvana fan I admire kurt very much so he is a legend to me. I also bealive grunge was going throughout the late 80s too, some bands are soundgarden and mudhoney.
Posted 4 years ago # -
carroll13
offlineMemberPostCount: 185
To get real technical, Soundgarden is more of an "Alternative Metal/Hard Rock" band, they just happened to be on Sub Pop, the label that promoted "Grunge" the most. But, they're certainly closer to Grunge than Pearl Jam...despite PJ's Green River connection.
Grunge would be TAD, Mudhoney, Green River, 7 Year Bitch, Coffin Break, Nirvana, Melvins, Hammerbox,and...hmm, I think Thrillhammer was Grunge too, I haven't heard them since about 1989/90 though.
And some "pre-grunge" bands would be stuff like The Wipers and Poison Idea, as well as the album My War from Black Flag.Posted 4 years ago # -
Panurge
offlineMemberPostCount: 104
Late to the big thread, as usual:
1. Kurt didn't do it all. Before Nirvana and Pearl Jam, there were Jane's Addiction and the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and as someone else noted, the rest of the metal world had glam in its sights as early as 1985; glam's response was, well... I'll always remember looking in local music mags and reading about all the local hair bands touting their New "Street" Look <tm>. Apparently the real turning point was the competition in the radio industry over which format, AOR or alternative, would get the credit for breaking grunge; millions of dollars of advertising revenue hung on the outcome. Well, alternative got the credit, and the AOR format, having very little other new music to push, largely collapsed--and that meant bands who were still making hard rock would be ignored by the labels because the labels couldn't pitch them to radio anymore. IOW, a feedback loop.
2. Following from #1: Did glam really commit suicide, or was it led into it by the industry? Why wasn't there already an "indie" scene for glam, etc.? I mean, if glam bands kept being so willing to leave glam behind, just how deep was it, really? (Of course, you could say that about the styles those bands eventually copped, too--it stands to reason.) Still, it gives glam a bad name that practically nobody would stand by it once the money dried up. Hard as it may be to believe, alterna-heads generally seem to believe in their music more intensely, even if its emotional core seems so bound up in a fairly sardonic view of the world.
3. Lots of people have this idea that people whose music they don't personally like must not be talented or skilled, but that's simply not true. I don't particularly like Freddie Mercury's singing, but I realize now that that's purely a product of artistic choices he made (and the natural timbre of his voice). If I say so myself, I know enough about music to KNOW that he was talented and skilled.
4. Learning counts--and that includes technique. Learning is never wrong, and getting good is never wrong. You can do "wrong" things with technique, though, if you think it's a substitute for anything else. What the post-punk hip consensus doesn't care to contemplate, though, is that emotion isn't a substitute for anything else, either. OTOH, if you're moved by something, you don't need anything else. Still, call me old-fashioned, but I do believe in the concept of music that's at least worth of respect (even, say, Freddie Mercury's).
5. I can't blame people for feeling sore when their place in the world has been yanked out from under them; I've had it happen TWICE, and it's not fun. But there's lots of reasons that happens; it's not nearly as simple as the prevailing narrative makes it.
6. I love elves and Spandex Hair Glam Boyz. So here's your "out" thread. (Naturally I've had next to no luck at it--and what can I expect now?)
"Lives devoted to Beauty seldom end well." --Sir Kenneth ClarkPosted 4 years ago # -
carroll13
offlineMemberPostCount: 185
I agree mostly...although I *somewhat* differ on #4.
Emotion isn't a "substitute" for anything, but it's the prime goal of music.Ultimately, if someone is technically proficient and knows/utilizes all their technique and theory and physical skill, but has no emotional impact, they aren't very effective.
On the other hand, some self taught person that barely knows how to tune a guitar the "proper" way can come out of nowhere and play something that brings across the feeling behind the music across perfectly, so that whoever hears it feels it as well.
...and there's all sorts of grades in between as well.
As always, this sort of thing is going to be more subjective than anything, that's the nature of art.Posted 4 years ago # -
seattle1014
offlineMemberPostCount: 46
According to the initial statement of whoever else changed the face of music....look back to Led Zepplin and Black Sabbath. THEY changed music forever!!! If it wasn't for them, Kurt Kobain would not have had the short success he had.
Posted 4 years ago # -
lilpromoter
offlineMemberPostCount: 19
I agree if I never hear kurt's name again it will be too soon
~Glam Rocker~ Add me, message or pm me here or on myspacePosted 4 years ago # -
lilpromoter
offlineMemberPostCount: 19
Delete my last post I meant this qoute!"grunge did ruin the music industry. why would you want to be a tortured person? now its uncool to have a good time anymore. and there is nothing wrong with being a big rockstar. anyways, this isn't even something that should be discussed on this site causes its not what its for. Grunge whiped out everything that people liked about music. it took away the fantasy aspect of it and stipped it down to the point where there is no point in listening to it anymore."
- rockNrollstar~Glam Rocker~ Add me, message or pm me here or on myspacePosted 4 years ago # -
Panurge
offlineMemberPostCount: 104
@carroll13:
OK, here goes--I really should just let it end, especially since practically everything you say is true, but there's a couple of things that have been my personal bugaboos all this time, due to the fact that the whole lesson never got learned. So, my apologies in advance.
Emotion isn't a "substitute" for anything, but it's the prime goal of music.
I think it's a prime goal of music. One might be moved by music--I mean, I've got the same emotions everyone else does; one might be engaged by it; one might find it interesting. I guess it depends on what you're looking for; it might be interesting to look into how we decide as listeners what to look for. How am I supposed to respond emotionally to a two-part invention by Johann Sebastian Bach, or a guitar piece by Leo Kottke? I'm not necessarily "moved" by it in the conventional, "Hell, yeah!" sense, but I perceive beauty and sensitivity and high craftsmanship and (in its own way) a sense of exploration and the joy of music in itself, and that leads to a certain deep, "holistic" pleasure, and even joy. I mean, I know pleasure isn't supposed to be deep, but sometimes it can be. I'm just saying not all art is built to have the same immediate purpose. J.S. Bach was likely writing music that simply sounded good to him, exploring the phenomenon of music, not trying to "express himself" as such. Very often the emotional response is a product of a direct, attentive relationship with the music, and when that happens, it seems to me it's largely a result of "technical" mastery, even if the listener doesn't consciously notice.
I'll always remember watching PBS years and years ago, hearing Some Old Guy (I wish I knew who) saying that the purpose of art was "the increase of human consciousness." I like that. And certainly "emotion" has an essential role to play there.
All this is to say that "emotion" is really a pretty nebulous term; it could mean any number of things, and an exclusive focus on emotion in the more conventional sense--"I feel this way, now you feel this way, too"--actually closes off a lot of things. And I just don't think that's a very good thing. Lots of music today (well, since punk, so that's 30 years there) that's justified by "emotion" just makes me feel like I'm being yelled at.
Ultimately, if someone is technically proficient...but has no emotional impact, they aren't very effective.
Well, sometimes that's up to the listener. I mean, Yngwie Malmsteen is apparently quite convinced of the emotional resonance of his music--because it's resonant to him. Or at least he likes it a lot. Is that the same thing? Or think of the subthread about Freddie Mercury a few days ago, where someone was running down Freddie's talent because he personally hated the music that came out; this is kind of the mirror-image of that.
On the other hand, some self taught person that barely knows how to tune a guitar the "proper" way can come out of nowhere and play something that brings across the feeling behind the music across perfectly, so that whoever hears it feels it as well.
Yeah, but it really doesn't happen that often. Well, OK, it doesn't happen to me that often. If it happens, there's likely some sort of knowledge going on somewhere. For all that, I think something simple has more meaning when it comes from someone that you know could've done more; people like that are more likely to come up with something that's simple but not obvious, if you know what I mean. (Of course, if they then fall into making that kind of music exclusively, it loses its meaning all over again.)
My larger point is that in the wake of punk rock most rock musicians (outside metal, anyway) seem to have generally bailed on even the idea of "getting good" because they think there's an easier way to get where they want to go--or else they haven't found a high-technique, high-craft music that moves them and they think the music's at fault, or they think that technique and learning must get in the way of, well, the rest of it. But you have to be really lucky to be in that sort of place musically, and to be blunt most people aren't--which is what I meant by "not learning the rest of it" above. Looking for an easier way isn't going to get you much in the way of good art, even the simple-but-effective kind.
Someone on Usenet has a quote from Little Steven Van Zandt as his .sig file: "I"m not a musician. I'm a rock-and-roll guitar player." Whoever said you couldn't be both needs to get schooled.
"Lives devoted to Beauty seldom end well." --Sir Kenneth ClarkPosted 4 years ago # -
lilpromoter
offlineMemberPostCount: 19
Ok all musicians that play an actual instrument and/or sing deserve some sort of respect! With the exception of rap no instruments and just cuz they have spew coming out of their mouths does not mean it's singing.
You make a good point on the emotions but the question and fact is what emotion did Nirvana ever give? "Depression" do we really need any help with that? No, and I think that is the point we are trying to make is they killed the "glam" era of fun upbeat rock with grunge depressing songs.~Glam Rocker~ Add me, message or pm me here or on myspacePosted 4 years ago #