PDA

View Full Version : A genie gives you the chance to resurrect a singer that died to soon



RedTruck
12-17-2012, 07:43 PM
Who gives you 5 choices:

1. Kurt Cobain
2. Freddy Mercury
3. Jimmy Hendrix
4. Jim Morrison
5. John Lennon

Who do you pick? You can only resurrect one of them!

Scrap Irony
12-17-2012, 07:52 PM
Buddy Holly?

Or, even better, Robert Johnson?

RedTruck
12-17-2012, 07:54 PM
Buddy Holly?

Or, even better, Robert Johnson?

Well I'm more targeting music from the 70's-90's.

I love Buddy Holly as much as anyone, but to compare him to say like John Lennon or Hendrix is a little bit unfair.

chicoruiz
12-17-2012, 08:02 PM
If you're talking about just a "singer", Sam Cooke.

If you're talking about a musician, the one I would have given the most to see where his talent would have taken him was Buddy Holly. By far...

westofyou
12-17-2012, 08:06 PM
Danny Whitten from Neil Young's Crazy Horse

Wonderful Monds
12-17-2012, 08:24 PM
Jeff Buckley

reds1869
12-17-2012, 08:28 PM
I'm going with none of the above. The beauty of these musicians' premature deaths is that they didn't live long enough to tarnish their own legacy.

dabvu2498
12-17-2012, 08:29 PM
Duane Allman

redsfanmia
12-17-2012, 08:33 PM
I'm going with none of the above. The beauty of these musicians' premature deaths is that they didn't live long enough to tarnish their own legacy.

This, its better to burn out than to fade away.

westofyou
12-17-2012, 08:49 PM
I'm going with none of the above. The beauty of these musicians' premature deaths is that they didn't live long enough to tarnish their own legacy.

I'll venture that already happened

1. Kurt Cobain - Not impressed with the hooks from their last CD
2. Freddy Mercury - Got too campy, too british, not enough rocking as the Sheer Heart Attack years
3. Jimmy Hendrix - Maybe the sleeper, while he was always a great player his song writing was just starting to blossom
4. Jim Morrison - Listen to American Prayer to remind yourself what a poor poet Jim could be
5. John Lennon - Anyone who lets Yoko take up tracks on their records is stealing money from the consumer

marcshoe
12-17-2012, 09:06 PM
I read a book of Morrison's poems once and had trouble taking The Doors seriously afterward. They were as pretentious as stuff I wrote as a college sophomore.

I wonder about Lennon, though. I wonder what direction he would have gone.

I think Sam Cooke would have ended up going pretty political. Buddy Holly would have been interesting.

Wonderful Monds
12-17-2012, 10:19 PM
I read a book of Morrison's poems once and had trouble taking The Doors seriously afterward. They were as pretentious as stuff I wrote as a college sophomore.

I wonder about Lennon, though. I wonder what direction he would have gone.

I think Sam Cooke would have ended up going pretty political. Buddy Holly would have been interesting.

Lennon would've been irrelevant. Yoko ruined him.

Wonderful Monds
12-17-2012, 10:19 PM
Also, Elliott Smith

WMR
12-17-2012, 10:26 PM
Sammy Davis Jr.

RedTruck
12-17-2012, 10:29 PM
I'll venture that already happened

1. Kurt Cobain - Not impressed with the hooks from their last CD
2. Freddy Mercury - Got too campy, too british, not enough rocking as the Sheer Heart Attack years
3. Jimmy Hendrix - Maybe the sleeper, while he was always a great player his song writing was just starting to blossom
4. Jim Morrison - Listen to American Prayer to remind yourself what a poor poet Jim could be
5. John Lennon - Anyone who lets Yoko take up tracks on their records is stealing money from the consumer

1. Are we supposed to judge Cobain from his last efforts, or from what he originally created? (teen spirit, something in the way, heart shaped box, rape me, etc)

2. He was always campy though. That was his shtick. He was a Broadway esque rocker from the beginning

4. He was a poor poet perhaps, but his music was still great.

5. john lennon is still john lennon though and his potential was boundless.

Revering4Blue
12-17-2012, 10:48 PM
If you're talking about just a "singer", Sam Cooke.

If you're talking about a musician, the one I would have given the most to see where his talent would have taken him was Buddy Holly. By far...

+1

texasdave
12-17-2012, 10:54 PM
Bradley Nowell (Sublime)
Andrew Wood (Mother Love Bone)

nate
12-17-2012, 11:41 PM
Donny Hathaway
Karen Carpenter
Whitney Houston

REDblooded
12-18-2012, 04:19 AM
Also, Elliott Smith

My choice...

OldRightHander
12-18-2012, 08:45 AM
Rich Mullins

marcshoe
12-18-2012, 09:35 AM
Rich Mullins

Mullins was an interesting thinker as well, a bit independent. I had listened to his music before he passed, but didn't really learn about the man until afterward.

Sea Ray
12-18-2012, 09:37 AM
I don't like any of those choices. If I had to pick one of the 5, it'd be John Lennon but if I were able to pick my own, it'd be Jim Croce

mdccclxix
12-18-2012, 10:38 AM
Jim Morrison - what would he have become? an author? pass
Jimi Hendrix - would he have been like Buddy Guy? idk...pass
Janis Joplin - would she have kept that powerful voice? ...hold
John Lennon - where was he headed musically? politically? ...ok, bring back Lennon
Jerry Garcia - would he have kicked the habit? More bluegrass please? ...too late, brought back Lennon

Morrison, Hendrix and Joplin would have been interesting for 3-5 more years each, but that's about all. Honestly, I love Joplin's uniqueness the most. No one can sound like her, she was awesome. I think Morrison's badass rowdy days were done. And Hendrix, well, it's a mistake to count him out, he could have been crazy good and then some. Garcia was a favorite guitar player of mine, and I really don't like the Dead without him. He certainly did "enough". Lennon, he was a bit of a mess politically, but had the natural touch of humanity in music. I think the rock and roll was gone and he didn't have a strong background in all styles of music. I think he would have been more James Taylor/Van Morrison in his later career, which isn't too great. I'd still have him back, though, because he was able to be sincere and listenable, an impossibly rare combo.

mdccclxix
12-18-2012, 10:40 AM
I don't like any of those choices. If I had to pick one of the 5, it'd be John Lennon but if I were able to pick my own, it'd be Jim Croce

Croce is a good pick because his style would have allowed him to keep making more music for 40 years.

*BaseClogger*
12-18-2012, 10:57 AM
There's something wrong with you if you didn't check every box.

My own personal submission would be D Boon...

mdccclxix
12-18-2012, 10:58 AM
Bob Marley - was the weight of his guru status too much? I think so. Lot's of pressure to be the perfect standard, and it wouldn't have been easy to throw that off. I think his entry into American music was significant and the blend he created was authentic.

RichRed
12-18-2012, 11:28 AM
I'd add Otis Redding to the list but from the choices given, I'll go with Lennon.

RedsBaron
12-18-2012, 01:41 PM
If you're talking about just a "singer", Sam Cooke.

If you're talking about a musician, the one I would have given the most to see where his talent would have taken him was Buddy Holly. By far...

Buddy Holly...or maybe Jim Croce whom Sea Ray mentioned...or Hank Williams who was only 29 when he died

westofyou
12-18-2012, 01:44 PM
There's something wrong with you if you didn't check every box.

My own personal submission would be D Boon...

YES!

WildcatFan
12-18-2012, 03:06 PM
Rich Mullins

Seconded. The man was an extraordinary poet and getting better with age.

Sea Ray
12-18-2012, 03:13 PM
Interesting no one has mentioned Elvis. I'm of the opinion that if he were still alive he'd be doing shows in Branson, Missouri and that's about it...

RedTruck
12-18-2012, 03:29 PM
Interesting no one has mentioned Elvis. I'm of the opinion that if he were still alive he'd be doing shows in Branson, Missouri and that's about it...

His 10 minutes of fame were already up.

medford
12-18-2012, 03:56 PM
2 names for thought.

Tupac
Marvin Gaye

westofyou
12-18-2012, 03:59 PM
2 names for thought.

Tupac
Marvin Gaye

Love to have Marvin back.

wolfboy
12-18-2012, 04:31 PM
I agree with a lot of the comments I've seen in the thread. As to guys like Cobain, Hendrix, and Morrison, resurrection would only delay the inevitable, or allow them to become something other than what made them great. John Lennon? Like woy said, anyone who would put Yoko Ono on an album and charge money for it should be prosecuted. At a minimum, it's clear they've lost touch with music. I don't know that Lennon had anything left in the tank, ditto for Freddy Mercury.

My pick might be an odd one for "died too soon," but I really loved what Johnny Cash was doing late in his career with the American series. Yeah, by the end, his voice quivered so much you could barely recognize it. At the same time, the American series had an authenticity and simplicity I just loved. I wanted more, and that seems like a good measure when I think about this question.

RedTruck
12-18-2012, 05:14 PM
I agree with a lot of the comments I've seen in the thread. As to guys like Cobain, Hendrix, and Morrison, resurrection would only delay the inevitable, or allow them to become something other than what made them great. John Lennon? Like woy said, anyone who would put Yoko Ono on an album and charge money for it should be prosecuted. At a minimum, it's clear they've lost touch with music. I don't know that Lennon had anything left in the tank, ditto for Freddy Mercury.

My pick might be an odd one for "died too soon," but I really loved what Johnny Cash was doing late in his career with the American series. Yeah, by the end, his voice quivered so much you could barely recognize it. At the same time, the American series had an authenticity and simplicity I just loved. I wanted more, and that seems like a good measure when I think about this question.

Johnny Cash version of Hurt was killer. Would have loved to see him perform more covers like that.

RedTruck
12-18-2012, 05:16 PM
2 names for thought.

Tupac
Marvin Gaye

I'd rather have Biggie Smalls back than Tupac.

RedsBaron
12-18-2012, 07:37 PM
Interesting no one has mentioned Elvis. I'm of the opinion that if he were still alive he'd be doing shows in Branson, Missouri and that's about it...

Elvis was 42 when he died. While that is still very young to die, when I think about those singers who died "too soon" I first think of those who perished in their 20s, before they really completed their body of work. For example, the previously mentioned Buddy Holly was only what, 22, when he died. Elvis and John Lennon, who was 40 when he was murdered, almost certainly had largely emptied their creativity tanks.
If Elvis was alive today he would be on the verge of his 78th birthday, so even doing shows in Branson would be an accomplishment of sorts.

marcshoe
12-18-2012, 11:18 PM
I think Joe Sttrummer still had some interesting directions he could have gone.

camisadelgolf
12-18-2012, 11:57 PM
I picked Jimmy Hendrix because he's the best guitarist that ever lived.

*BaseClogger*
12-19-2012, 11:30 AM
I'd rather have Biggie Smalls back than Tupac.

I want more NATE DOGG!

wolfboy
12-19-2012, 12:28 PM
I think Joe Sttrummer still had some interesting directions he could have gone.

I agree.

GAC
12-21-2012, 05:15 AM
Duane Allman

One heck of a slide guitar player.

Just bought the CD recently "Allman Brothers Live At Fillmore East". Use to play the heck out of the album.

And of course his work with Clapton on Layla And Other Assorted Love Songs is one of my all-time favorites.

GAC
12-21-2012, 05:19 AM
Interesting no one has mentioned Elvis. I'm of the opinion that if he were still alive he'd be doing shows in Branson, Missouri and that's about it...

Elvis died when he went into the Army - John Lennon

GAC
12-21-2012, 05:22 AM
I don't know that Lennon had anything left in the tank, ditto for Freddy Mercury.

I wholeheartedly agree with you (and woy's) comments about Yoko; but I think Lennon had plenty left in the tank. His songs on Double Fantasy were very strong IMO, and pure Lennon.

RedsBaron
12-21-2012, 07:14 AM
Elvis died when he went into the Army - John Lennon

Lennon died when he married Yoko-Elvis Presley

Okay, I made that up. ;)

bucksfan2
12-21-2012, 09:37 AM
Some of the lore that goes along with the singers that died too young is just that. Sometimes its better off wondering "what could have been" than what actually would happen.

Just an interesting thought, someone mentioned Andrew Wood from Mother Love Bone. If he doesn't OD, Eddie Vedder doesn't join the band, Temple of the Dog doesn't form, and Pearl Jam doesn't exist.

If Kurt Cobain doesn't die, Dave Grohl doesn't become the front man he is for Foo Fighters. Two of my absolute favorite bands never form. If Cobain and Wood don't die does the grunge movement have the staying power it did?

The one guy who wouldn't have sent ripple effects through music history is Lane Staley. His death was inevitable, but his constant heroine relapses really short circuited Alice in Chains. They wouldn't work on a new album without Lane and when ever they would try nothing materialized.

Wonderful Monds
12-21-2012, 09:54 AM
If Kurt Cobain doesn't die, Dave Grohl doesn't become the front man he is for Foo Fighters.
Win-win, if you ask me.

bucksfan2
12-21-2012, 10:25 AM
Win-win, if you ask me.

IMO Foo Fighters >>>> Nirvana. But that is just me.

Revering4Blue
12-21-2012, 10:37 AM
IMO Foo Fighters >>>> Nirvana. But that is just me.

:thumbup:

Then again, I'll bravely admit that I like Post Grunge as well as Grunge.

vaticanplum
12-21-2012, 11:41 AM
I'd add Otis Redding to the list but from the choices given, I'll go with Lennon.

Otis Redding was the first one that came to mind for me. Just kills me that the guy was only 26 when he died. He certainly didn't sound 26.

not exactly Lennon, but Nick Drake should also be on the list.

*BaseClogger*
12-21-2012, 11:44 AM
Win-win, if you ask me.

Yep, lets keep Dave behind the kit. The Foo Fighters have been an above-average band for a long time, but they never had the "it" factor that Nirvana had, that truly dynamic sound...

westofyou
12-21-2012, 11:47 AM
IMO Foo Fighters >>>> Nirvana. But that is just me.

Agreed, I'll also note Nirvana was not that inspiring live IMO

*BaseClogger*
12-21-2012, 11:51 AM
This is crazy talk! :explode:

Ravenlord
12-21-2012, 03:27 PM
i voted Lennon, but given the chance it's actually a guitarist i'd resurrect: Criss Oliva of Savatage.

757690
12-21-2012, 04:21 PM
Joey Ramone... We need more two minute power punk songs that all sound alike ;)

757690
12-21-2012, 04:23 PM
Miley Cyrus

Okay, that's actually just wishful thinking :evil:

redsfanmia
12-21-2012, 05:51 PM
I wholeheartedly agree with you (and woy's) comments about Yoko; but I think Lennon had plenty left in the tank. His songs on Double Fantasy were very strong IMO, and pure Lennon.

Sappy and mediocre, he lost his edge and was doomed to put out Paul McCartney type solo albums, good but nothing great.

_Sir_Charles_
12-21-2012, 06:01 PM
John Lennon. Simply because he was MORE than just a singer. He had the ability to change the world. And not just through his music. Think about that.

Degenerate39
12-21-2012, 06:34 PM
Easily Cobain

Betterread
12-21-2012, 10:13 PM
Ian Curtis and D Boon must be mentioned. Both Joy Division and the Minutemen were on the ascendancy when they died.
Gram Parsons and Chris Bell are immortals.

Those of you that prefere Grohl to Cobain hear music a different way - I feel very sorry for you. Cobain was the best rock artist in the last 20 years.

Revering4Blue
12-21-2012, 10:34 PM
Ian Curtis and D Boon must be mentioned. Both Joy Division and the Minutemen were on the ascendancy when they died.
Gram Parsons and Chris Bell are immortals.

Those of you that prefere Grohl to Cobain hear music a different way - I feel very sorry for you. Cobain was the best rock artist in the last 20 years.

Was that necessary?

I don't dislike Nirvana at all. I simply prefer the Foo Fighters. I also prefer STP to Pearl Jam. Am I going to be flamed for that, too?

*BaseClogger*
12-22-2012, 03:27 AM
Was that necessary?

I don't dislike Nirvana at all. I simply prefer the Foo Fighters. I also prefer STP to Pearl Jam. Am I going to be flamed for that, too?

Meh, if I came in here and started claiming The Wings were better than The Beatles then I'm pretty sure I'd hear it from the older folks.

Nirvana = The Beatles for Generation Y...

GAC
12-22-2012, 05:39 AM
Easily Cobain

I'm not gonna waste my wish on anyone that purposely took their own life. But someone who had their life tragically taken from them, cut short?.... that, IMO, is a different story.

GAC
12-22-2012, 05:59 AM
Sappy and mediocre, he lost his edge and was doomed to put out Paul McCartney type solo albums, good but nothing great.

IMO, music is generational. Each generation wants their own "identity". Hard to stay on top, continue relevancy. If Morrison and Hendrix had lived I think they would have faded, like the majority of 60's rock stars, as we progressed into the 70s.

Doomed to put out McCartney type albums? Not Lennon's style, just as McCartney couldn't put out a Lennon style album. McCartney's solo career was far more successful as far as commercial success goes. "Silly Love Songs" was his forte for the most part. But I enjoyed everyone of Lennon's solo efforts (separating the Yoko dribble), regardless of the fact it didn't bring him chart success. Other then the occasional love song to Yoko (very tiring), I wouldn't call any of his music sappy or "muzak".

I loved his songs on Double Fantasy. What was mediocre or sappy about them? I think sometimes people expected too much, musically-wise from Lennon. It's very hard to equal the Beatles - even for an ex-Beatle. But some of Lennon's most powerful songs, even as a Beatle, were very simplistic, basic, in nature. IMO, Lennon's songs were very personal, in nature, to him. He wasn't a very complex person.

I think that if Lennon had lived, at some point he and McCartney would have collaborated together again. Not forming a band or anything, but just that desire to work together again. Regardless of all the crap that went down with the break-up of the Beatles, time had healed those wounds, and I've read several books where acquaintances/friends of Lennon revealed he wanted to work with Paul again at some point.

RBA
12-22-2012, 07:17 AM
I'd rather have Biggie Smalls back than Tupac.

Are they not still releasing new songs?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

RBA
12-22-2012, 07:23 AM
How about a baseball player?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

KronoRed
12-22-2012, 08:41 AM
Was that necessary?

I don't dislike Nirvana at all. I simply prefer the Foo Fighters. I also prefer STP to Pearl Jam. Am I going to be flamed for that, too?

Well you shouldn't be, Pearl Jam sucks. :D

919191
12-22-2012, 09:39 AM
Can't find a video. Scroll down to the Clown Juice EP by Peter Cooper for "Nirvana Was Better Than Pearl Jam".:)

http://www.petercoopermusic.com/fr_music.cfm

OldRightHander
12-22-2012, 10:07 AM
How about a baseball player?

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

Stenson? Probably for a different topic though. Boy could hit.

Roy Tucker
12-22-2012, 11:59 AM
This is purely my opinion, but I think Lennon deserved another chance unlike the rest of the people in this poll. He'd been through the whole Beatles things, had hit rock-bottom, and then had rebuilt his life. He had a lot to live for and I think would have been a great artist going forward. Not as edgy as he had been, but I think his talent and intelligence and emotions would have created some pretty interesting music.

From a personal standpoint, I would have loved to see where Jimi Hendrix's music would have gone. The man's guitar style and playing was one-of-a-kind and pure genius. Rock, blues, jazz, or some purely personal meld of the 3, it might have been pretty cool. If he could have gotten away from drugs, that is. Otherwise, he would have just been a junkie.

Degenerate39
12-22-2012, 02:28 PM
I'm not gonna waste my wish on anyone that purposely took their own life. But someone who had their life tragically taken from them, cut short?.... that, IMO, is a different story.

Courtney Love

redsfanmia
12-22-2012, 03:08 PM
IMO, music is generational. Each generation wants their own "identity". Hard to stay on top, continue relevancy. If Morrison and Hendrix had lived I think they would have faded, like the majority of 60's rock stars, as we progressed into the 70s.

Doomed to put out McCartney type albums? Not Lennon's style, just as McCartney couldn't put out a Lennon style album. McCartney's solo career was far more successful as far as commercial success goes. "Silly Love Songs" was his forte for the most part. But I enjoyed everyone of Lennon's solo efforts (separating the Yoko dribble), regardless of the fact it didn't bring him chart success. Other then the occasional love song to Yoko (very tiring), I wouldn't call any of his music sappy or "muzak".

I loved his songs on Double Fantasy. What was mediocre or sappy about them? I think sometimes people expected too much, musically-wise from Lennon. It's very hard to equal the Beatles - even for an ex-Beatle. But some of Lennon's most powerful songs, even as a Beatle, were very simplistic, basic, in nature. IMO, Lennon's songs were very personal, in nature, to him. He wasn't a very complex person.

I think that if Lennon had lived, at some point he and McCartney would have collaborated together again. Not forming a band or anything, but just that desire to work together again. Regardless of all the crap that went down with the break-up of the Beatles, time had healed those wounds, and I've read several books where acquaintances/friends of Lennon revealed he wanted to work with Paul again at some point.

I am a huge Beatles fan and I love all of the solo work, I was just saying I found Double Fantasy sappy and mediocre particularly Beautiful Boys and Dear Yoko.

I like McCartney's solo work too, just saying most of it is forgetable, enjoyable but forgetable.

savafan
12-22-2012, 06:32 PM
i voted Lennon, but given the chance it's actually a guitarist i'd resurrect: Criss Oliva of Savatage.

Both of these and Harry Chapin also.

Revering4Blue
12-22-2012, 07:11 PM
Harry Chapin is a great choice.

IMO, Warren Zevon still had more quality music left in him. Too bad that many only remember Zevon for "Werewolves Of London".

marcshoe
12-22-2012, 07:39 PM
Harry Chapin is a great choice.

IMO, Warren Zevon still had more quality music left in him. Too bad that many only remember Zevon for "Werewolves Of London".

His last album, the one he recorded knowing he was dying, was both brilliant and difficult to listen to.

RichRed
12-22-2012, 07:58 PM
Harry Chapin is a great choice.

IMO, Warren Zevon still had more quality music left in him. Too bad that many only remember Zevon for "Werewolves Of London".

Zevon's a good one. Have to love a guy who comes up with a song called "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner."

GAC
12-24-2012, 05:04 AM
Courtney Love

She couldn't prevent it the first time. Probably because she has enough trouble handling her own demons.

GAC
12-24-2012, 05:36 AM
I am a huge Beatles fan and I love all of the solo work, I was just saying I found Double Fantasy sappy and mediocre particularly Beautiful Boys and Dear Yoko.

I like McCartney's solo work too, just saying most of it is forgetable, enjoyable but forgetable.

I understand what you're saying. When the Beatles broke up, I, like a majority, were very critical (and unfairly harsh IMO) of their solo efforts because, well.... it wasn't the Beatles. And I, again like a majority, were always keeping our fingers crossed, as we went into the 70s, hoping for a Beatles reunion, and that they'd somehow recapture that magic. And of course they went out on a very high note with Abbey Roads, which always keep people wondering "What If?".

But as I got older I came to realize that the Beatles were the 60s. A magical time, at least for me, that may never be repeated. So I cherish it, and hold onto it, just like my Dad did with Glenn Miller and the Big Band era.

But IMO, I think there is a lot of John and Paul's music/solo efforts that stack up next to songs they did as the Beatles. I realized that as soon as I got over this "sub-conscious thing" that was always telling me "Yeah, but it's not the Beatles". Paul had greater commercial success then John, but I don't measure the quality of a song based on that. McCartney got criticized in the 70s for writing sappy songs. But he did a lot that with the Beatles too. But again - it was the Beatles, so he (and John) got away with it. Some of my all-time favorite McCartney/Lennon songs, whether with the Beatles or solo, were not commercially successful, but really spoke to me on a personal level.

As for Beautiful Boy.... I love that song simply because it was a Dad writing a song to his young son (Sean). John was never there for his first son (Julian). But it's a song about a Dad not only being there for his son while growing up, but also when he's older and helping him becoming a man. And when I hear that song nowadays I find it very tragic because it was torn away from both of them. It has a classic Lennon line in it too... "Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans." (use to be my signature on RZ).

bucksfan2
12-27-2012, 01:24 PM
Meh, if I came in here and started claiming The Wings were better than The Beatles then I'm pretty sure I'd hear it from the older folks.

Nirvana = The Beatles for Generation Y...

See I know many people who like the Foo Fighters better than Nirvana. Its a matter of taste, not a written in stone truth.

I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say that Cobain doesn't commit suicide. How long does Nirvana stay together? Does Cobain go down the road of Eddie Vedder and keep the band together or does he go all Axle Rose?

I like Nirvana but give me a band with staying power, give me Foo Fighters and Pearl Jam over them, and IMO from this Generation Y'er it isn't even close.

*BaseClogger*
12-27-2012, 03:12 PM
I was thinking about this the other day. Lets say that Cobain doesn't commit suicide. How long does Nirvana stay together? Does Cobain go down the road of Eddie Vedder and keep the band together or does he go all Axle Rose?

I don't think comparing Kurt Cobain to Axl Rose is fair.


I like Nirvana but give me a band with staying power, give me Foo Fighters and Pearl Jam over them, and IMO from this Generation Y'er it isn't even close.

So those bands have "staying power" because their frontman isn't dead?

To me, staying power means a band's legacy lives on for generations well after it has finished recording new music. I would expect Nirvana to be more popular than the Foo Fighters 30 years from now, but nobody knows the answer...

westofyou
12-27-2012, 03:21 PM
I don't think comparing Kurt Cobain to Axl Rose is fair.


I saw both at their peak live... Axel put on a better show.

Could have been a bad night for Nirvana though... oh and I passed Eddie Vedder in the parking lot, he was so unfamous then he could wander around.

Captain13
12-27-2012, 03:31 PM
I would expect Nirvana to be more popular than the Foo Fighters 30 years from now, but nobody knows the answer...

More populare with who, critics or classic rock stations? It may be two very different answers.

bucksfan2
12-27-2012, 03:45 PM
I don't think comparing Kurt Cobain to Axl Rose is fair.

At what point would Cobain have become a diva like Rose? At what point does he say "I am the band" instead of "we are the band"




So those bands have "staying power" because their frontman isn't dead?

To me, staying power means a band's legacy lives on for generations well after it has finished recording new music. I would expect Nirvana to be more popular than the Foo Fighters 30 years from now, but nobody knows the answer...

Having a frontman who doesn't blow his brains sure does help a band. Nirvana had an album that defined a genre and a great live album. Those two albums will forever be remembered. But the Foo Fighters have been around for close to 20 years. And for those 20 years they have produced pretty damn good music.

*BaseClogger*
12-27-2012, 03:58 PM
I saw both at their peak live... Axel put on a better show.

Could have been a bad night for Nirvana though... oh and I passed Eddie Vedder in the parking lot, he was so unfamous then he could wander around.

Was Nirvana ever known for their live shows? Honest question. Depending on the year, you totally could have seen Kurt on a bad night too...

*BaseClogger*
12-27-2012, 03:59 PM
More populare with who, critics or classic rock stations? It may be two very different answers.

There are bands who are critical darlings who only have a few songs on classic rock radio rotation (I'm thinking a band like Pink Floyd here) that are still beloved by millions of fans...

*BaseClogger*
12-27-2012, 04:10 PM
At what point would Cobain have become a diva like Rose? At what point does he say "I am the band" instead of "we are the band"

I'm not a complete Cobain fanboy (and there are plenty of them on the internet, please, somebody step in) but from everything I've ever read about the man that wasn't part of his personality.

Grohl was probably destined to leave since he was beginning to record his Foo Fighters demos while Nirvana was still together, but I don't think Novoselic was in a hurry to go anywhere. After releasing In Utero, the band was clearly destined to shy away from the spotlight a bit, but I think they would have recorded several more albums as Nirvana.


Having a frontman who doesn't blow his brains sure does help a band. Nirvana had an album that defined a genre and a great live album. Those two albums will forever be remembered. But the Foo Fighters have been around for close to 20 years. And for those 20 years they have produced pretty damn good music.

Meh, their first album is an underrated indie relic, and In Utero (there is plenty of contention amongst Nirvana fans about which album is even the best) is still better than anything the Foo Fighters have ever recorded (my opinion of course). One of their previously unknown songs was released years later and went to number one on the rock charts. The Unplugged set further proves their brilliance. Two of the covers were incredible improvements over the original recordings and still play on the radio today. Tribute cover albums are still being released. I'll be surprised if the Foo Fighters are ever held in a similar light.

I've said it before and I'll say it again--I've got nothing against the Foo Fighters. I like them. I listen to them. Grohl writes a catchy rocker and they've had a lot of hits. But their music lacks that "momentous feel" that Nirvana's music has and none of their albums have ever held my attention from start to finish...

westofyou
12-27-2012, 04:21 PM
Was Nirvana ever known for their live shows? Honest question. Depending on the year, you totally could have seen Kurt on a bad night too...

I have some nice bootlegs from 89, but they are more Bleach than Nevermind.

It's not as though they were a pure studio band, Bleach was recorded in 30 hours for $606.17.

I love Nirvana but they are plagued by a small catalog and as the years go by they will be unable to add to that and the gap with longer standing bands will grow. They certainly aren't the first band with that problem.. ahem Big Star comes to mind.

What's awesome about the Axel / Cobain comparison is that they were contemporaries but weren't... Axel was headlining a genre that was petering out of being in the center ring and Nirvana was bringing in the new guard at the same time.

But really you can't condemn folks for liking the Foo Fighters in the wake of Cobain's death anymore than you could condemn New Order fans for preferring that group over Ian Curtis's Joy Division

westofyou
12-27-2012, 04:23 PM
There are bands who are critical darlings who only have a few songs on classic rock radio rotation (I'm thinking a band like Pink Floyd here) that are still beloved by millions of fans...

Yep, those folks love Atom Heart Mother, Animals and Meddle as much if not more than The Wall

*BaseClogger*
12-27-2012, 04:25 PM
But really you can't condemn folks for liking the Foo Fighters in the wake of Cobain's death anymore than you could condemn New Order fans for preferring that group over Ian Curtis's Joy Division

That's a really good comparison, actually.

You don't think Joy Division is more revered than New Order? Or our beloved Minutemen than fIREHOSE?

westofyou
12-27-2012, 04:30 PM
That's a really good comparison, actually.

You don't think Joy Division is more reveared than New Order?

They have more mystique probably, comes with the dead front man aspect as well.

But New Order is pretty revered as well, and well they have a bigger catalog.

Death gives you an excuse to be revered often, especially the small output guys like Nick Drake, Dennis Wilson (solo stuff) and Merle Watson.

bucksfan2
12-27-2012, 04:34 PM
I'm not a complete Cobain fanboy (and there are plenty of them on the internet, please, somebody step in) but from everything I've ever read about the man that wasn't part of his personality.

Grohl was probably destined to leave since he was beginning to record his Foo Fighters demos while Nirvana was still together, but I don't think Novoselic was in a hurry to go anywhere. After releasing In Utero, the band was clearly destined to shy away from the spotlight a bit, but I think they would have recorded several more albums as Nirvana.

I watched Twenty, a documentary about Pearl Jam. They were profiling the early grunge movement and one of the themes was how Cobain was very antagonistic towards the other bands. He was always trying to pick a fight, saying the other grunge bands sucked. I don't know how long he could keep that up. I don't know how long he keeps Grohl as just a drummer. Looking at it in hindsight I think what made Nirvana great was their short period of greatness.

*BaseClogger*
12-27-2012, 04:39 PM
I watched Twenty, a documentary about Pearl Jam. They were profiling the early grunge movement and one of the themes was how Cobain was very antagonistic towards the other bands. He was always trying to pick a fight, saying the other grunge bands sucked.

Probably because they did compared to Nirvana... :lol:

westofyou
12-27-2012, 04:43 PM
I watched Twenty, a documentary about Pearl Jam. They were profiling the early grunge movement and one of the themes was how Cobain was very antagonistic towards the other bands. He was always trying to pick a fight, saying the other grunge bands sucked. I don't know how long he could keep that up. I don't know how long he keeps Grohl as just a drummer. Looking at it in hindsight I think what made Nirvana great was their short period of greatness.

That actually petered out around 92 or 93, plus Cobain struck up a friendship with Michael Stipe at that time and was seeming to mellow out of the angriest man from Aberdeen stage

KronoRed
12-28-2012, 12:20 AM
At what point would Cobain have become a diva like Rose? At what point does he say "I am the band" instead of "we are the band"



Cobain did a bit of that, threatening to end the band unless they agreed to retroactively change the song writing royalties so he could get more money, of course that was likely brought on by the crazy lady he was married to.

camisadelgolf
12-28-2012, 08:29 AM
Just some personal opinions:
The Wall is a good album, but it's also one of the most overrated albums ever. It's even below Animals for me. However, Dark Side of the Moon is one of the best albums ever.

With that said, airplay and album sales are terrible ways to judge the quality of albums.

In Utero is better than Nevermind, and Nevermind is also one of the most overrated albums ever. What we like to latch onto is that Nirvana is responsible for creating such a unique sound and making it so accessible.

Foo Fighters are less unique, but overall, they are better than Nirvana. It's kind of like a Beatles vs. Stones argument for me. On one hand, in their primes, I feel like they were about equal with each other. On the other hand, the Stones have lasted much longer and have come up with more quality music as a result of releasing more material.

Nirvana is one of my all-time favorite bands, and I haven't liked a Foo Fighters album in years (although I respect them). However, if I try to be objective about it, I must admit that Foo Fighters have come up with better songwriting. But I'll be damned if I haven't spent several more days listening to them over Foo Fighters.

Captain13
12-28-2012, 09:44 AM
Just some personal opinions:
The Wall is a good album, but it's also one of the most overrated albums ever. It's even below Animals for me. However, Dark Side of the Moon is one of the best albums ever.


Here is my take on Floyd: The Wall is awesome, but it is overhyped. Dark Side of the Moon and Wish You Were Here are both masterpieces without a sour note in either album. Animals and Meddle are both fantastic records. Those five albums could play on repeat and I would not get tired of Pink Floyd for at least a week. Everything before Meddle is OK, a little out there for me. The Final Cut is drivel, almost unlistenable. The two records without Roger (Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell), are very good records. Both are reminiscent of Wish You Were Here, but are not truly Pink Floyd records. I also believe Amused to Death by Roger is an above average album and would have gone platinum if he could use the name Pink Floyd, but also misses something without David Gilmour.

So long story short, beginning with Meddle Pink Floyd is awesome and has released eight wonderful records (seven under the Pink Floyd name and one Roger Waters solo effort) and one useless piece of junk. Prior to that they were an OK band finding their way in the psychadelic and progressive rock world.

camisadelgolf
12-28-2012, 09:55 AM
The Final Cut is my second- or third-favorite Pink Floyd album. To my amazement, I absolutely love it.

Captain13
12-28-2012, 10:08 AM
I guess that's why musical taste and musical "quality" is often subjective. Where I hear a terrible effort with only two decent songs, Camisadelgolf hears something great. All I know is I will be listening to Wish You Were Here for the next hour or so.

JayBruceFan
12-28-2012, 10:11 AM
It would have been nice to have Marvin Gaye longer than we did

westofyou
12-28-2012, 10:52 AM
The Final Cut is my second- or third-favorite Pink Floyd album. To my amazement, I absolutely love it.
Me too.

Waters lobbied to have that recorded BEFORE The Wall and that idea was shot down.

RedsManRick
12-28-2012, 12:06 PM
I'm surprised so few other people chose Freddie Mercury. Maybe I just don't get Jim Morrison, but I don't see how he belongs on the list with 4 others who were so unique/culture changing.

westofyou
12-28-2012, 12:38 PM
I'm surprised so few other people chose Freddie Mercury. Maybe I just don't get Jim Morrison, but I don't see how he belongs on the list with 4 others who were so unique/culture changing.

The Doors and the Byrds were HUGE in the 65-70 era, and very influential to the west coast sound and the Byrds to Country/Rock fusion

But all the noise has dimmed that fact over the years, further highlighted by no mention of the great Gram Parsons

*BaseClogger*
12-28-2012, 01:02 PM
In Utero is better than Nevermind, and Nevermind is also one of the most overrated albums ever. What we like to latch onto is that Nirvana is responsible for creating such a unique sound and making it so accessible.

Foo Fighters are less unique, but overall, they are better than Nirvana. It's kind of like a Beatles vs. Stones argument for me. On one hand, in their primes, I feel like they were about equal with each other. On the other hand, the Stones have lasted much longer and have come up with more quality music as a result of releasing more material.

Nirvana is one of my all-time favorite bands, and I haven't liked a Foo Fighters album in years (although I respect them). However, if I try to be objective about it, I must admit that Foo Fighters have come up with better songwriting. But I'll be damned if I haven't spent several more days listening to them over Foo Fighters.

What I take from all of this is you seem to be arguing a band that sticks around and writes a few really good songs and releases them on otherwise mediocre albums year-after-year is superior to a band that burns brighter, albeit for only a few albums, and then disappears, simply because the former band accumulates more material and as a result more good songs? So we should measure a band's quality based upon gross number of good songs recorded during their careers?

mdccclxix
12-28-2012, 01:10 PM
I wouldn't know Foo Fighter's prime from any other time. They've always been insipidly vanilla and predictably forced with every song I've heard. I actually really dislike the Foo Fighters, can you tell? :laugh: What's funny, though, is I bet I'd really like an acoustic album from them. I see their approach as very needlessly loud. It's silly what Grohl decides to scream about and it comes off as gratuitous. Nirvana in a rout if you ask me.

mdccclxix
12-28-2012, 01:15 PM
I'm surprised so few other people chose Freddie Mercury. Maybe I just don't get Jim Morrison, but I don't see how he belongs on the list with 4 others who were so unique/culture changing.

I see what Morrison did as being very difficult to replicate. I don't elevate it as highly as it's been in years past, but I look back at what he did and what's come since and cannot find many replacements. I suppose you could call it early punk attitude mixed with early southern rock mixed with early singer songwriting, but it's really just some dude who didn't give a flip for 5 years. I find that people not giving a flip in the 60's was often much different and more radical than today.

*BaseClogger*
12-28-2012, 01:19 PM
I wouldn't know Foo Fighter's prime from any other time. They've always been insipidly vanilla and predictably forced with every song I've heard. I actually really dislike the Foo Fighters, can you tell? :laugh: What's funny, though, is I bet I'd really like an acoustic album from them. I see their approach as very needlessly loud. It's silly what Grohl decides to scream about and it comes off as gratuitous. Nirvana in a rout if you ask me.

I believe one side of their double album, In Your Honor, is acoustic.

I think you can pretty easily find acoustic versions of a lot of their songs too. Have they done an Unplugged?

mdccclxix
12-28-2012, 02:06 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DT618KMIvw

Funny here is an acoustic, it's not what I hoped for - lot's of senseless screaming. Start at the 1:30 mark.

westofyou
12-28-2012, 02:59 PM
Nice

*BaseClogger*
12-28-2012, 05:31 PM
^^^

All I got from that is Steven Tyler has always looked like a weirdo...

*BaseClogger*
12-28-2012, 05:34 PM
Here's an acoustic version of their best song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO_15bcZTq8

(I like the electric version a lot better)

camisadelgolf
12-28-2012, 07:18 PM
What I take from all of this is you seem to be arguing a band that sticks around and writes a few really good songs and releases them on otherwise mediocre albums year-after-year is superior to a band that burns brighter, albeit for only a few albums, and then disappears, simply because the former band accumulates more material and as a result more good songs? So we should measure a band's quality based upon gross number of good songs recorded during their careers?
That's actually not even close to what I said. :lol:

Revering4Blue
12-28-2012, 09:07 PM
I believe one side of their double album, In Your Honor, is acoustic.

I think you can pretty easily find acoustic versions of a lot of their songs too. Have they done an Unplugged?

Skin & Bones is live acoustic import Foo Fighters CD.

http://www.amazon.com/Skin-Bones-Foo-Fighters/dp/B000IU3XTW

*BaseClogger*
12-28-2012, 11:49 PM
That's actually not even close to what I said. :lol:

Lets put it this way: if you had to rank the Nirvana albums with the Foo Fighters discography how would they compare?

camisadelgolf
12-29-2012, 05:55 AM
Lets put it this way: if you had to rank the Nirvana albums with the Foo Fighters discography how would they compare?
Although this is very different from my personal tastes, here you go:
Foo Fighters s/t
Foo Fighters One by One
Nirvana Bleach
Foo Fighters Wasting Light
Nirvana In Utero
Foo Fighters There Is Nothing Left to Lose
Foo Fighters Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace
Nirvana Nevermind
Foo Fighters The Colour and the Shape
Foo Fighters In Your Honor

Just to iterate, my personal list looks nothing like that.

nate
12-29-2012, 10:58 AM
I'm surprised so few other people chose Freddie Mercury. Maybe I just don't get Jim Morrison, but I don't see how he belongs on the list with 4 others who were so unique/culture changing.

High five!

If we're talking about SINGERS, Freddie is about the only one that screams "SINGER" on the list. He was also a great songwriter and musician.

Lennon was a great conveyer of songs, musician and songwriter. But he wasn't half the singer Freddie was.

Jimi was kind of a mumble-talking-singer but it worked for him because he had a cool tone and that whole guitar thing going on.

Cobain's singing was kind of like Jimi's but instead of guitar, he helped popularize a new genre of rock.

Morrison's singing was kind of like Jimi's and Cobain's and he wore leather pants.

:cool:

*BaseClogger*
12-29-2012, 05:07 PM
Although this is very different from my personal tastes, here you go:
Foo Fighters s/t
Foo Fighters One by One
Nirvana Bleach
Foo Fighters Wasting Light
Nirvana In Utero
Foo Fighters There Is Nothing Left to Lose
Foo Fighters Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace
Nirvana Nevermind
Foo Fighters The Colour and the Shape
Foo Fighters In Your Honor

Just to iterate, my personal list looks nothing like that.

Wait... then who's list is this? Because there aren't many people who would have Bleach at the top of a Nirvana list and The Colour and the Shape at the bottom of a Foo Fighters list...

camisadelgolf
12-29-2012, 05:18 PM
Wait... then who's list is this? Because there aren't many people who would have Bleach at the top of a Nirvana list and The Colour and the Shape at the bottom of a Foo Fighters list...
People have terrible taste, and mine is elite. But truth be told, The Colour and the Shape is my favorite Foo Fighters album even though a lot of it is boring. Basically, it's rich on great ideas but lacking in songs that are great from start to finish.

*BaseClogger*
12-30-2012, 02:00 PM
People have terrible taste, and mine is elite. But truth be told, The Colour and the Shape is my favorite Foo Fighters album even though a lot of it is boring. Basically, it's rich on great ideas but lacking in songs that are great from start to finish.

It's still not a "people" list because you have Bleach the highest...

camisadelgolf
12-30-2012, 02:13 PM
It's still not a "people" list because you have Bleach the highest...
Your taste apparently isn't good enough to "get" Bleach.

cinredsfan2000
01-01-2013, 10:17 AM
Steve Marriott a man arguably as talented as some of the above mentioned . who also might have changed rock history.

After the departure of Mick Taylor in 1975 from the Rolling Stones, Marriott was considered as his replacement; however, Mick Jagger allegedly blocked the move after Marriott upstaged him during the audition. According to Ronnie Wood in his autobiography Ronnie, Marriott was Richards' first choice to replace Mick Taylor.:beerme:

Revering4Blue
01-01-2013, 01:45 PM
Steve Marriott a man arguably as talented as some of the above mentioned . who also might have changed rock history.

After the departure of Mick Taylor in 1975 from the Rolling Stones, Marriott was considered as his replacement; however, Mick Jagger allegedly blocked the move after Marriott upstaged him during the audition. According to Ronnie Wood in his autobiography Ronnie, Marriott was Richards' first choice to replace Mick Taylor.:beerme:

:beerme:

Steve Marriott is/was seriously overlooked -- I say overlooked (rather than underrated) because Steve's peers were fully aware of his talents.

You must be a mind-reader. I was actually going to a feature a lost Humble Pie Rock hit in my next AOR thread entry, but this is as good of a place as any.

Humble Pie - Fool For A Pretty Face (Hurt By Love) (1980)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H987w5NQ6Sk

Roy Tucker
01-01-2013, 04:12 PM
Back in the day, I saw a twin bill of Humble Pie and Ten Years After. Humble Pie was big with their Fillmore album and TYA was still riding the Woodstock I'm Goin' Home jam.

But it wasn't fun. Banks of Marshall amps turned all the way up, shrieking singing, and endless guitar jams. My ears rang for 2 days. Not to mention my date was 'luded up and puked all night.

marcshoe
01-01-2013, 05:02 PM
I obviously don't pay enough attention; I didn't realize Marriott was dead. nex thing you know, somebody will tell me John Entwhistle is no longer with us.

WDE
01-10-2013, 09:13 PM
John Lennon. His songwriting was amazing, and his voice was smooth and magnificent. I loved almost every song he wrote.

Handofdeath
01-13-2013, 09:27 PM
His 10 minutes of fame were already up.

10 minutes? Seriously? Let me educate you...

108 Top 100 Hits
80 Top 40 hits
126 albums in the Billboard Top 200 album chart
80 Gold Albums (at least 500,000 sold) #2? Streisand with 40.
43 Platinum albums (at least 1,000,000 sold) #2? The Beatles with 33
19 Multi-Platinum albums

All Time Top Selling Artists (Albums)

1. The Beatles (177 million)
2. Elvis (134.5 million)
3. Garth Brooks (128 million)
4. Led Zeppelin (111.5 million)
5. The Eagles (100 million)

Springsteen and Madonna together haven't sold as many as Elvis has.

And as far as his continuing popularity in the years before his death his songs on the pop charts were still making the Top 20 but his pop career was not what it once was. However, his career as a viable country singer was very strong. He had a #1 country hit the year before his death with "Moody Blue" and another that went to #6 that year. So the success was still there 22 years after he first appeared on the scene.

10 minutes of fame, my arse.

Wonderful Monds
01-13-2013, 09:51 PM
10 minutes? Seriously? Let me educate you...

108 Top 100 Hits
80 Top 40 hits
126 albums in the Billboard Top 200 album chart
80 Gold Albums (at least 500,000 sold) #2? Streisand with 40.
43 Platinum albums (at least 1,000,000 sold) #2? The Beatles with 33
19 Multi-Platinum albums

All Time Top Selling Artists (Albums)

1. The Beatles (177 million)
2. Elvis (134.5 million)
3. Garth Brooks (128 million)
4. Led Zeppelin (111.5 million)
5. The Eagles (100 million)

Springsteen and Madonna together haven't sold as many as Elvis has.

And as far as his continuing popularity in the years before his death his songs on the pop charts were still making the Top 20 but his pop career was not what it once was. However, his career as a viable country singer was very strong. He had a #1 country hit the year before his death with "Moody Blue" and another that went to #6 that year. So the success was still there 22 years after he first appeared on the scene.

10 minutes of fame, my arse.

Yeah, that was an egregiously ignorant statement. I'm not even an Elvis fan either.

GAC
01-14-2013, 06:32 AM
The Final Cut is my second- or third-favorite Pink Floyd album. To my amazement, I absolutely love it.

So do I. It was pretty much from the Wall sessions. Gilmore, whose work was pretty limited on this album, and Richard Wright was gone, didn't care much for it. He basically said - "If they weren't good enough for The Wall, then why are they good enough now?".

But I do love the album.

Salukifan2
01-14-2013, 11:38 AM
Jim Croce and otis redding

Strikes Out Looking
01-20-2013, 11:17 PM
Zevon's a good one. Have to love a guy who comes up with a song called "Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner."

I would vote for Zevon. Everytime I hear his music, I can't believe how fresh it still sounds. I'm happy that I got to see him once.

coachpipe
01-22-2013, 01:42 PM
A scary and Creepy thing about Kurt Cobain. I was watching a VH1 special and apparently Cobain told a friend, while they were both around the age of 13 that his plan was to become a famous rocker and take his life at a young age.

Also found a link of 10 things you didnt know about him, with this being one.
http://www.clashmusic.com/feature/10-things-you-never-knew-about-kurt-cobain

vaticanplum
03-19-2013, 01:43 PM
Ian Curtis and D Boon must be mentioned. Both Joy Division and the Minutemen were on the ascendancy when they died.
Gram Parsons and Chris Bell are immortals.

I'm back in the Gram Parsons hole I fall into every few years, and I came back to this thread just to make sure he was mentioned.

He's one that really, really gets to me. His career -- even with quite a bit of its peak time arguably wasted -- does stand complete as it is. Part of that is his body of work, and part of it is just the unbelievable reach he had within music in terms of his influence. I do truly believe that country as a genre would not have touched rock in the same way it did without him, from the Byrds to the Stones all the way down to Wilco and beyond. We might have Taylor Swift and that's it, in which case I might have just never cared about music as an entire art form. (But maybe there would be no Taylor Swift without Gram Parsons either, so thanks for that, Gram.)

So it's hard to say that he died too soon in that sense, I guess, and he is totally immortal that way. But man, certain songs of his I listen to, I just feel like his voice alone could have sustained a very long career, and his songwriting would only have kept evolving. There are very few people who are able to sing with the quality and tone and just purity that he had and still make it sound somehow like he's just talking to you. Country by default almost has to have an affect to the vocal quality of it, and he did have that twang, but it never sounded affected or put on at all. That kind of voice and it just never even sounded like he was trying (he probably wasn't). I don't think people realize how rare that is. That would have just had increasingly mass appeal and substance over decades.

I also hate all of the things associated with his death and its weird freaking aftermath, because I feel like it makes people so prone to romanticizing what was a clearly a very troubled and unhealthy person who also consciously made some very bad choices -- while people also sometime discount a lot of the joy he brought to his work, which was another thing that set him apart. All of that is natural, I guess, but sometimes I feel like it overshadows the music itself, which is just peerless, i think. There is nothing like it. That death, it happened way before I was born, but it is one that keeps me up at night.

OldRightHander
03-20-2013, 12:01 PM
Jim Croce and otis redding

I was just listening to Croce and the thing that always gets me is how old he looked for his age. Can you imagine what he would look like today if he was still kicking?

Roy Tucker
03-20-2013, 12:48 PM
I'm back in the Gram Parsons hole I fall into every few years, and I came back to this thread just to make sure he was mentioned.

He's one that really, really gets to me. His career -- even with quite a bit of its peak time arguably wasted -- does stand complete as it is. Part of that is his body of work, and part of it is just the unbelievable reach he had within music in terms of his influence. I do truly believe that country as a genre would not have touched rock in the same way it did without him, from the Byrds to the Stones all the way down to Wilco and beyond. We might have Taylor Swift and that's it, in which case I might have just never cared about music as an entire art form. (But maybe there would be no Taylor Swift without Gram Parsons either, so thanks for that, Gram.)

So it's hard to say that he died too soon in that sense, I guess, and he is totally immortal that way. But man, certain songs of his I listen to, I just feel like his voice alone could have sustained a very long career, and his songwriting would only have kept evolving. There are very few people who are able to sing with the quality and tone and just purity that he had and still make it sound somehow like he's just talking to you. Country by default almost has to have an affect to the vocal quality of it, and he did have that twang, but it never sounded affected or put on at all. That kind of voice and it just never even sounded like he was trying (he probably wasn't). I don't think people realize how rare that is. That would have just had increasingly mass appeal and substance over decades.

I also hate all of the things associated with his death and its weird freaking aftermath, because I feel like it makes people so prone to romanticizing what was a clearly a very troubled and unhealthy person who also consciously made some very bad choices -- while people also sometime discount a lot of the joy he brought to his work, which was another thing that set him apart. All of that is natural, I guess, but sometimes I feel like it overshadows the music itself, which is just peerless, i think. There is nothing like it. That death, it happened way before I was born, but it is one that keeps me up at night.


I was a huge Flying Burrito Brothers and Byrds "Sweetheart of the Rodeo" era fan back in the day. Used to put my ponytail up in my hat and stand at the back of country music bars. Hippies got the severe skunk eye back then.

vaticanplum
03-20-2013, 01:21 PM
I was a huge Flying Burrito Brothers and Byrds "Sweetheart of the Rodeo" era fan back in the day. Used to put my ponytail up in my hat and stand at the back of country music bars. Hippies got the severe skunk eye back then.

Oh, I would have loved you, Roy.

That first Flying Burrito Brothers album is still so good. That whole second side, especially both the Hot Burritos, the songs are just so strong structurally and so well done. Gram's voice, the pedal steel guitar...I don't know the second album as well, but that first one is almost perfect.

edit: For the record, I'm pretty sure that hearing Parsons sing "I'm your toy, I'm your old boy, and I don't want no one but you to love me" at an impressionable age set me back on the healthy relationship track by at least 10 years.

westofyou
03-20-2013, 01:29 PM
Oh, I would have loved you, Roy.

That first Flying Burrito Brothers album is still so good. That whole second side, especially both the Hot Burritos, the songs are just so strong structurally and so well done. Gram's voice, the pedal steel guitar...I don't know the second album as well, but that first one is almost perfect.

edit: For the record, I'm pretty sure that hearing Parsons sing "I'm your toy, I'm your old boy, and I don't want no one but you to love me" at an impressionable age set me back on the healthy relationship track by at least 10 years.

I agree with you about Parson's influence, however I believe that even without him the country twang sound would have found rock n roll sooner or later, Willie's Red Headed Stranger in itself was likely the biggest example of the stark country sound without the strings that prominent of that era or the Hee Haw hokum that was in the business... but I digress.

westofyou
03-20-2013, 01:31 PM
I was a huge Flying Burrito Brothers and Byrds "Sweetheart of the Rodeo" era fan back in the day. Used to put my ponytail up in my hat and stand at the back of country music bars. Hippies got the severe skunk eye back then.

Ya think?


I went as far as I could and when I stopped the car
It was right in front of this little bar
Kind of a red-neck lookin joint called the Dew Drop Inn

I stuffed my hair up under my hat
And told the bartender that I had a flat
And ywould he be kind enough to give me change for a one

There was one thing I was sure proud to see
There wasn't a soul in the place except for him and me
He just looked disgusted and pointed toward the telephone

coachpipe
03-20-2013, 01:31 PM
Cant we just have the genie take some (or all) of the current "artists" away ?

RichRed
03-20-2013, 01:45 PM
I was just listening to Croce and the thing that always gets me is how old he looked for his age. Can you imagine what he would look like today if he was still kicking?

I always thought the same thing. I was shocked when I learned he was only 30 when he died.

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/24112521/Jim+Croce+Jim_Croce_blackandwhite_with_c.jpg

By the way, Sasha Baron Cohen would have to be the choice to play Croce in the biopic.

vaticanplum
03-20-2013, 03:50 PM
I agree with you about Parson's influence, however I believe that even without him the country twang sound would have found rock n roll sooner or later, Willie's Red Headed Stranger in itself was likely the biggest example of the stark country sound without the strings that prominent of that era or the Hee Haw hokum that was in the business... but I digress.

I just think that the Byrds et al. made it so accessible, and it was such a shift from what they were already known for, bringing in people who were following...whatever that had been (groovy music? psychedelia?) Willie Nelson had, and still does have, to a degree, more of a stigma attached to him, deserved or not. I mean, my mom, for example, not being a self-declared country fan, would never listen to Willie Nelson, but she used to play the Byrds for me all the time.

But that's all just my impressions...I wasn't there, I dunno for sure. Certainly Willie is ungodly talented and, in the long run, way more influential than Gram Parsons across the board.

REDREAD
03-20-2013, 04:14 PM
Lennon would've been irrelevant. Yoko ruined him.

I really liked the Beatles, but Lennon's solo career was pretty disappointing.
He had a few nice singles, but it IMO, Paul and George had much better solo work post-Beatles.

Honestly, Lennon was already irrelevant when he died.

YEa, I know this thread is a year old :lol:

Roy Tucker
03-22-2013, 11:25 PM
I just think that the Byrds et al. made it so accessible, and it was such a shift from what they were already known for, bringing in people who were following...whatever that had been (groovy music? psychedelia?) Willie Nelson had, and still does have, to a degree, more of a stigma attached to him, deserved or not. I mean, my mom, for example, not being a self-declared country fan, would never listen to Willie Nelson, but she used to play the Byrds for me all the time.

But that's all just my impressions...I wasn't there, I dunno for sure. Certainly Willie is ungodly talented and, in the long run, way more influential than Gram Parsons across the board.

Like many things in history, it's difficult to discern what's happening when you're living it in real time. I loved the whole sub-genre of Parsons and Byrds and the FBB (and even further into country like Charlie Rich and Merle Haggard), but like what woy said, there was so much more going on.

Dylan was doing his Nashville Skyline/Blonde on Blonde thing, the Beatles with Let It Be and George Harrisons All Things Must Pass, the Dead's country side and the NRPS spinoff and Commander Cody (go listen to Mama Hated Diesels), Waylon and Willie (Red Headed Strangers is the ultimate), Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, the Stones could have quite the twang, the Band defined the current Americana, Emmylou and Linda Ronstadt (who I wanted to run away with me and have my babies, god she was gorgeous), the whole Poco/Eagles/Loggins+Messina/Pure Prarie League (saw them many times in Athens) axis, and on and on. Parsons perhaps was the most pure of the genre, but it was all going to happen anyhow.

I regularly rant about modern "country" music saying "this isn't anything new, its just pop with a twang and NASCAR lyrics" and saying "that ain't real country" and play my old Merle and Johnny and Dolly and Hank and whoever records. Your note a a few back is what I say all the damn time.

(oh, and I would have broken your heart back then... I was a testosterone-ridden early 20's dope and didn't have the faintest idea what I was doing).

Jefferson24
03-23-2013, 02:12 AM
Dennis Wilson, for me. He had more to offer than most realized. Too bad drugs and alcohol took their toll.

westofyou
03-23-2013, 09:53 AM
Dennis Wilson, for me. He had more to offer than most realized. Too bad drugs and alcohol took their toll.

Yep he was just finding his wings

GAC
03-30-2013, 04:56 AM
I always thought the same thing. I was shocked when I learned he was only 30 when he died.

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/24112521/Jim+Croce+Jim_Croce_blackandwhite_with_c.jpg

I always thought he looked like Groucho Marx LOL

GAC
03-30-2013, 05:21 AM
I really liked the Beatles, but Lennon's solo career was pretty disappointing.
He had a few nice singles, but it IMO, Paul and George had much better solo work post-Beatles.

Honestly, Lennon was already irrelevant when he died.

I respect your opinion RR, and while it may be true that Lennon, as far as his solo career went, didn't have the commercial success of McCartney and Harrison, and even Ringo, is that really the best way to measure the success of an artist? Even an ex-Beatle? IMO, Lennon wasn't about writing "pop hits", which was more MCartney's forte. Both of their solo careers showed how much they needed each other to bounce off of and smooth the "rough edges". They both tried to use their wives to be replace that collaboration they had, and it didn't work.

John wanted everyone to love, understand, and accept Yoko. from an artistic perspective, like he did, and it wasn't going to happen. My feeling was always - "You married her, you live with her, fine, but don't expect me to like her crap." She was an irritant.

But I really enjoyed a lot of Lennon's solo music, especially his first solo album "Plastic Ono Band", because I looked at John's music on a much deeper, more complex, level then I did Paul's. If I was in the mood for a pop song (ditty) I listen to Paul. Lennon's music was more personal, soul-bearing (wrenching) to me.

marcshoe
05-09-2013, 01:24 PM
David Foster Wallace? (http://vimeo.com/65576562)

Okay, so technically he wasn't a "singer".

hairmetalfreek
05-11-2013, 07:34 PM
Hendrix, but not because of his singing. His career was still on the rise and was an amazing guitar player. All the others had their best years behind them, in some cases far behind them.

coachpipe
05-28-2013, 03:15 PM
Something was floating around Facebook that I found hilarious.
"If Nicki Minaj and Lil Wayne were drowning and you only had time to save one.....What type of sandwich would you make?"