A genie gives you the chance to resurrect a singer that died to soon

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

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]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

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*]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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...

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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]

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]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

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]

The Final Cut is my second- or third-favorite Pink Floyd album. To my amazement, I absolutely love it.

[Captain13]

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]

It would have been nice to have Marvin Gaye longer than we did

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

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]

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]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

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*]

Originally Posted by camisadelgolf

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]

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? 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.