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

[marcshoe]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

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]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

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]

Originally Posted by Degenerate39

Courtney Love

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

[GAC]

Originally Posted by redsfanmia

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]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

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*]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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.

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

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]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

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]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

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*]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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*]

Originally Posted by Captain13

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*]

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"

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.

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

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]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

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]

Originally Posted by *BaseClogger*

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*]

Originally Posted by westofyou

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?