Nirvana had far less influence on music than Ozzy osbourne's guitarist. No, really.

I recall seeing Jeff Beck on TV telling the same tale a few years back, and he said (in a very admiring tone) "he just blew Clapton off his own stage, man !"

i never said Hendrix wasn't any good, as for Cobain he was nothing more than the poster boy for the made up genre that the masses know as grunge, there was other musicians far more important to that movement than Cobain, and btw i remember when he was alive, he was more famous after he died, Nirvana was nothing more than the Duran Duran of the Seattle scene, Soundgarden, Screaming Trees, Green River, Skin Yard, The Melvins, Tad Doyle and others where the true innovators of the Seattle scene

You damned Hendrix with faint praise. The last thing Cobain wanted was posterboydom. Him ending up dead is probably down to his inability to be that or cope with it. Oh, and poster boys don't tend to write albums like Nevermind, on the whole. It was genius, and still is because it has stood the test of time. Teen Spirit still sounds awesome in 2015 to my ears and it has nothing to do with whether or not Kurt Cobain is fulfilling his wellness potential. Hendrix tracks like Hey Joe or Purple Haze would still be genius in 2015 even if Hendrix was still alive and selling washing machines.

Rattling off obscure names from the Sub Pop label and claiming Nirvana were "Duran Duran" is very much not an argument. I saw Mudhoney on the Sub Pop tour when they played in London at, I think, The Astoria. Tad were supporting and guest opening act were Nirvana. I was a big fan if Mudhoney but Nirvana blew them away. The only interesting thing about Tad's show was Tad stage diving. Tad were boring and monotone.
Nirvana were simply a much better band than any of them - with the possible exception of Soundgarden. Better musicians, better songwriters and Cobain had whatever "it" is that makes a star.
Nevermind was out nearly 12 months before it broke big, if they were "poster boys" then they were poster boys in the way the Beatles were for Mersey Beat.
And Cobain had balls, to release In Utero after Nevermind which Covain thought was far too clean, was amazing. In Utero is a masterpiece.

Sometimes people get jealous when fans outside their world buy into bands from "their" genre and sometimes this same fans resent the success of bands because if this.

I'd just like to add that I've never heard of any of these popular beat combos, but I'm still way, way cooler than anyone else, its just the law.

It isn't.

I know way more about Afrobeat than you.

Therefore, I am the coolest.

Hendrix is one of the few that I think would have gone on to achieve greater things had he lived. He wasn't the best guitarist, in fact, he was very sloppy and was aided by the fact he had hands like tarantulas to move around the neck. But, like Cobain he took popular rock music to a place he hadn't been before and laid the foundations that hard rock and metal would be built on. Now, if you're not a fan of them then that's fine, but to argue their importance is lunacy IMO.

Don't underestimate the value of the production quality of 'Nevermind' towards its success.

There are any number of any great songs/albums out there that are hard to truly enjoy due to poor production - and it's not unreasonable to say Nirvana could have gone that way if they had ended up with a similar sound to, say, Misfits. Butch Vig did a great job (he even tricked Cobain into recording vocal overlays), as did the final mixer (who incidentally mixed Slayer's 'Seasons in the Abyss', their best sounding album by far imo).

Their songs were very simple but catchy, and they were great live. But more than that they were in the right place at the right time. Is Cobain worthy of his legendary status? Not in my opinion, as much as I love their music.

It is irrelevant that there are better lesser known artists.
Hendrix and Cobain did the business and played to a wide audience when it mattered and when they were relevant.
To say Hendix was not the most technically gifted guitarist is purile.
Who gives a e, he was brilliantly different.
I loved him. Loved his voice too.

The Cobain sound was terrific.

Why criticise movers and shakers like these.
Thank goodness they were there to enrich our lives.

It is irrelevant that there are better lesser known artists.
Hendrix and Cobain did the business and played to a wide audience when it mattered and when they were relevant.
To say Hendix was not the most technically gifted guitarist is puerile.
Who gives a e, he was brilliantly different.
I loved him. Loved his voice too.

The Cobain sound was terrific.

Why criticise movers and shakers like these.
Thank goodness they were there to enrich our lives.

Cobain was a fraud, he craved superstardom and wanted to be praised and adored, he just didn't want the fans to know this, he would tell groupies he was a huge rock star and would order them to give him blowjobs, he was ecstatic with the outcome of Nevermind, he loved the fact that it was so polished and well produced so much that he jumped for joy in the studio hugging Vig and the other engineers while all along he treated the album with disdain saying it was similar to a Motley Crue album, don't believe the hype made by all the hero worshippers and do some research

I think you're very wrong, personally. His legendary status is down to his approach to the guitar, his creativity and innovation. Nobody played guitar in the same way before he did, millions tried to afterwards.



How do you define best? In precision of technique, he probably wasn't, but a lot of technically precise guitarists produce sterile, sweep-picking up and down exotic scales and forget about actual music and melody. But as above, his creativity and innovation elevated him above his peers and guitarists since. IMO he is/was the best I've heard, but it's an unquantifiable opinion. Jimmy Page is another who often got scruffy with his playing, but he's another who was definitely one of the 'best'.

Furthermore on the technique point, Clapton was mentioned earlier and is a good example. He is now a much finer player technically, as he has improved and expanded throughout his career. However I think a hefty proportion of people will tend to say that his highpoint as a guitarist was the Beano album and Cream years. The passion and aggression in that period was much more appealing than the tasteful phrasing of later years.

N.B. I'm talking strictly rock/popular music here. It's impossible to really compare across vastly differing genres. I've heard people try and debate how rock guitarists compare to players like Segovia and Reinhardt. What's the point?

All that may be true, but all that matters to me is what comes out of the speakers .... and I like what I hear.

I agree with you and that was my point. Joe Satriani, and Randy Rhodes ARE (were) better guitarists but they had no where near the cultural impact of Hendrix or Jimmy Page, and of course I would much rather listen to Hendrix, but if I was teaching a young guitarist I'd more likely tell them to listen and watch Satriani, but that's far from a criticism.