If that is all you have done, why have your posts contained so much about Cobain being a fake and a phony, his attitudes towards fans, what he may or may not have gotten up to with groupies, and a recommendation for people to do some research? If all you go by is what the music sounds like, why is Cobain's image and behaviour of so much interest to you, and why would anyone need to do any more research than to listen to the songs?

I can understand if someone says they dont like Nirvana's music but to claim they werent very good is just laughable. They may not have been the most technical band but their music captured emotion and the world lapped it up. Compare them to todays one chord indie bands, of which a new one pops up every minute of every day and they are lightyears ahead.

Regards

King james

Maybe i have formed my own opinion on him due to the facts that are out there unlike the sheep that believe he is godlike, that is all, thanks

Fair enough

"Credability"!


My last post as I'm bored with your drivel, is to quote the words of one of my heroes, living legend Michael Stipe, who read the induction speechGood evening. I’m Michael Stipe and I’m here to induct Nirvana into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

When an artists offers an idea, a perspective, it helps us all to see who we are. And it wakes up, and it pushes us forward towards our collective and individual potential. It makes us — each of us — able to see who we are more clearly. It’s progression and progressive movement. It’s the future staring us down in the present and saying, "C'mon, let’s get on with it. Here we are. Now."

I embrace the use of the word "artist" rather than "musician" because the band Nirvana were artists in every sense of the word. It is the highest calling for an artist, as well as the greatest possible privilege to capture a moment, to find the zeitgeist, to expose our struggles, our aspirations, our desires. To embrace and define a period of time. That is my definition of an artist.

Nirvana captured lightning in a bottle. And now, per the dictionary — off the Internet — in defining "lightning in a bottle" as, "Capturing something powerful and elusive, and then being able to hold it and show it to the world."'"

Wrong again Bamber Gascoigne

People should form their own opinion, I'm not suggesting otherwise. I simply asked why the image of Cobain was the focus of your criticism if all you go by is the music as you claimed?

You've actually commented very little on the music, focussing largely on Cobain's persona and popularity. You've labelled him a douchebag, a poster boy, a fraud, a fake, and a phony, and criticised him for craving superstardom, praise and adoration (and blowjobs). The only comments about the music were that he was a mediocre musician and very poor guitarist, and that the music was aimed at young teenagers (and I'm not sure how the latter issue is inherently a bad thing, tbh).

So my question was simply; if you only go by what music sounds like to you, why does the rest bother you so much to provoke such venom, and why do you think people should be made aware of such background information to be able to judge his/their music? Couldn't you just not like Nirvana, and other people listen to Nirvana and decide whether or not they do? From what you've written I think it's fairly clear that you [idon't[/i only go by what the music sounds like.

Rory Gallagher, without a shadow of doubt.

Fantastic musician with a fine body of work

Great guitarist. On a similar note, I'd add Stevie Ray Vaughan.

Indead, i will also add the late great Jeff Healey to the mix, as Patrick Swayze once said in the movie Roadhouse "you play pretty good for a blind white boy", he wasn't wrong there

Corny film, great soundtrack. Confidence Man is probably my favourite of his, though.

I was at that gig. I found the ticket stub in my loft last weekend and got well nostalgic. It was an amazing night.