Reference for this rant: http://www.themusicologists.com/featured-articles/the-power-trio#comments
The last paragraph tells us not only that Nirvana was over-rated, but that they were only successful due to Cobain's suicide. Balderdash!
His "argument", if one can call it that, is the same trite bullshit i always hear when people blast Tarantino movies, too: they're "Not doing anything new."
Not. Doing. Anything. New. thats why nirvana isn't good. that's why so many people believe only Fanboys and Hollywood loving critics like Tarantino. i'm sure there's more. someone will probably talk about how only stupid people like The Dark Knight because of its hype and Heath Ledger dying, or sunny days suck because EVERYONE is out and, in reality, its just gonna give you skin cancer or some shit...
what is it about being new that people, mostly critics like this guy, love so much? look who he lists, and in what order: Boris--my favorite band. so, WORD!!! but at number 15? groan...Motorhead--ANOTHER favorite band. 12? are you stoned?!?! not 80s/indie/grunge enough for you? The Police...wtf? the fucking POLICE?!?!?! he's calling Nirvana a crappy underserving of their praise because "they wrote catchy, three-minute pop songs", but he's praising The Police? Because Do-Do-Do, Da-Da-Da was such a mind blowing tune, and Every Little Thing is SO impressive! I mean, no WHITE group had ever done reggae quite like that! and the writing by Sting...well, take these lyrics into consideration: "...so bad it makes him cough, just like the old man in that book by Nabokov!" HOLY SHIT!!! HOW DID HE EVER FIND AN ENGLISH WORD TO RHYME WITH NABOKOV!!!!! or a Russian one to rhyme with cough...wow, what a genius.
i guess my real problem here isn't so much that he dismissed Nirvana, but rather the insults he threw at the band, and essentially their fans (me,for instance). "which, by the way, is what created this whole mystique and legacy anyway. Suicide=album sales". So even though they were a best-selling, world touring, award winning, critically praised MTV band that helped usher in a few years of a style of music that was new to MOST of America in between the coasts, the ONLY thing the band has going for it was Kurt Cobain's fucking SUICIDE?!
that brings me back to my original question: Why does "New" or "Original" equal "Good"? shouldn't the quality of work be based more on just that; its QUALITY rather than how new or unique it is? i've seen alot of unique shit, and its not all fantastic, some of its dull. some shit that is inspired or based on or almost a complete rip-off of other works is amazing!!! sometimes, it takes a few tries to get it right, and someone can see a new and better way of doing things using the same methods. Led Zeppelin was just doing English Whie-Blues, but did it better than anyone else! The Beatles were just playing rock and roll, singing about girls, and standing on stage playing, but they did it better than anyone else!!! Leonardo Da Vinci was just painting pictures and depicting God and Jesus' majetsy, but he still did it better than anyone else. With all of these men and their work, its been about not just what they did but HOW and WHY they did it!
thats why it pisses me off when people talk shit about Tarantino, but only because they can compare him to American cinema of the 70s (who he ripped off, apparently), or Jean-Luc Godard and the French New Wave (again, whom he ripped off), or Blaxploitatioin (more ripping off), or, if you're feeling REALLY randy, MARTIN SCORCESE!!!!!!!!!! but whenever i watch QT films, i see only elements of all these (i haven't watched enough Kung Fu movies to see how similar those are to his films), and what i do see is done damn well, no matter who he gets his ideas from! his presentation is better excecuted than most! he may not have been doing anything "new" but he did something in the early 90s in film that few others could--shake everyone up, and get us to pay closer attention, at least for a few years. Nirvana did the same thing. they didn't do it cookie-cutter, and they didin't rip anyone off, and they CERTAINLY didn't just try to blend in to make money. Kurt may have been a fuck up, but he had balls. and so did his producers, agents, and David Geffen.
Douche-dick ends his blog not by asking people to join in a discussion, or to simply say "thats just hows i sees it" or by saying "thats my opinoin, and this is my blog, so thats how it is" or something equally personal. no, he instead decides to pass out a final insult. no point in being civil i suppose--if you don't agree with him, its not enough that you don't read his shit, but you' might as well completely fuck off and die. "Take your Nirvana-loving ass away from my blog, bitches."
Gladly, cunt-smear.
The last paragraph tells us not only that Nirvana was over-rated, but that they were only successful due to Cobain's suicide. Balderdash!
His "argument", if one can call it that, is the same trite bullshit i always hear when people blast Tarantino movies, too: they're "Not doing anything new."
Not. Doing. Anything. New. thats why nirvana isn't good. that's why so many people believe only Fanboys and Hollywood loving critics like Tarantino. i'm sure there's more. someone will probably talk about how only stupid people like The Dark Knight because of its hype and Heath Ledger dying, or sunny days suck because EVERYONE is out and, in reality, its just gonna give you skin cancer or some shit...
what is it about being new that people, mostly critics like this guy, love so much? look who he lists, and in what order: Boris--my favorite band. so, WORD!!! but at number 15? groan...Motorhead--ANOTHER favorite band. 12? are you stoned?!?! not 80s/indie/grunge enough for you? The Police...wtf? the fucking POLICE?!?!?! he's calling Nirvana a crappy underserving of their praise because "they wrote catchy, three-minute pop songs", but he's praising The Police? Because Do-Do-Do, Da-Da-Da was such a mind blowing tune, and Every Little Thing is SO impressive! I mean, no WHITE group had ever done reggae quite like that! and the writing by Sting...well, take these lyrics into consideration: "...so bad it makes him cough, just like the old man in that book by Nabokov!" HOLY SHIT!!! HOW DID HE EVER FIND AN ENGLISH WORD TO RHYME WITH NABOKOV!!!!! or a Russian one to rhyme with cough...wow, what a genius.
i guess my real problem here isn't so much that he dismissed Nirvana, but rather the insults he threw at the band, and essentially their fans (me,for instance). "which, by the way, is what created this whole mystique and legacy anyway. Suicide=album sales". So even though they were a best-selling, world touring, award winning, critically praised MTV band that helped usher in a few years of a style of music that was new to MOST of America in between the coasts, the ONLY thing the band has going for it was Kurt Cobain's fucking SUICIDE?!
that brings me back to my original question: Why does "New" or "Original" equal "Good"? shouldn't the quality of work be based more on just that; its QUALITY rather than how new or unique it is? i've seen alot of unique shit, and its not all fantastic, some of its dull. some shit that is inspired or based on or almost a complete rip-off of other works is amazing!!! sometimes, it takes a few tries to get it right, and someone can see a new and better way of doing things using the same methods. Led Zeppelin was just doing English Whie-Blues, but did it better than anyone else! The Beatles were just playing rock and roll, singing about girls, and standing on stage playing, but they did it better than anyone else!!! Leonardo Da Vinci was just painting pictures and depicting God and Jesus' majetsy, but he still did it better than anyone else. With all of these men and their work, its been about not just what they did but HOW and WHY they did it!
thats why it pisses me off when people talk shit about Tarantino, but only because they can compare him to American cinema of the 70s (who he ripped off, apparently), or Jean-Luc Godard and the French New Wave (again, whom he ripped off), or Blaxploitatioin (more ripping off), or, if you're feeling REALLY randy, MARTIN SCORCESE!!!!!!!!!! but whenever i watch QT films, i see only elements of all these (i haven't watched enough Kung Fu movies to see how similar those are to his films), and what i do see is done damn well, no matter who he gets his ideas from! his presentation is better excecuted than most! he may not have been doing anything "new" but he did something in the early 90s in film that few others could--shake everyone up, and get us to pay closer attention, at least for a few years. Nirvana did the same thing. they didn't do it cookie-cutter, and they didin't rip anyone off, and they CERTAINLY didn't just try to blend in to make money. Kurt may have been a fuck up, but he had balls. and so did his producers, agents, and David Geffen.
Douche-dick ends his blog not by asking people to join in a discussion, or to simply say "thats just hows i sees it" or by saying "thats my opinoin, and this is my blog, so thats how it is" or something equally personal. no, he instead decides to pass out a final insult. no point in being civil i suppose--if you don't agree with him, its not enough that you don't read his shit, but you' might as well completely fuck off and die. "Take your Nirvana-loving ass away from my blog, bitches."
Gladly, cunt-smear.