I saw them four times. The first time was during the Bleach era, and the last was on their last tour. Also saw a famous "surprise" show at a college gym in Bellingham, Washington, after which we met them. That set consisted of rarities that later surfaced on Incesticide that my brother and I knew from copies of their demos, rare-ish compilations, etc. They were incredible live every time, but that surprise set may have been the best of the four.
Zen Arcade rules. I remember the first time I heard it and I thought "Man, these guitars are WAY too high in the mix" and then I finally understood it after a few more spins.
I wasn't being serious. Both bands have great songs. I was poking fun at people who, when one band is named, immediately say how much better some band they like is - as if it has anything to with it. I was meeting them head on.
I'll take your word. I did read a Kim Gordon interview in Bass Player where she couldn't even tell the guy what brand and gauge of strings she used. Three or four pages that should have been used on a real bassist. That's no dig at the band, tho- Adam Clayton's got the easiest gig on Earth, and U2 is one of my favorite 80s bands. Of the whole decade? Obviously, The Police and U2 saved 80s rock from the hair bands, but that's rock. As far as pop goes, I won't hijack the thread beyond this post, but I can list 20 80s pop tunes right now -without giving any thought to it at all- that are better, IMO. She Blinded Me With Science- Thomas Dolby Save A Prayer- Duran Duran A New Song- Howard Jones No One Is To Blame- Howard They Don't Know- Tracey Ullman Someday- Glass Tiger Steppin' Out- Joe Jackson Something About You- Level 42 Designer Music- Lipps, Inc. The Voice- Moody Blues Gypsy- Fleetwood Mac Heartbreak Hotel- MJ Let's Go Crazy- Prince The Beautiful Ones- Prince Love Is A Battefield- Pat Benatar Voices Carry- 'Til Tuesday Heart And Soul- Huey Lewis & the News Too Shy- Kajagoogoo Burning Down The House- Talking Heads The Working Hour- Tears For Fears Personal Jesus- Depeche Mode The Reflex- Duran Duran Nights Are Forever- Jennifer Warnes Alive And Kicking- Simple Minds Come On Eileen- Dexy's Midnight Runners
I actually meant it quite literally. Sonic Youth helped Nirvana out greatly on their road to success. It was Kim Gordon who recommended that Geffen sign them on to a record deal. They also took them with them on tour in '91, when they were still relatively unknown. I like most of the music on your list, but I guess listing your ten favorite singles from a decade is about as subjective an exercise as I can think of. So yes, Billie Jean makes my list.
I've never liked Nirvana, but I don't care if other people do. I don't actively campaign against them the way I do with Rush and Dave Matthews. I liked Soundgarden. I can't tell you why I liked them and not Nirvana, though.
Wow! Well, that's a feather in their cap AFAIC, whether I ever hear a tune by them or not. It is subjective indeed. I haven't heard the song in a long time, and I always found Thriller overhyped, especially compared to Off The Wall. But I try to respect other opinions. In a attempt to justify this post topicwise, I'll add that Cobain singlehandedly did for the Fender Jaguar what Michael Hedges did for alternate tunings.
I always go back to an interview he (Cobain) did in Rolling Stone, where he was lamenting on what he thought was the played out formula of the band's sound-the clean/distortion dynamic that in many ways was their trademark. I remember how much he liked REM's, Automatic For The People at that time. Which is the crux to my feelings about Nirvana: Their work at the time was really good and exciting-I was pushing 30 at the time, and I still found them exciting and worth getting into fully. But I also had/have a mistrust for bands who lack an understanding and feel for the blues. Cobain showed signs of this in the Unplugged gig, but the rest of the band... very limited on that score IMO. I thought even if he had lived, Nirvana was one of those blinding comets that come and go. I tell you when I think of Cobain the most, is when I hear White Stripes-I see a lot of what could have been in Jack White; all of the cool choices that he'll have I think Cobain could have had as well. He also had a bit of Gram Parsons in him too-a Pacific Northwest version. When I hear Gillian Welch's cover of Hickory Wind, I sometimes think that's how Cobain would have arranged that tune.
I like a lot of Nirvana's stuff. It's just that for those who lived through the 80s and heard bands who IMHO could blow the doors off of Nirvana, it was a bit hard to hear all the fawning and over-the-top praise they received. Not all of it was warranted (but not their fault of course).
I don't feel the same way. Blues can be--almost always is--a very limited genre with very set expectations re: song themes, chord progressions, solo styles, and vocal inflections. It's also used as a shortcut to "authenticity," whatever that means. Contemporary blues musicians sometimes partake in an offensive kind of minstrelsy, too. In the past 30 or 40 years, hip hop, R&B, soul, and funk have supplanted blues as the soundtrack of African American longing, despair, anger, and humor. At some point, it became the favored genre of white art school students and wealthy trust fund kids. There's nothing wrong with some of this. The Stones went to art school, after all, and plundered blues music to good ends. But I really don't think that I-IV-V chord progressions and moaning vocals give an artist a leg up over his or her peers. Wire, The Fall, Tad, Fugazi, and The Pixies all made no effort to understand blues, and their music excites me completely. On a different subject, I'd pick those first three Wire records over anything by the White Stripes every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
VERY well put. Repped after this post, if I can. All of it's well put, but I'll address the bolded part in my paras below. They plundered it all right, and the only good end was that some unknown (compared to the Stones) guys got a bit of credit for what they'd been doing all their lives It took me a while to realize that one of the things I don't like about the Stones (aside from the fact that they sound to me like nothing more than a glorified bar band. I do like Wild Horses, Angie, Paint It Black and Ruby Tuesday, tho) and some other British musicians is that they affect an accent that they'd never use when they're discussing the next record deal with their attorneys. Mick, you are not a Black man from Gary, Indiana sitting behind the wheel of a 1973 Electra 225, and you don't want to be, so why pretend on stage and in the studio? Much as I love the Police, I've felt the same way about Sting's vocals over most of their fake reggae period. Same for Elton John and what sounds to me like a faux American country accent. Credit to Bowie, Floyd, the later Beatles and all the other British groups who sing the way they talk.
I had a long-ish reply written, but bigsoccer's server problems prevented me from posting it. In short, I agree, although I like the Stones in spite of their occasional dip into minstrel show/fake hillbillyisms.
That just misses the point in spades. It's not about aping the blues or trying to somehow "pass" on some level. Simply put, if don't have an understanding of the blues, you really don't have an understanding of American popular music. It may be only a viceral level only, but it's there in all of the best forms of American popular music. And lacking it will almost always box you in as an artist. This is just plain dumb-sorry. All of the genres listed have a deep connection to the blues-no hip hop artist worth his salt is divorced from this. Can he articulate the lineage of his rhymes and beats in an intellectual outline ala Alan Lomax or a writer like Robert Palmer? Maybe, maybe not. But it's there, and because it's there, it usually provides a pivot point to move into other areas of musical growth. It's true of the best rock, C&W, funk, hip hop-you name it. And being a Pixies fan myself, your view is well, absurd, when a simple Frank Black Google search will underscore what IMO is obvious: http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/11129244/frank_black_on_the_road_again/print So, I aint bending on this one-if you have an understanding and feeling for the blues, you stand a far greater chance as an artist of developing out of the garage band or basement DJ. Now this doesn't mean that a band couldn't create something unique and exciting that sits on the avant-garde; that tries to create something outside of the blues influence. But the very fact that it is on the avant-garde means that its shelf life is limted; it's of the moment-a one off. Not my cup of tea. YMMV
An understanding of blues is essential when trying to understand American popular music, and I have a hard time imagining a contemporary artist who hasn't, at some point, been exposed to it or even appreciated it. However, that does not mean that the artist needs to have a "feel" for the idiom or that the music necessarily has evidence of any appreciation. Any and every older hip hop artist has complained about how the young guns don't even have a historical understanding of hip hop. Is there a connection? Certainly, just as there's a connection between the first Wire LP and Skip James or Robert Johnson. However, there have been so many degrees of removal by this point that the connections only exist on detailed flowcharts and not in any meaningful capacity in the music itself. Black has explored blues and other traditional forms lately during his solo work, but the vast majority of the Pixies catalog doesn't incorporate blues in any meaningful way. Sure, you could say that they borrowed from the Gun Club, who borrowed from the Cramps, who borrowed from Carl Perkins, who borrowed from Muddy Waters, but by this point, we're talking homeopathy. The ingredient has been distilled to the point that no molecules remain. What about the Beatles tunes that bypass blues and go straight to music hall tradition, like "Michelle" or "Penny Lane"? Because of the Beatles, the Kinks, Phil Spector, the Velvet Underground, etc., several other traditions entered the rock and rock idiom that have just as great a claim to influence as blues. If I had time this afternoon, I could name 100 songs or artists who write perfectly non-avant garde music that has no connection to blues greater than the homeopathic connection mentioned above.
Fair enough, but must all popular music be based in American origin? I'm listening to "The Electric Co" from one of the Red Rocks (Blood Red Sky) shows as I type this post. There's nothing "bluesy" about early-mid U2, and no increased understanding or incorporation of the blues would have made that band any better than it was. It was perfect with the Irish influences it had. Do you mistrust them? All artists are boxed in by the talents of other artists who do better whatever it is they're trying to do to escape the box. When they branch out, the chance that they'll be Jacks of all trades and masters of none is waaaay better than the chance that they'll succeed (artistically, not financially- if the Beatles had put out an album of polkas, it would have sold well. But it wouldn't have had the quality of a born-and-reared polka band) at being as good at their new style as another band whose members were reared in that style. I don't have a problem with bands that find out real quick what they're good at and work at getting better and better it that. When I want to hear something different, I'll listen to another band. Why is a one off -in and of itself- such a bad thng to you, the listener? If I like what I'm hearing, its shelf life is as long as my life. I hope I'm wrong about this, but it reads like you're saying that once a piece of music ceases to be popular (limited shelf life), it loses its apeal to you personally. Why should you be concerned at all with the shelf life a composition that YOU like? It'll be the same composition ten, twenty years down the road, whether it's still popular or not. Terms like "avant-garde" and "of the moment" imply that the whims of the masses play a large role in how YOU perceive a piece of music. Why? You buy an "Avant-garde" CD, the avant garde nature of the music becomes insignificant, because you now own that CD. You can listen to it as long as you like and it won't change. The only thing that changes is other people's perception of it- and that should not concern you at all.
Early Pink Floyd is very avant-garde and has stood the test of time in my mind anyway. As far as Nirvana and blues - they were obviously much more influenced by punk than the blues, but that doesn't make them less important or influential. If you compare them to another grunge band such as Alice in Chains, who had a definate blues influence (the song Don't Follow particularly comes to mind), it's hard to say that Alice in Chains had better music or had more impact than Nirvana. I think the idea that an American band must derive influence from the blues is over-simplistic. The blues is such an important part of American music, which is why most do, but it isn't essential.
But that's not really my issue here. The Beatles stuff that we can point to came after years of cutting their teeth on R&B, blues, early rock, and pop standards. Which is exactly my point-the people listed here spent time in the woodshed learning their craft's fundamentals. An even more extreme example is Frank Zappa who spent his early teens hoarding old 45's and was a big fan of the blues and doo_******. (doowop-silly Big Soccer sensor ) Lou Reed as well-he was in a doowop band called The Shades back in 1957. And actually U2 is a perfect case in point of a band that understood the dilemma that I think Cobain was speaking of in that interview. They saw that their musical style was headed into a dead end after the Joshua Tree. What did they do? They stripped it down for Rattle & Hum, dipping back to the source. Not their best work, but if your a musician, you can understand this completely. A bigger example of this is the effect Music From The Big Pink by The Band in 1968 had-which really got bands thinking about their directions, especially when you contrast it with Sgt. Peppers which came out just a year earlier. Bringing this back to the topic of the thread, is my point re: Nirvana: I get the sense from the interviews near the end of Cobain's life that he saw his band at a dead end musically. And I think his fondness for Automatic For The People was similar to Clapton's reaction to Big Pink-he knew Cream was irrelevant the moment he heard it and it was time to move on-or more to the point, go back. And that's my issue with Nirvana and the blues-I don't think as a band, they were equipped to strip it down and rebuild it. To do that I think you need an understanding and appreciation of blues-or at least blues as the root of rock music. Cobain showed signs of this sensibility, but I never got that from the band. While Foo Fighters are a nice band, I think they validate what I think was gnawing at Cobain in that interview. Which goes to my point about being a bit suspect about bands that don't have at least some grounding in the blues. Because so much of American pop is grounded in blues, not having that sensibility IMO, leaves you vulnerable as an artist to finding yourself in a creative cul-de-sac. It's a bit like being a splatter style painter like Pollack without the grounding and skill to draw and paint in traditional styles-where do you go from there? I think as a painter or a musician you run a real risk of repeating yourself.
Yup. It's stood the test of time with a lot of people. I admit to preferring by a long shot the Gilmour/Waters era, but to each his own. Exactly. To add to this, I've never understood why anyone would go out of their way to place national limits and regulations on rock anyhow. Why must American rock reflect anything but the desires of the composer any more than music from any other country? That doesn't make sense. It makes no differece to me where the composer or band is from. But there must be some merit to what Ray's saying, because most of my favorite rock bands are not American. Maybe that's because some (many? Most?) of the American bands haven't stepped outside the bluesy "Rock n' Roll" (as opposed to "Rock") compositional mentality. And of the British bands like Zeppelin, the Stones, Floyd, that era, my favorite tunes are not the ones that reflect a heavy blues influence. When I want to hear the blues, I'll go listen to the blues. Othewise, my tastes run toward something different. Think The Rain Song, Don't Leave Me Now (The Wall), Echoes, Peter Gabriel's San Jacinto, Within You Without You (Sgt. Pepper's), Tomorrow Never Knows (Revolver, I think), Party Girl (U2), stuff like that. And even among the American bands that I don't like all that much (Aerosmith, I'm looking at you), there are tunes that I do like (Dream On), because they show me something outside the almost-but-not-quite blues box.
I always thought that Meddle was the pinnicle. It's post Barrett but pre-pretentious Floyd. The Piper at the Gates of Dawn was the only pre-Gilmour release. Do find this album best?