Gavin Rossdale - Kurt Cobain

CoNtrivedNiHilism · 10-10-2014, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mondo Bungle

If I may weigh in, most people don't realize that two large pieces of coral painted brown and attached to his skull with common wood screws can make a child look like a deer.

hahahaha, wtf?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 10-10-2014, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoNtrivedNiHilism

DISCLAIMER: I saw the Bush thread made back in 2009, but this isn't a Bush topic only so figured I'd just open its own thread.

So, essentially I don't want this to be so much a Gavin vs Kurt debate/and or discussion, so much as I just want this to be something to more or less talk about two very charismatic frontmen from an era in music that has a lot of nostalgia, or maybe a time in music that some of us here miss, as there were some great music or bands in general from that time of grunge music. But it likely will become just that, Gavin vs Kurt...

My opinion has always been that Gavin was the better frontman; better songwriter, had better control of his voice and better range, wasn't as sloppy of a guitar player, always seemed to have a more appealing stage presence in comparison to Kurt. Kurt was a damaged guy, had issues. To a lot of people that makes for a more interesting frontman. Under all that was just a mediocre guitar player, songwriter, singer, so on and so forth. I like Kurt, always have. But I've just never understood why people think he is so great. I've struggled with this since the first time I heard both bands and began forming my opinions on the two. But I always went back to who as a frontman I thought was better, Gavin or Kurt. And I always say it is Gavin.

As a last thought. Bush wasn't this Nirvana rip off band that so many people thought they were. Nirvana wasn't the first grunge band, they were just the first to make it big and get critical acclaim. So it is easy for anyone to claim that any band that made it big after them that played the some genre of music, was a copycat band. That's ridiculous everyone. Bush had influence from Nirvana, there a songs where this is crystal clear. But I've heard every Bush album ever released. And I can say that Bush did have a sound that was more or less theirs. Gavin didn't copy Kurts vocals. That's something I hear or read a lot. Gavin had a distinct voice all his own, just like Kurt did.

Discuss.

People like you are the reason why bands like Nickeback sell millions of albums.

CoNtrivedNiHilism · 10-10-2014, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

People like you are the reason why bands like Nickeback sell millions of albums.

But I hate Nickelback. So what now?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 10-10-2014, 01:13 AM

I never said you liked them.

CoNtrivedNiHilism · 10-10-2014, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

I never said you liked them.

But you implied that I allow bands like Nickelback to sell millions based on what I've said in my OP to this thread, which is a pretty stupid statement, if I may be so bold as to say.

You can dislike Bush or my opinion of them all you like, that's cool man. But don't assume I'm the kind of person that allows ****ty bands to sell millions, just because I like a band like Bush and you may or may not think they're garbage.

Get what I'm getting at?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 10-10-2014, 01:41 AM

No, what I was implying is that you don't know the difference between a band who can create a trend and who are doing so for no other reason than because it's members just want to express themselves and play the music they want and not care about being 'the best this' or 'the best that' and a band who are created solely for the purpose of exploiting the popularity of something just to make money playing what a record company tell them to.

But that's not so say you have to dislike one over the other for it. If you want to like Bush over Nirvana that's your choice and your right and I won't criticise you for it. But it is ok you're allowed to say bands you like are shit yet you still love them anyway.
Bush hopped on a bandwagon and made their millions, nothing more.

They're a corporate entity created to be the safe more acceptable face of Grunge, smoothing off all those rough edges that made the genre appealing in the first place. They were the band you went to if, heaven help you The Smashing Pumpkins were too edgy for you.

As for your claims about songwriting, guitar playing and all the rest of it. Well it's not a competition if you're listening to Nirvana and complaining about the guitar playing you've kind of missed the point of what Nirvana were about. And if you've missed the point of what they were about how can you really judge about their worth. It would be me criticising a folk band and saying they suck because they don't have flashy guitar solos in their songs. You don't have to play an instrument well unless you're in a band who are all about playing technical proficiency. Nirvana are are not one of those bands they just have to be competent with their instruments, it's not a competition about who is the best it's about expressing yourself with it. The sooner people like you realise that the sooner we might just get less ****ty music in the world.

But like I said, if you like them, great. But at least see them for what they are and don't try to pass them off as having some sort of artistic integrity just because YOU like them. I like plenty of throwaway pop, I'm not going to claim it's anything special just because I happen to like it though.

There's a reason why Bush sold millions of albums over an extremely small time period and are now totally forgotten about, have you figured out why yet?

CoNtrivedNiHilism · 10-10-2014, 02:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

No, what I was implying is that you don't know the difference between a band who can create a trend and who are doing so for no other reason than because it's members just want to express themselves and play the music they want and not care about being 'the best this' or 'the best that' and a band who are created solely for the purpose of exploiting the popularity of something just to make money playing what a record company tell them to.

They're a corporate entity created to be the safe more acceptable face of Grunge, smoothing off all those rough edges that made the genre appealing in the first place. They were the band you went to if, heaven help you The Smashing Pumpkins were too edgy for you.

There's a reason why Bush sold millions of albums over an extremely small time period and are now totally forgotten about, have you figured out why yet?

The only things I care to address.

So you are basically telling me that I don't know the difference between a band following a trend for the cash and exploit, and a band that is all about the music they make and could care less about the fame, recognition, money? That is bold, a little presumptuous. I don't even think I want to take the time to explain why you're wrong about me, or about Bush. The reason being is that you seem to be one of those people that regard your opinion as irrefutable fact. This opinion you have is also a popular opinion among many. It's an opinion I have always found hilarious, and wrong. But that's just my OPINION on that.

It's just too funny that you make all these claims about Bush and what they're about. You're blue in the face with how certain you are that they were made to be this more accessible 'face' of Grunge music, not so edgy as you put it or edgy at all, that Bush and the music the band made back when Grunge was so popular had no point to it other than to be exactly what you claim it was. It's as if you're saying the four men that made up the band were merely controlled by a label and told what to play if they want to make millions, and so they did. You sound ridiculous Urban, or rather the opinion you have does. You've said all you said about Bush. If you want to think they're facts. So be it. You think what you want.

As for your claim that the band has been forgotten about. You must not pay attention to them at all. Their last album, The Sea Of Memories, it was commercially successful, maybe not to the extent of a platinum record, but it was successful. And their recent tours by the way were also successful. Plenty of sold out shows, some arena shows played and filled pretty decently, not small crowds but not massive like a Metallica arena show, but big enough nonetheless. Bush is not forgotten about, you oaf. Launching several successful tours in 2011, up till now would not be possible if they were forgotten about. And don't give me that crap of comparing how successful Bush was in the 90's compared to now. Never a valid example.

Try again man.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 10-10-2014, 02:34 AM

You need proof?
Hell just listen to them.

Shame you can't raise this beyond the level of 'you slagged off my favourite band, whaaaaaaaaaaaaa'

Mondo Bungle · 10-10-2014, 02:38 AM

Hey now, why can't we just keep everything zen?

CoNtrivedNiHilism · 10-10-2014, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

You need proof?
Hell just listen to them.

Shame you can't raise this beyond the level of 'you slagged off my favourite band, whaaaaaaaaaaaaa'

Didn't I say I own every album and have listened to each one more times than I can count? Because I do, and have done so. I wouldn't disagree with what you said about Bush if I never heard more than a few songs. What I have always heard is a band that does what they love, that makes music they love and enjoy. You chalk them up to being something fabricated over how they sound and what their image is.

Yes. They're a favorite of mine, among the grunge genre anyway. But this isn't about you 'slagging' Bush. It's about how your opinion came off to me...the fact that I disagree with your opinion is a given.

And let's not turn this in to some kind of flame war or hate thing either. I'm doing my best to keep this being nothing more than a discussion between two people with apposing opinions.

10-10-2014, 01:13 AM	#14 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I never said you liked them. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

10-10-2014, 01:41 AM	#16 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	No, what I was implying is that you don't know the difference between a band who can create a trend and who are doing so for no other reason than because it's members just want to express themselves and play the music they want and not care about being 'the best this' or 'the best that' and a band who are created solely for the purpose of exploiting the popularity of something just to make money playing what a record company tell them to. But that's not so say you have to dislike one over the other for it. If you want to like Bush over Nirvana that's your choice and your right and I won't criticise you for it. But it is ok you're allowed to say bands you like are shit yet you still love them anyway. Bush hopped on a bandwagon and made their millions, nothing more. They're a corporate entity created to be the safe more acceptable face of Grunge, smoothing off all those rough edges that made the genre appealing in the first place. They were the band you went to if, heaven help you The Smashing Pumpkins were too edgy for you. As for your claims about songwriting, guitar playing and all the rest of it. Well it's not a competition if you're listening to Nirvana and complaining about the guitar playing you've kind of missed the point of what Nirvana were about. And if you've missed the point of what they were about how can you really judge about their worth. It would be me criticising a folk band and saying they suck because they don't have flashy guitar solos in their songs. You don't have to play an instrument well unless you're in a band who are all about playing technical proficiency. Nirvana are are not one of those bands they just have to be competent with their instruments, it's not a competition about who is the best it's about expressing yourself with it. The sooner people like you realise that the sooner we might just get less **ty music in the world. But like I said, if you like them, great. But at least see them for what they are and don't try to pass them off as having some sort of artistic integrity just because YOU like them. I like plenty of throwaway pop, I'm not going to claim it's anything special just because I happen to like it though. There's a reason why Bush sold millions of albums over an extremely small time period and are now totally forgotten about, have you figured out why yet? __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.**

10-10-2014, 02:34 AM	#18 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	You need proof? Hell just listen to them. Shame you can't raise this beyond the level of 'you slagged off my favourite band, whaaaaaaaaaaaaa' __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.