Gavin Rossdale - Kurt Cobain
 

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.

Who the fvck is Bush? Who the fvck is Gavin Rossdale and why does his name sound so stupid?


Kurt was a great guitarist. He definitely stole a few things here and there but he wrote great riffs and melodies. He was just too ****ed up to play them right. He was punk rock to the end. Horrible personality a lot of the time though, he comes off as a real elitist prick sometimes.

/debate over

Nirvana was a band that came out of the American underground, while Bush is a poser band from Britain that jumped on the bandwagon to make loads of cash.

No comparison between Kurt and Gavin in my opinion.

haha, well those aren't exactly the opinions I was hoping to get, or rather I was wanting people to actually take the time to express their opinion on either singer/and or band without taking the usual route of just lashing out at either or both. It's all so typical, you two.

How exactly can someone make a claim like Bush just wanted to hop on a bandwagon for loads of cash? It's as if you might have been there when Nigel and Gavin first talked about putting a band together, what their intentions or vision was for a band if they actually put one together, whether once all the original band members got together to hash out what identity as a band they wanted, that they all agreed to more or less be less wild child version of Nirvana. Really, what kind of statement is that to make of Bush?

Bush irrefutably had plenty of influence from Nirvana, but it wasn't just Nirvana that influenced them, or just grunge music at all that influenced Bush, the people that comprised the band at the time they were popular in the states. Bush is brought up in a discussion, and what pops in the minds of those that never got the band or liked them, is that Gavin was a wannabe Cobain and his band were just posers playing music they knew was popular. You know, a popular opinion like that, doesn't make that opinion the truth or a fact.

I could say that Nirvana were a band copying something they heard another band playing and so they decided to play that kind of music too. But I'd sound arrogant, not to mention full of myself.

This is a bit of a pisser of a topic for me, because I fully believe that Bush deserves more credit than they get. Posers? No. Part of an era of music like any other band that played the same kind of music? Yes.

tldr


I HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN ON THIS MATTER. IT IS THUS SETTLED. I HAVE DEFEATED THE DEBATE- KURT COBAIN IS OBJECTIVELY SUPERIOR. BOW BEFORE MY BRILLIANCE.

Only if you offer something I like. Only.

How about you go back, read lyrics from both bands, not just skimming them. Then come back to me and honestly tell me that Kurt wrote better music.

Kurt wrote good music. Gavin wrote better music. And if Kurt had a lead guitar player like Nigel in Nirvana instead of Gavin in Bush. Kurt would have been writing better music...and I don't mean better music than Gavin, simply better music than what Kurt had wrote at the time.

BOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

do it

Yeah...I can say that won't ever happen.

But here's a gold star for effort.

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?

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

But I hate Nickelback. So what now?

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?

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?

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.

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'

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

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.

The only Bush I care about...
http://www.progarchives.com/progress..._band/2107.JPG

I agree, let's not squabble over the little things and instead swallow some glycerine and hope we don't comedown.

Pretty much this.

I do not think of Cobain as a sloppy guitar player. He wrote some pretty brilliantly simple guitar parts for all of his songs and went all over the place genre wise like the noisy "Radio Friendly Unit Shifter," the watery riff for, "Come As You Are," "Scentless Apprentice," etc., but he was more than capable of scaling down the guitar parts when he needed to.

I just wiki'd Gavin Rossdale just to see what was up concerning his personal life and career. And I see that he is married to Gwen Stefani and they have a couple of children. I was shocked to read that Rosedale and Marilyn Manson both admitted to having an affair for 5 years. Gavin Rossdale says it was just a part of growing up and he's past that point in his life now.

As for Kurt Cobain, he had an affair with drugs and Courtney Love and then committed suicide.

Of course, I don't let that affect my personal opinion, likes and dislikes, concerning their music pacifically. I personally liked both bands during the 90s for different reasons musically. I just don't listen to them very often these days.

Is this some kind of joke? Because Bush are one of the worst bands to have ever come out of the UK. Calling them a second rate Nirvana rip-off is being too kind really, as I've always seen them worse than that.

Only the most casual music listener would reach the above conclusion. A large number of grunge bands sounded quite different to one another. Bush are one of the few to sound like Nirvana.

I like some of Bush's songs but, come on man. There's only a handful of bands/artists that have defined an entire genre/snapshot in time in all of rock/pop music history.

Nirvana are as important as (NOT better than) The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, U2, Michael Jackson, and others in that elite stratosphere.

http://flavorwire.files.wordpress.co...bain-sp011.jpg

I'm hardly a casual music listener. I don't need to convince you of that, but don't be one of those people that base someones taste in music around one artist or band that person happens to like.

You're talking like Bush are one of the worst bands in the history of music, which is hardly the case and they're also far from the worst band out of the UK. You could do much worse.

It's your opinion on them, I respect that. But I just don't agree with it. Did I mention I really like their new album Man On The Run? Hang me for saying it, I don't care.

@ Chula

Nirvana are an important band, I don't disagree there. But they're over-hyped, especially now.

Casual music listener was used as a generalisation, I'm sure there are going to be some serious listeners that like Bush as well.

You're the one who started the thread looking for opinions, but it just so happens that nearly everybody here either thinks that Bush are pretty woeful or haven't even heard of them. So there's no need to sound surprised now when members make negative opinions about the band.

Everybody knows this, so it doesn't need to be said. Every huge artist that died young from Morrison to Hendrix gets treated the same way and is over-hyped in some manner.

Well, I have never been surprised to see so many here dislike Bush. I just expected maybe a few to share my opinion. I'm fine with anyone here that have expressed there dislike in the band. Right now I sort of have a problem with you, simply because you're coming off real smug with how you're talking to me. It may all be that old issue with how reading text from someone is misinterpreted as negative or condescending, which is what you're sounding like to toward me. If I'm wrong about any of that, I apologize.

As for the matter of not saying things that everybody knows, I don't agree at all. If I want to express something that is common knowledge. I will do so. If you got a problem with that, well, you're just being silly.

Music forums like a lot of forums are quite specialized in that they’ll attract hardcore listeners who have listened to a huge and wide variety of music and between all of these listeners they’ve more of less covered everything out there and will usually disagree on what’s good etc. But one thing that they usually do have in common is what’s bad. Most serious listeners will agree that bands like Limp Bizkit, Nickelback, Creed and a band like Bush are crap bands that should be avoided, but that’s not to say that some serious music listeners won’t enjoy them. So you may dig out some Bush fans on here but don’t expect them to be flooding the thread.

I am smug when it comes to music, you’ll find that on a lot of forums, just never take it personally. ;)

Sure you can do it, but it won’t work as evidence in court as everybody knows it already.

I can understand the text in bold from your post, and I do agree with it. And despite me liking Bush so much, they hardly come close to being really that great. I just happen to enjoy them and regard them as my favorite grunge band. Yes, there are better grunge bands, many of them. But I like Gavin and his voice, songwriting. There is evidence of me expressing how amazing I think Bush is, but that is exaggerated just for the sake of it. I can admit that part of me hoped to discover other members here that appreciate Bush like I do, despite what they stood for. They're a bit of a different band these days.

I can take your smugness, and I figured you didn't mean it in a way that was meant to offend me, and I'm happy to see that you understood that my post about how you were coming off to me wasn't meant to be an attack, it was purely to see what your intentions were, and what I thought they were, happened to be correct. So we're good my friend.

As for me expressing things that are common knowledge. I'll plead the fifth.

Another great quality a member can display on these forums is to take on the know-it-all hierarchy by stating and defending an artist that they genuinely believe to be good. Problem is these forums get too many trolls that do this (there have been many on here) but when a member does it in a legitimate way then it can always lead to some decent discussion.

You make this sound like, I go around with ulterior motives. ;)

I like both, i always liked Bush but i prefer Nirvana over them cause imo they had a better defined sound.

Bush i liked but i never quite figured out what is their signature sound, they could go from a heavy song to a ballad and they do it well but idk i still prefer Nirvana.

Vocal wise Gavin has a more melodic voice but Kurt has a better screaming voice that portrays more angst than Gavin.
To me Gavin wants to sound good while Kurt is just looking for a build up to scream something and i prefer that. i prefer nonsensical screams over refined singing.

Rhythm wise, Nirvana is better.
I prefer them cause they set a darker mood with their songs where as Bush takes a more conventional approach.

i actually do prefer Bush lead guitars cause they sound like Joey's lead guitars but in terms of a more unique music arrangement i prefer Nirvana.

One last thing, Bush is in no way a Nirvana rip off band.. idk why some ppl say that.

Gavin is the better singer, but I understand why many others prefer Kurts vocals, some of it has to do with what you described, some of it doesn't. And this is what this thread was meant to be, just a topic to discuss who people prefer as a singer, not a 'Bush ripped off Nirvana, they suck, die in a fire' type of topic haha. It's all good though.

It's actually easy to call Bush a Nirvana rip off, I could name maybe six or seven songs right now that sound like Nirvana could have written them; Little Things, Everything Zen, Swallowed, The People That We Love (to a point, but not as much as other songs), and that's to name a few. People also thought Bush borrowed or ripped off guitar chords as well...

I always prefered Layne Staley as a vocalist. His voice resonated more feeling and emotion in my opinion.

Just watched Mad Season: Live at the Moore, on TV this afternoon.
Forgot how good Staley sounded on River Of Deceit.

Agreed. Plus the harmonies between him and Cantrell were killer.

But we're not talking about Layne! He's better than Gavin and Kurt, combined. Unfair you two, so unfair lol.

But since we're talking about Alice In Chains...

Thoughts on their new vocalist? I think he's alright. But just alright.

Agreed. Their new music isn't really noteworthy either. I'm a little biased by only really liking Dirt though.

I've never really Iistened to the guy, other than what I've heard on the radio a few times. :)

It would probably take anyone with an apposing opinion of Bush to view the band from my perspective to understand why I defend them so heavily. Most people don't listen to Bush the same way that I do, or hear them the way that I do. That may not make a lot of sense to anyone, however I know what I mean by it.

I gravitate more heavily to bands that don't polish the sound they have too much, I like hearing the imperfections or little knacks that give a band their identity, bands that don't want to have that perfect sound. Contrary to other peoples opinions, Bush did not have an extremely polished sound, not to me. All of their albums, especially their first had in my opinion, a very imperfect sound and it gave the record a very appealing charm, I really dug the sound of the recording.