All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
@creepycoug is the only one here from Aberdeen that I'm aware of.
And I can tell you we rocked the fuck out to BIB. And when the Harbor crew gets together to this day, we still do.
Just a great album through and through. I like Nirvana and NVM, but when I want to get my Ya Yas out, as Yella said, ACDC is more in my wheel house.
With that said, Hendrix should win this whole thing. He is on another level IMO.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I'm comparing talent to the field, not just AC/DC. A Picasso is a stand-alone masterpiece identifiable to him, only. Lots of people can grunt out Cobain-quality vocals while taking a dump.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I'm comparing talent to the field, not just AC/DC. A Picasso is a stand-alone masterpiece identifiable to him, only. Lots of people can grunt out Cobain-quality vocals while taking a dump.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
Bigtim DISAGREE
Grunge was rock's last great movement. One could probably argue it was real music's last hurrah. Nothing since has come especially close aside from perhaps a few essential rap albums.
It's hard to imagine we'll ever see anything take over the world like Nevermind again.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
@creepycoug is the only one here from Aberdeen that I'm aware of.
Only locals know they're from Aberdeen though. And that somehow makes them even cooler to the hipsters here.
Bruh, I've driven along the muddy banks of the Wishkah. Almost pushed @dflea in.
No one should be arguing the Cobain was a some virtuoso or talented singer. Some of the greatest artists in history were mediocre musicians at best and some of the most technically gifted made shitty music. The list of examples is endless.
He was a great songwriter and crafted a unique sound that moved the genre forward. As @dnc stated it's really the last essential time period in rock.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I'm comparing talent to the field, not just AC/DC. A Picasso is a stand-alone masterpiece identifiable to him, only. Lots of people can grunt out Cobain-quality vocals while taking a dump.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
And die you will.
A million talented EMO kids can replicate a Picasso. Hell, one of my kids who has no interest in art but nonetheless can draw anything could do it easily.
But they're not Picasso. They didn't think of it. They don't have his story. He was the one. EXACTLY the same thing can be said of Cobain.
Grunge absolutely is a highlight of rock history. You are working WAY too hard on this. It's easier and more efficient to just say you don't like Nirvana. Nobody can argue that point. I was going to say the same thing about Floyd. It's just never been my thing. I have friends who fucking hate Steely Dan and I love them. It's when you try to reduce it to some mathematical proof that you get off the rails. You tried with "not technical", and that didn't work because there are too many examples of all-tim bands that played limited chords. So what? A lot of people can scream like Janis Joplin, but there was only one Janis Joplin.
Not saying Nirvana and NVM should top the list; but "don't belong anywhere on the playlist" sounds like a guy who has an axe to grind.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I'm comparing talent to the field, not just AC/DC. A Picasso is a stand-alone masterpiece identifiable to him, only. Lots of people can grunt out Cobain-quality vocals while taking a dump.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
Bigtim DISAGREE
Grunge was rock's last great movement. One could probably argue it was real music's last hurrah. Nothing since has come especially close aside from perhaps a few essential rap albums.
It's hard to imagine we'll ever see anything take over the world like Nevermind again.
And people forget (is that a HCH all-tim lead-in or what?), Grunge literally rescued the world from the increasing absurdity of the LA-originated hair band genre.
I love those MTV interviews with those dudes who openly admit watching Nirvana and Grunge crash in and basically concede the point. One of the lead singers of one of those bands - forget which - said he watched Nirvana or PJ or whichever live and said to himself, "We're fucked. We're over." He knew it was new, fresh and better and that it was going to reveal them all for the clowns they'd all become.
Cherry Fucking Pie. Seriously.
And Cobain's voice would be shitty for any other genre but it worked pretty well for what he was doing.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I'm comparing talent to the field, not just AC/DC. A Picasso is a stand-alone masterpiece identifiable to him, only. Lots of people can grunt out Cobain-quality vocals while taking a dump.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
Bigtim DISAGREE
Grunge was rock's last great movement. One could probably argue it was real music's last hurrah. Nothing since has come especially close aside from perhaps a few essential rap albums.
It's hard to imagine we'll ever see anything take over the world like Nevermind again.
And people forget (is that a HCH all-tim lead-in or what?), Grunge literally rescued the world from the increasing absurdity of the LA-originated hair band genre.
I love those MTV interviews with those dudes who openly admit watching Nirvana and Grunge crash in and basically concede the point. One of the lead singers of one of those bands - forget which - said he watched Nirvana or PJ or whichever live and said to himself, "We're fucked. We're over." He knew it was new, fresh and better and that it was going to reveal them all for the clowns they'd all become.
Cherry Fucking Pie. Seriously.
And Cobain's voice would be shitty for any other genre but it worked pretty well for what he was doing.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I'm comparing talent to the field, not just AC/DC. A Picasso is a stand-alone masterpiece identifiable to him, only. Lots of people can grunt out Cobain-quality vocals while taking a dump.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
And die you will.
A million talented EMO kids can replicate a Picasso. Hell, one of my kids who has no interest in art but nonetheless can draw anything could do it easily.
But they're not Picasso. They didn't think of it. They don't have his story. He was the one. EXACTLY the same thing can be said of Cobain.
Grunge absolutely is a highlight of rock history. You are working WAY too hard on this. It's easier and more efficient to just say you don't like Nirvana. Nobody can argue that point. I was going to say the same thing about Floyd. It's just never been my thing. I have friends who fucking hate Steely Dan and I love them. It's when you try to reduce it to some mathematical proof that you get off the rails. You tried with "not technical", and that didn't work because there are too many examples of all-tim bands that played limited chords. So what? A lot of people can scream like Janis Joplin, but there was only one Janis Joplin.
Not saying Nirvana and NVM should top the list; but "don't belong anywhere on the playlist" sounds like a guy who has an axe to grind.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I'm comparing talent to the field, not just AC/DC. A Picasso is a stand-alone masterpiece identifiable to him, only. Lots of people can grunt out Cobain-quality vocals while taking a dump.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
And die you will.
A million talented EMO kids can replicate a Picasso. Hell, one of my kids who has no interest in art but nonetheless can draw anything could do it easily.
But they're not Picasso. They didn't think of it. They don't have his story. He was the one. EXACTLY the same thing can be said of Cobain.
Grunge absolutely is a highlight of rock history. You are working WAY too hard on this. It's easier and more efficient to just say you don't like Nirvana. Nobody can argue that point. I was going to say the same thing about Floyd. It's just never been my thing. I have friends who fucking hate Steely Dan and I love them. It's when you try to reduce it to some mathematical proof that you get off the rails. You tried with "not technical", and that didn't work because there are too many examples of all-tim bands that played limited chords. So what? A lot of people can scream like Janis Joplin, but there was only one Janis Joplin.
Not saying Nirvana and NVM should top the list; but "don't belong anywhere on the playlist" sounds like a guy who has an axe to grind.
Elvis could barely play the guitar or write a song. But sometimes it's better to be FIRST than technically gifted.
This is a more important recording than almost anything else done and it's the most basic, simple stuff. 3 chords and the truth.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I'm comparing talent to the field, not just AC/DC. A Picasso is a stand-alone masterpiece identifiable to him, only. Lots of people can grunt out Cobain-quality vocals while taking a dump.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
And die you will.
A million talented EMO kids can replicate a Picasso. Hell, one of my kids who has no interest in art but nonetheless can draw anything could do it easily.
But they're not Picasso. They didn't think of it. They don't have his story. He was the one. EXACTLY the same thing can be said of Cobain.
Grunge absolutely is a highlight of rock history. You are working WAY too hard on this. It's easier and more efficient to just say you don't like Nirvana. Nobody can argue that point. I was going to say the same thing about Floyd. It's just never been my thing. I have friends who fucking hate Steely Dan and I love them. It's when you try to reduce it to some mathematical proof that you get off the rails. You tried with "not technical", and that didn't work because there are too many examples of all-tim bands that played limited chords. So what? A lot of people can scream like Janis Joplin, but there was only one Janis Joplin.
Not saying Nirvana and NVM should top the list; but "don't belong anywhere on the playlist" sounds like a guy who has an axe to grind.
I think I have on several occasions. For the life of me, I can't understand how people can listen to Nirvana and Cobain's warbling. I'm not a guy who listens to music for the words, so if that's his endearing trait or skill I'm not going to appreciate it. Same with Neil Young, etc. To me, grunge sounds mostly like garage band stuff. No thanks. I prefer listening to music that is beyond my creativity or any skill level I could ever attain.
I fished from the muddy bank of the Wishkah on Monday, and listened to Back in Black on the way there and Nevermind on the way back. Back in Black is the better album, quite easily.
I like to listen to the albums and then decide. That's what I like to do.
Grunge was the beginning of the end for rock. All these pompous, self righteous types decided to get deep and how much life sucks. I don't give a fuck what you think about abortion Eddie Vetter.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I'm comparing talent to the field, not just AC/DC. A Picasso is a stand-alone masterpiece identifiable to him, only. Lots of people can grunt out Cobain-quality vocals while taking a dump.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
Bigtim DISAGREE
Grunge was rock's last great movement. One could probably argue it was real music's last hurrah. Nothing since has come especially close aside from perhaps a few essential rap albums.
It's hard to imagine we'll ever see anything take over the world like Nevermind again.
And people forget (is that a HCH all-tim lead-in or what?), Grunge literally rescued the world from the increasing absurdity of the LA-originated hair band genre.
I love those MTV interviews with those dudes who openly admit watching Nirvana and Grunge crash in and basically concede the point. One of the lead singers of one of those bands - forget which - said he watched Nirvana or PJ or whichever live and said to himself, "We're fucked. We're over." He knew it was new, fresh and better and that it was going to reveal them all for the clowns they'd all become.
Cherry Fucking Pie. Seriously.
And Cobain's voice would be shitty for any other genre but it worked pretty well for what he was doing.
It was Jon Bon Jovi IIRC
I think that's right, which cuts back a little on my point since I wouldn't categorize JBJ as a clown, though definitely hair and definitely pop rock for chicks. By way of "clown", I'm thinking of Poison, Cinderella, Warrant, Dokken, Skid Row, etc. Even Motley Crue, who snuck into my high school experience with some good stuff, needed to take a seat.
I would never attend a BJ concert or pay for their music, but they never seemed quite as ridiculous as those bands eventually became.
A case could be made that the beginning of the end of rock was anything after 1955...Chuck "invented" it, and everything after was someone's interpretation of Chuck, up to present day...
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
Yes, be "objective" with your musical tastes. GTFOOH
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
Anyone that pretends like technical ability matters over songwriting is retarded. It’s like being the strongest armed QB or the fastest rapper. It has very little to do with anything.
Funny. The winner of the other semi has my vote by a mile.
I get the appeal of drunken cock rock. I really do. ACDC is great for keg parties, monster truck rallies, and pro wrestling. It's great for Dflea pumping himself up for another soggy day chasing coho on the peninsula. It's fine, hard rock for the background.
Measured against the greatest rock albums ever, though? Nah. Doesn't belong in the conversation. There's nothing worth
I cant believe how the brainless cock rock has failed to dominate this time around either. It's good though. The jacked up Chevy, hunting, fishing, muddin, acid washed jeans with big hair crowd, at least around here, is actually willing to diversify a bit. All good.
All of the albums in this tourny...Nirvana's talent as musicians outside of Grohl is a joke compared to most, the music is, by comparison, shit with awful vocals. JFC guys. Let go of the faggy hometown hero shit and be objective.
@creepycoug is the only one here from Aberdeen that I'm aware of.
Only locals know they're from Aberdeen though. And that somehow makes them even cooler to the hipsters here.
Bruh, I've driven along the muddy banks of the Wishkah. Almost pushed @dflea in.
No one should be arguing the Cobain was a some virtuoso or talented singer. Some of the greatest artists in history were mediocre musicians at best and some of the most technically gifted made shitty music. The list of examples is endless.
He was a great songwriter and crafted a unique sound that moved the genre forward. As @dnc stated it's really the last essential time period in rock.
My friend had me listen to Teen Spirit sometime in the first half of 1992. It sounded like gutter garage rock. I didn't get wtf the big deal was. I wasn't that big into music but I liked what would now be considered G rated rap like Hammer, Poison, Cheap Trick and M. Jackson.
Years later in college I gradually appreciated grunge beginning with AIC which were the closest to real metal. Now I just see rock as different eras and genres. There was nu metal, grunge, hair bands, in the early 80s Journey type bands were big. There was good hard rock in the 70s. Each is different.
I just got tired of all the elitist music snobs, including stations like KISW. who acted like Ratt was toxic waste or some joke. It's like you played that in 1991.
Comments
Just a great album through and through. I like Nirvana and NVM, but when I want to get my Ya Yas out, as Yella said, ACDC is more in my wheel house.
With that said, Hendrix should win this whole thing. He is on another level IMO.
Kurt's raspy voice was his thing. It's like saying Picasso was a shitty artist because his faces didn't look real enough.
As for technical talent, while I'm not one to claim expert knowledge on the matter, I've been told by a lot of musicians that ACDC, like the Beatles, were pretty limited technically. Whether they were capable of playing more technically complicated music, who knows. But it was never the point. They were the originals of what they did and people liked it. Same can be said for Nirvana. They ushered in another genre. Seems important.
I will die on this hill. Nirvana was lightning in a bottle for a specific point in time, but if you're making a best of rock album they don't belong anywhere on the playlist. Grunge is not a highlight of rock history.
Grunge was rock's last great movement. One could probably argue it was real music's last hurrah. Nothing since has come especially close aside from perhaps a few essential rap albums.
It's hard to imagine we'll ever see anything take over the world like Nevermind again.
No one should be arguing the Cobain was a some virtuoso or talented singer. Some of the greatest artists in history were mediocre musicians at best and some of the most technically gifted made shitty music. The list of examples is endless.
He was a great songwriter and crafted a unique sound that moved the genre forward. As @dnc stated it's really the last essential time period in rock.
A million talented EMO kids can replicate a Picasso. Hell, one of my kids who has no interest in art but nonetheless can draw anything could do it easily.
But they're not Picasso. They didn't think of it. They don't have his story. He was the one. EXACTLY the same thing can be said of Cobain.
Grunge absolutely is a highlight of rock history. You are working WAY too hard on this. It's easier and more efficient to just say you don't like Nirvana. Nobody can argue that point. I was going to say the same thing about Floyd. It's just never been my thing. I have friends who fucking hate Steely Dan and I love them. It's when you try to reduce it to some mathematical proof that you get off the rails. You tried with "not technical", and that didn't work because there are too many examples of all-tim bands that played limited chords. So what? A lot of people can scream like Janis Joplin, but there was only one Janis Joplin.
Not saying Nirvana and NVM should top the list; but "don't belong anywhere on the playlist" sounds like a guy who has an axe to grind.
I love those MTV interviews with those dudes who openly admit watching Nirvana and Grunge crash in and basically concede the point. One of the lead singers of one of those bands - forget which - said he watched Nirvana or PJ or whichever live and said to himself, "We're fucked. We're over." He knew it was new, fresh and better and that it was going to reveal them all for the clowns they'd all become.
Cherry Fucking Pie. Seriously.
And Cobain's voice would be shitty for any other genre but it worked pretty well for what he was doing.
P.S. Post moar on my bored with the philosopher king stuff. Gotta earn your keep if you're gonna be on scholarship.
This is a more important recording than almost anything else done and it's the most basic, simple stuff. 3 chords and the truth.
I like to listen to the albums and then decide. That's what I like to do.
I didn't get a bite at the Wishkah.
I would never attend a BJ concert or pay for their music, but they never seemed quite as ridiculous as those bands eventually became.
I get the appeal of drunken cock rock. I really do. ACDC is great for keg parties, monster truck rallies, and pro wrestling. It's great for Dflea pumping himself up for another soggy day chasing coho on the peninsula. It's fine, hard rock for the background.
Measured against the greatest rock albums ever, though? Nah. Doesn't belong in the conversation. There's nothing worth I cant believe how the brainless cock rock has failed to dominate this time around either. It's good though. The jacked up Chevy, hunting, fishing, muddin, acid washed jeans with big hair crowd, at least around here, is actually willing to diversify a bit. All good. Can't chin this one enough times.
Years later in college I gradually appreciated grunge beginning with AIC which were the closest to real metal. Now I just see rock as different eras and genres. There was nu metal, grunge, hair bands, in the early 80s Journey type bands were big. There was good hard rock in the 70s. Each is different.
I just got tired of all the elitist music snobs, including stations like KISW. who acted like Ratt was toxic waste or some joke. It's like you played that in 1991.
That showed me the kids were all right