HH Favorite Rock Album Final 4 - #1 Nevermind vs #2 Back in Black

creepycoug

#2 Back in Black

dnc said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

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.

creepycoug

#2 Back in Black

BleachedAnusDawg said:

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.

BleachedAnusDawg

#2 Back in Black

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

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.

dnc

#1 Nevermind

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

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.

YellowSnow

#2 Back in Black

BleachedAnusDawg said:

dnc said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

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.

YellowSnow

#2 Back in Black

The pole will close tonight at 8PM. If there is a tie, the Shoppe owner acts as President of the Senate.

creepycoug

#2 Back in Black

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

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.

creepycoug

#2 Back in Black

dnc said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

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.

dnc

#1 Nevermind

creepycoug said:

dnc said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

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

YellowSnow

#2 Back in Black

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

creepycoug said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:

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.

Of course @creepycoug likes Steely Dan.

P.S. Post moar on my bored with the philosopher king stuff. Gotta earn your keep if you're gonna be on scholarship.