Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

MrH wrote:In the end she'll be remembered as "that druggy" and not "that talented artist".

No, she will be remembered as tragic. At least everything I have seen trying to sell her story had that on the cover. Back to Black was an album you could listen to from start to finish and enjoy.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mike Noble wrote:Einstein died at 27?

Yep.

Colonel Parker found him dead and bloated on the toilet.

Seriously, does somebody actually think that Einstein died at 27, or is there some other Einstein? Doc Brown's dog, maybe?

27 was close though. On a side note, the Giants beat the Pirates!

halonachos wrote:

27 was close though. On a side note, the Giants beat the Pirates!

I'm pretty sure Chibi wasn't being serious (as usual ).

Cheesecat wrote:

halonachos wrote:

27 was close though. On a side note, the Giants beat the Pirates!

I'm pretty sure Chibi wasn't being serious (as usual ).

Einstein did say time is relative, so he could still join the 27 club.

schadenfreude wrote:Einstein did say time is relative, so he could still join the 27 club.

Nah, He couldn't join the 27 club, it would just mean that relatively, it was actually th 84e club.

Mannahnin wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Soladrin wrote:She's not even close to the rest on that list.

She was a much better vocalist than Kurt Cobain, an artist who's output was INCREDIBLY patchy. They are similar in that they each have only one great album. I also prefer Amy Winehouse to Janis Joplin.

Amy was a truly gifted singer. You called it with Back to Black; what an outstanding record.

Oh, album of the decade for my part, no doubt.

In regards to Cobain, In Utero and Nevermind are both brilliant.

Meh, Nevermind is rightly acknowledged as a a classic, but In Utero? That's a tricky one. It contains some of Nirvana's best material, no question, and the production is a lot better than the job Butch Vig did on Nevermind - more visceral. However it also contains some blatant filler, IMO, which is a criticism I don't think can be leveled at the preceding album. I actually prefer Incesticide, perverse as that may sound! I just think it's musically more interesting.

Also (although it wasn't you who said this), I find the idea that Nirvana represented some 'Year Zero' for '90s alternative music a touch absurd, considering how heavily indebted to '80s hardcore, indie-pop and college rock they where. It's like some people don't have record collections or something.

Other tracks from other albums are excellent as well. Unplugged in New York is packed full of cover songs, with fewer originals, though that serves to let Kurt and the guys demonstrate what excellent performers they were, and how adept at adapting others' material. His versions of Bowie's The Man Who Sold the World, the Vaselines' Jesus Doesn't Want Me for a Sunbeam, and Leadbelly's In the Pines are goddam great.

I used to be very into that record, but I can't stand it now. The caterwauling. It made me feel like someone had pointed out that emperor was wearing no clothes - I was like, 'woah, wait.... this guy can't sing! How long has that been going on for?

Kurt was genuinely brilliant, and while I'll happily agree that many folks who die young are excessively idolized or romanticized, he easily stands in the company of Jimi and Janis, and above Jim, IMO.

Dude. Seriously.

Albatross wrote:Also (although it wasn't you who said this), I find the idea that Nirvana represented some 'Year Zero' for '90s alternative music a touch absurd, considering how heavily indebted to '80s hardcore, indie-pop and college rock they where. It's like some people don't have record collections or something.

I'm not saying that Nirvana was devoid of influences. It was Nirvana's unique convergence of these styles arriving at the exact right time that made them so influential. Against a cultural backdrop of complete and utter excess and unwaivering self-confidence, Nirvana's angst-driven nihilism was exactly the kind of culture shock that people needed in order to realize that the 80's were completely ridiculous.

Grunge exploded once Nirvana helped shape it and left their mark on it. It became the definitive genre of the early 90's, and it permeated every single aspect of the 'Generation X' culture during that period of time. Almost every band associated with any sort of rock during that period was colored by grunge (no matter how indirectly). Hell, even things as arbitrary as fashion and television were influenced by Grunge. That sort of musical influence only happens once or twice a decade.

Similar acts and influences may have lurked in the shadows during the late 80's, but it took someone with an aptitude for songwriting like Kurt Cobain to bring such a radically counterintuitive musical style to mainstream attention. And I'm really, really glad he did, or I would've had to deal with awful New Wave and Hair Metal for many more years.

Maybe I can just thank Heroin.

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Albatross wrote:She was a much better vocalist than Kurt Cobain, an artist who's output was INCREDIBLY patchy. They are similar in that they each have only one great album. I also prefer Amy Winehouse to Janis Joplin.

In regards to Cobain, In Utero and Nevermind are both brilliant.

Meh, Nevermind is rightly acknowledged as a a classic, but In Utero? That's a tricky one. It contains some of Nirvana's best material, no question, and the production is a lot better than the job Butch Vig did on Nevermind - more visceral. However it also contains some blatant filler, IMO, which is a criticism I don't think can be leveled at the preceding album. I actually prefer Incesticide, perverse as that may sound! I just think it's musically more interesting.

How are you using "great"? Is it a synonym for "classic"? Every Nirvana album has some outstanding stuff on it. The two I mentioned, overall, are outstanding albums which most bands will never in their lives come close to. They both are (IMO) great, and that's before we even get to...

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: Unplugged in New York is packed full of cover songs, with fewer originals, though that serves to let Kurt and the guys demonstrate what excellent performers they were, and how adept at adapting others' material. His versions of Bowie's The Man Who Sold the World, the Vaselines' Jesus Doesn't Want Me for a Sunbeam, and Leadbelly's In the Pines are goddam great.

I used to be very into that record, but I can't stand it now. The caterwauling. It made me feel like someone had pointed out that emperor was wearing no clothes - I was like, 'woah, wait.... this guy can't sing! How long has that been going on for?

That's your personal taste and interest shifting. You're at present (evidently) into cleaner vocals. Kurt's singing was excellent. His use of screaming and discord was deliberate, emotive, and largely controlled. He regular singing had perfectly reasonable tonal control and melody. Sure, he was no Chris Cornell, but almost no one is. Kurt's voice was still very well used, carried melody when it needed to and broke beautifully when appropriate. If you're comparing it primarily to pop singers, I think you're missing the mark. Blues singers would be a better basis for evaluation. IMO Unplugged in NY is one of the best albums of the decade. A true gem of live performance, highlighting the abilities of the band itself and paying great credit and homage to a good number of their influences and other bands they love.

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Kurt was genuinely brilliant, and while I'll happily agree that many folks who die young are excessively idolized or romanticized, he easily stands in the company of Jimi and Janis, and above Jim, IMO.

Dude. Seriously.

Jim had an excellent baritone, but IMO his songwriting was inferior. That's opinion, mind you. And some of it comes down to personal taste. I loved The Doors all growing up, but Nirvana and grunge were more immediate to my adolescence. I preferred Soundgarden, Pearl Jam and Alice in Chains at the time, though. I still prefer PJ and SG overall.

Mannahnin wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

Albatross wrote:She was a much better vocalist than Kurt Cobain, an artist who's output was INCREDIBLY patchy. They are similar in that they each have only one great album. I also prefer Amy Winehouse to Janis Joplin.

In regards to Cobain, In Utero and Nevermind are both brilliant.

Meh, Nevermind is rightly acknowledged as a a classic, but In Utero? That's a tricky one. It contains some of Nirvana's best material, no question, and the production is a lot better than the job Butch Vig did on Nevermind - more visceral. However it also contains some blatant filler, IMO, which is a criticism I don't think can be leveled at the preceding album. I actually prefer Incesticide, perverse as that may sound! I just think it's musically more interesting.

How are you using "great"? Is it a synonym for "classic"?

No, I mean more in terms of being a consistently strong body of work from start to finish, like What's Going On, Dark Side Of The Moon or Kind Of Blue. Yeah, I don't quite mean albums that are considered 'classic' due to consensus opinion, like The White Album, which has some of The Beatles strongest material on it, but also some of their weakest, or, like Rumours, which has a handful of awesome songs on it. Of course, many 'great' albums (i.e. unusually strong from start-to-finish) are also considered 'classic' albums too.

Every Nirvana album has some outstanding stuff on it.

I agree.

The two I mentioned, overall, are outstanding albums which most bands will never in their lives come close to.

Ah yes, but that's also true of any album that sells more than 10,000 copies too, isn't it?

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote: Unplugged in New York is packed full of cover songs, with fewer originals, though that serves to let Kurt and the guys demonstrate what excellent performers they were, and how adept at adapting others' material. His versions of Bowie's The Man Who Sold the World, the Vaselines' Jesus Doesn't Want Me for a Sunbeam, and Leadbelly's In the Pines are goddam great.

I used to be very into that record, but I can't stand it now. The caterwauling. It made me feel like someone had pointed out that emperor was wearing no clothes - I was like, 'woah, wait.... this guy can't sing! How long has that been going on for?

That's your personal taste and interest shifting. You're at present (evidently) into cleaner vocals.

I think you presume too much there. I still like a lot of the music I was listening to around that time. I still dig Mudhoney and AiC, still LOVE Soundgarden.

I like everything from Metal, to Punk, to Soul, Jazz, Pop... It's not that I'm just not that into Nirvana's style of music. I still like The Pixies.

Kurt's singing was excellent. His use of screaming and discord was deliberate, emotive, and largely controlled. He regular singing had perfectly reasonable tonal control and melody. Sure, he was no Chris Cornell, but almost no one is. Kurt's voice was still very well used, carried melody when it needed to and broke beautifully when appropriate. If you're comparing it primarily to pop singers, I think you're missing the mark. Blues singers would be a better basis for evaluation.

I think that Cobain's voice is about as related to blues as it is to pop, i.e. fairly distantly, but not insurmountably. His voice is closer to Lennon than it is to any 'pure' blues singer.

IMO Unplugged in NY is one of the best albums of the decade. A true gem of live performance, highlighting the abilities of the band itself and paying great credit and homage to a good number of their influences and other bands they love.

I wholeheartedly disagree. I find it turgid, Cobain sounds half-asleep in places, and both him and Novoselic have some pretty profound tuning issues throughout. Grohl looks (and probably was) totally uncomfortable with the whole thing, as he's playing completely out of his comfort-zone, and not in a good way. Alice in Chains Unplugged was a better performance, as far as I'm concerned, but hey, we're just shooting the breeze here. You like the record, cool. I'm not a fan, never have been.

As for the Doors stuff.... Man. I don't know what to do with that! I'll just leave it, I reckon.

Fair enough, much of this is personal taste. My interest was briefly piqued by the seeming contradiction between "I used to be very into that record, " and "You like the record, cool. I'm not a fan, never have been," but I'm happy enough to leave it. Just shooting the breeze, and expressing an alternate view. You clearly know quite a bit about music, but your opinions are occasionally expressed in a rather authoritative manner; which may intentional, as it invites response if one has a contradictory view.

Mannahnin wrote:

Fair enough, much of this is personal taste. My interest was briefly piqued by the seeming contradiction between "I used to be very into that record, " and "You like the record, cool. I'm not a fan, never have been," but I'm happy enough to leave it.

No, you're right, that does sound odd! I did like it when I first bought it (actually the video, never bothered to get the CD), though I think that was probably more down to the fact that in those days it was difficult to get whole live concerts by bands you liked, especially alternative bands. I can watch it as a gig, but I wouldn't listen to it as an album, and I never have all the way through.

Just shooting the breeze, and expressing an alternate view. You clearly know quite a bit about music, but your opinions are occasionally expressed in a rather authoritative manner;

Well within the realm of my own personal taste, my opinion carries a significant amount of weight.

Albatross wrote:Well within the realm of my own personal taste, my opinion carries a significant amount of weight.

There are scientific studies that explain this.

Was just thinking a little more in the shower and felt like adding a bit.

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:How are you using "great"? Is it a synonym for "classic"?

No, I mean more in terms of being a consistently strong body of work from start to finish, like What's Going On, Dark Side Of The Moon or Kind Of Blue. Yeah, I don't quite mean albums that are considered 'classic' due to consensus opinion, like The White Album, which has some of The Beatles strongest material on it, but also some of their weakest, or, like Rumours, which has a handful of awesome songs on it. Of course, many 'great' albums (i.e. unusually strong from start-to-finish) are also considered 'classic' albums too.

Ah. I think "all killer, no filler" is a pretty high bar to set, and that an album can be great even if it has weaker tracks in it. For example, Peter Gabriel's So is an incredible album, despite the relative weakness of Big Time, or even Sledgehammer, which is a solid song but pretty out of place on that album.

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:That's your personal taste and interest shifting. You're at present (evidently) into cleaner vocals.

I think you presume too much there. I still like a lot of the music I was listening to around that time. I still dig Mudhoney and AiC, still LOVE Soundgarden.

I like everything from Metal, to Punk, to Soul, Jazz, Pop... It's not that I'm just not that into Nirvana's style of music. I still like The Pixies.

I know your tastes are broad and eclectic, like anyone who's genuinely into music. That's why you being so wrong about Nirvana is curious. I think they're an amazing complement (not compliment, mind you) to The Pixies.

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Kurt's singing was excellent. His use of screaming and discord was deliberate, emotive, and largely controlled. He regular singing had perfectly reasonable tonal control and melody. Sure, he was no Chris Cornell, but almost no one is. Kurt's voice was still very well used, carried melody when it needed to and broke beautifully when appropriate. If you're comparing it primarily to pop singers, I think you're missing the mark. Blues singers would be a better basis for evaluation.

I think that Cobain's voice is about as related to blues as it is to pop, i.e. fairly distantly, but not insurmountably. His voice is closer to Lennon than it is to any 'pure' blues singer.

Sure, there's some similarity with Lennon, who was also blues-influenced, though some of it is just the quality of the voice itself. The blues comparison was really just to point out (to someone I think is well aware, but ignoring inexplicaly) a large school of music in which purity of tone and clean vocals are not chief virtues. Expressiveness and emotion are more important, and broken and rough voices are valued for their idiosyncracies and the dimension they add of wear and tear and the singer having lived though hard times and sorrow.

I think Amy Winehouse was an amazing vocalist, but I think evaluating her and Kurt's relative musical immortality based on their strengths as vocalists would be misguided and silly.

Sure, there's some similarity with Lennon, who was also blues-influenced, though some of it is just the quality of the voice itself. The blues comparison was really just to point out (to someone I think is well aware, but ignoring inexplicaly) a large school of music in which purity of tone and clean vocals are not chief virtues.

No I'm not ignoring it, I merely don't think that Blues is a particularly useful signpost for that concept, as tonality is incredibly important, in fact central, to blues-derived musics. Cobain was not known for his 'blue' notes, in fact, I would struggle to name a song in which he sings one - 'Where Did You Sleep Last Night?/In the Pines' is actually closer to a country murder ballad, if memory serves, and doesn't use much in the way of blues harmony/tonality. I'd have to revisit that to be 100% certain.

If you'd said Punk, I would have had no argument - I mean, Kurt was a punk singer in a pop group (melodically and harmonically), in my opinion. It's that incongruity that I have an occasional problem with - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Saying all that, it's his lyrics that bother me the most, as I quite like his voice on a lot of stuff.


My original argument was against the idea that Amy Winehouse 'doesn't come close' to someone like (in my example) Cobain, which is a stupidly absolutist statement to make. On what metric? Raw vocal ability? She batters him on that, in my opinion. Which is all this is, all everything in this discussion is, and which is why it's stupid to make absolutist objective statements when they are related to a matter of personal taste.

It is possible to like both Nirvana and Amy Winehouse without resorting to one having to be better than the other.

Ahtman, I think they both belong in the club, and both deserve to be mourned and remembered for their exceptional talent and work.

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Sure, there's some similarity with Lennon, who was also blues-influenced, though some of it is just the quality of the voice itself. The blues comparison was really just to point out (to someone I think is well aware, but ignoring inexplicaly) a large school of music in which purity of tone and clean vocals are not chief virtues.

No I'm not ignoring it, I merely don't think that Blues is a particularly useful signpost for that concept, as tonality is incredibly important, in fact central, to blues-derived musics. Cobain was not known for his 'blue' notes, in fact, I would struggle to name a song in which he sings one - 'Where Did You Sleep Last Night?/In the Pines' is actually closer to a country murder ballad, if memory serves, and doesn't use much in the way of blues harmony/tonality. I'd have to revisit that to be 100% certain.

If you'd said Punk, I would have had no argument - I mean, Kurt was a punk singer in a pop group (melodically and harmonically), in my opinion. It's that incongruity that I have an occasional problem with - sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Saying all that, it's his lyrics that bother me the most, as I quite like his voice on a lot of stuff.

Punk, of course, sure. Yes, Nirvana has substantial elements of punk, including a lot of his vocal stylings. Anyway, whether we reference blues or punk, we're still talking about a prominent genre in which the singer's voice doesn't have to be pretty or their notes pure, or their vocal range wide; and an "un-pretty" voice is often quite desirable and a better tool for expressing the emotions and concepts involved, and serving the mood of the song.

In the Pines / Where Did You Sleep Last Night (the original title vs. what it's called on Unplugged in NY) is indeed a country-esque murder ballad. But older styles of "dark" Country (the only kind I enjoy, for the most part) share a lot of ground with Blues. "If memory serves"; ouch. You must have written off Kurt's singing some while ago. His performance on that song was a showstopper, IMO.

Albatross wrote:My original argument was against the idea that Amy Winehouse 'doesn't come close' to someone like (in my example) Cobain, which is a stupidly absolutist statement to make. On what metric? Raw vocal ability? She batters him on that, in my opinion. Which is all this is, all everything in this discussion is, and which is why it's stupid to make absolutist objective statements when they are related to a matter of personal taste.

Agreed on all counts, though I wouldn't say she batters him when they're not fighting. They both had excellent vocals for their own style and the music they performed. Hers are classically better, with an amazing voice; his suited to a more limited range of material, but strong within those boundaries.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:My interest was briefly piqued by the seeming contradiction between "I used to be very into that record, " and "You like the record, cool. I'm not a fan, never have been," but I'm happy enough to leave it.

No, you're right, that does sound odd! I did like it when I first bought it (actually the video, never bothered to get the CD), though I think that was probably more down to the fact that in those days it was difficult to get whole live concerts by bands you liked, especially alternative bands. I can watch it as a gig, but I wouldn't listen to it as an album, and I never have all the way through.

This still seems a bit contradictory to me. If you like it as a live performance overall, the CD is also great to listen to straight through, as a performance. But it's well worth cherry-picking for individually great songs/renditions of songs. The ones I mentioned before are all outstanding, but Oh Me is fantastic too, All Apologies and About a Girl are great, etc. IMO it's honestly pretty darn close to "all killer, no filler". If you can listen to that live version of All Apologies and call it "caterwauling", I don't know what to say.

...So don't say anything? You think Cobain's vocal performance on 'Where Did You Sleep Last Night' is a 'showstopper'. I think it is awful. Simply awful.

A matter of taste.

feth this gak.... i'm going into clubs and giving it the MJ treatment of shouting ' Amy is dead, let's all play her tunes even though we didn't give a feth' just when they play her mind you.

It really pisses me off that people need to wait until a singer is dead until they appreciate thier worth....

DRUNKEN SCOTTISH RAAAAAAGE!

also Assbatrass, Man who sold the world ain't bad. Heart shaped box too....

Albatross wrote:...So don't say anything? You think Cobain's vocal performance on 'Where Did You Sleep Last Night' is a 'showstopper'. I think it is awful. Simply awful.

A matter of taste.

...evidently so.

Amy Whinehouse, Kurt Cobain, Jimmi Hendrix, Ian Curtis, Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin all died at 27... Justin Bieber turns 27 in 2021... be patient...

The toxicology report was released. There was noting but alcohol in her system.

AvatarForm wrote:Amy Whinehouse, Kurt Cobain, Jimmi Hendrix, Ian Curtis, Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin all died at 27... Justin Bieber turns 27 in 2021... be patient...

This is the funniest thing I've read in 2011...

schadenfreude wrote:The toxicology report was released. There was noting but alcohol in her system.

And I wonder how much money they paid the people that released it to doctor it up. Thats as believable as Micheal Jackson not molesting children, or saying the Juice didnt murder his wife.

If there was nothing but alcohol in her system no wonder she died
You need a little bit of blood to keep the brain and ticker going

DAMMIT! I wish I had thought of that one. +1 to you sir

She will have choked on her spew or something, that kills drunks all the time.

KingCracker wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:The toxicology report was released. There was noting but alcohol in her system.

And I wonder how much money they paid the people that released it to doctor it up.

Possible, but alcohol poisoning is very real, dude.

Yea thats possible. She is obviously an addict and I wouldnt be surprised if in trying to kick drugs, downed a couple gallons of whiskey


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:

KingCracker wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:The toxicology report was released. There was noting but alcohol in her system.

And I wonder how much money they paid the people that released it to doctor it up.

Possible, but alcohol poisoning is very real, dude.

And yes it is, when I turned 18 by buddy got me good and drunk, and Im not sure what all I consumed but I got poisoned from the amount. Spent a couple days in the hospital, and felt like I was dying, it was horrible

I forget the statistics, but the whole 21 shots on your 21st birthday horror stories come to mind when I think of Alcohol poisoning.

I can't imagine drinking that much in a 24 hour period, let alone a given evening.