[Spank-A-Thon]

It would seem my view is somewhat unpopular, however, allow me to counter various points from a few of the replies.

Originally posted by Faile
In terms of riffs Kurt Cobain created the best riff ever. Everybody in the world practically knows smells like teen spirit.

Agreed that SLTS is one of the all time great rocks songs. It will probably be known as one of the songs that defined a generation.

Also, songs such as All Apologies and Come as you are have amazingly good riffs. Just because he isn't using anything more than pentatonic scales in his solos doesn't make them any less valid.

I never stated any of Nirvana's work was not valid. As for good riffs, compared to others they are, compared to other's they're not. Simply depends on taste.

Grunge was the movement that had to happen to save us from all the poor music of before. Steve Vai plays amazing solos but can you hum anything by him ? All the fret work doesn't make his music anything more than technically impressive.

You simply cannot state that the music that came before grunge as poor. There are millions of Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, Zepplin, Van Halen, etc fans who would strongly disagree. Grunge was an evolution of the decadent 80's. Hair metal, etc epitomised 80's LA and the sleaze of that era. Grunge reflected the more down to earth, angst ridden Seattle scene. There will always be people who see merit in one phase and not another... I'm fortunate in that I have manged to span several phases that have all appealed to me (well, except Dance music).

In the same way the 70's punk movement helped move away from the legacy of the beatles, post-punk helped us move away from the poor turgid hair metal of the 80's.

For nearly every phase of music, there has always been the antithesis that follows it - but each phase has it's merits and bad points. Again I would not express 80's hair metal as turgid, there are still a lot of people who like it.

All these "old school" solo artists no longer exist you say? Well, it's not completely true. It's just that New styles are born in the meantime and even if you call it a "simpler" style, they at least gave us the possibility to listen to something new and "fresh".

I know this, I meant it simply wasn't mainstream anymore.

I'll take Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth as an example: his way of playing the guitar is really different from the artists you mentioned, his style is surely newer and nearly impossible to be copied even for the talented solo artists you love so much, and yeah, it's really original and somewhat "experimental" too. Someone said he's the one who invented "Noise Rock", and critics attached this label to this way of playing the guitar. You may not like this style, but you can't say he's unable to play a guitar.

I am very familiar with Sonic Youth and certainly would never say, nor have I said, he can't play.

There are many clones of the metal hard rock sound and such things, and they're simply boring mostly because they add nothing to what we've already heard. They lack of any kind of originality. Why? Because their main interest is simply to show off their talent and nothing more. They can play, of course, but they don't create anything valuable. Is it so good for
you?

I agree that there are many, many clones who think technique is all - I don't subscribe to that at all. Rush are probably one of the most technically sound bands alive, but I can't stand them - I want to hear songs, not purely demos of technical talent. Other bands have managed to blend technical prowess with great songs too though.

Don't blame Cobain, please, this is another old cliché: he created his style, while the others copied it without knowing what the style was about.

That's my point, Cobain created a monster which too many cheap rate bands were quick to jump on to. But similarly I blame the Beatles for spawning the numerous cheap 'Merseybeat' clones. Anytime someone 'invents' a genre, other always try to imitate.

My dear S,
this is probably the only post from the beginning of this forums that made me, well, let's say it, furious.

Furious? That's somewhat strong isn't it? I merely offered an opinion to garner feedback.

You blame Kurt Cobain for what? Because finally, after years and years of music made of guitar solos that were just there to show how technically good was a band, someone was able to really express his inner self without pretending of being adored as a guitar god.

Yes, I blame Cobain for what he helped create. Cobain created primarily lyrical songs - he expressed his emotions through his lyrics and song dynamics. In terms of pure technical ability, he is way down the list. But song-writing is not simply about technique - it's about connecting with your listener - which is something he excelled at. However, as a result there were too many 'clones' who thought they could do the same thing - which meant we were bombarded with simple repetitive guitar playing with inane thoughtless lyrics slapped on top. These Nirvana wannabees totally missed the point of his music. Without Cobain, there wouldn't have been all these poor imitators.

To say I'm disappointed at some of the comments made would be an understand. I did not realise that posting an opinion that may not be in the majority would be wrong. To be told I know nothing, am ignorant and a coward is frankly disappointing - especially given who voiced those accusations.

Is it really so wrong to want that, even if it's just once? Is it so wrong to want a new guitar hero?

Note by Harry: Sorry, the forum merged two threads in one, and I tried reconstructing desperately your post going into the database. This should do it.