[Spank-A-Thon]

Originally posted by Faile

no post-cobain guitarists are poor. you merely consider them poor.

i equally consider vai and van halen to be poor guitarists because they have no songs that mean a single thing to me.

A lot of newer mainstream guitarists wouldn't know an arpeggio sweep from a simple E chord - that to me is poor. A lot of newer mainstream guitarists have never experimented with style. But there are some post-Cobain guitarists who are incredibly talented - but they are not in the forefront like they used to be. Consider all the hundreds of 'college-rock' bands out at the moment (Sum 41 etc), they write catchy throwaway songs - but their is no real technical stuff in there. Similarly, the style is not so new either - Green Day were doing it nearly 10 years ago.

You keep missing the point of this thread Faile, I'm talking about guitar players - not song writers.

Originally posted by Harry

Blame the clones then, not the original. It's like saying you hate Beatles because you hate many of their terrible clones (edit: ooops, you did that), or that you hate Beethoven for its influence over the musicians that followed him and copied ungracefully his style. It doesn't make any sense at all.

I never said I 'hate' the Beatles... Anyway, blaming Cobain is like blaming George Lucas for the rise in films with all special effects and no plot. Both were pioneers of a certain style - some took that and built upon it, others just copied with no thought. Maybe 'blame' is the wrong word, but without Cobain (or Lucas) it might not have happened. But it did....

I personally think George Lucas is the man - but I'm not going to get upset if someone criticises him. I see the good things he did, but also the bad things. Same with Kurt.

That was impossible to be seen from your post. What I didn't like was the the cynism with which you blamed Cobain, not your personal opinions; I completely respect an opinion when it comes in the form Mercury Shadow expressed it (leaving aside that lame referred to a poor barré chord ).

But it is my opinion that Cobain was responsible. That certainly doesn't mean I'm correct. I expected to receive counter-arguements, not personal attacks.

Again, in your post all this was was completely hidden. If you loved Nirvana, or any other band, why should you talk of them in a way they don't deserve?

I didn't love Nirvana, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam were always my grunge bands. But if Faile can blame the likes of VH and Vai for helping create bad music, why can't I do the same with Cobain? Why am I ignorant/cowardly for blaming one person, yet others who blame different people are not, simply because they subscribe to your point of view? Anyway, again it comes to opinion - it is your opinion that Nirvana/Cobain don't deserve ctricism, maybe it's my opinion that they do... Who's right? Neither of us - both our opinions are equally valid.

I respect your personal experience, but the ignorance in your post was in blaming an artist for a whole style that then was created around that artist. It's exactly like blaming Monet because painters fascinated by his style started to care less about shapes and geometry and more about the suggestion of colors. It doesn't make any sense at all to me, am I wrong?

I wasn't speaking of ignorance in terms of opinions or knowledge.

As I previously said, maybe blame is the wrong word. But I feel that anyone who innovates is responsible for the aftermath. If Kurt was an earthquake, does that mean he should not be responsible for the aftershocks? That's just my take on things

I not agree with you when you say we can't consider Cobain a guitarist; he was the only guitar in his band for a long time, and I consider a real guitarist every player who create his style of playing. The ones who just follow the rules of technique and never experiment, are just performers for me, but I guess this is a matter of personal priorities. There are so many post-Cobain guitar heroes

I didn't say we can't consider him a guitarist, but I say his strength lay in song-writing - but is that a bad thing? What would you rather be? A great guitarist, or a great song-writer? I know which I'd rather be.

Anyhow, accepting that Cobain was a song writer and not a guitarist, this should be one more reason for you to not blame him for the influence he had on guitarists. Again, am I wrong?

The style of song Cobain excelled at didn't depend on a 2-minute guitarfest in the middle. Others picked up on that, but forgot the song along the way. If a kid growing up learning to play guitar isn't subject to technical wizardry then he's not gonna pick up on it - therefore he had influence on aspiring guitarists.

The statement was coward, because Cobain is one of the few not constructed rock heroes in a long time, and because his creative process came to a premature end.

It was coward because I dared to criticise Cobain? Was that cos he's dead, or cos he's 'not-constructed'...? It would be cowardly to not express what I thought. You know, for some reason the majority of Cobain fans cannot tolerate any form of criticism... and I don't understand why. I have experienced this ever since he died.

I didn't say you know nothing - I know nothing myself so I can't say that to you. I repeat, I didn't like the tone of your statement. Nirvana's music is so genuine, sincere, that I just can't accept the cynic attack you made. I would have understood if you attacked a band that was dishonest with its fans, but not Nirvana, please. If I was too passionate, forget about it. I guess you noticed I don't post often, and there is a reason I couldn't resist this time. I think you can understand how important bands and artists can be for a person.

I do understand only too well how important bands can be to people. But what I don't understand is how people can take crticism of their favourite band or artist so personally. One of my all time favourite bands is Guns n Roses. And if some posted that Axl was a drug-abusing, pretentious arsehole I wouldn't get upset - I'd probably agree with you. If someone blamed them for a decline in musical standards I would certainly try and defend them - but I wouldn't start calling the poster ignorant or cowardly. I understand passion - but is it so hard to debate passionately without resorting to personal comments?

No it isn't. But as Faile said, you must understand that there are guitar heroes; simply, you don't like that kind of guitar hero.

Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. I was referring to a specific type of guitar hero and obviously that didn't come out clear. Sometimes I have difficulty vocalising my thoughts, other times I don't and for that I apologise.
- S