Re: music just for musicians?

[nyfac <nyfac2@nyfac.com>]

Every civilization since the dawn of time has written that it was
teetering on the edge of chaos> I have heard quite a few people here
slagging Nirvana and various other grunge type bands as being bland and
tasteless when compared to, say, Jimi Hendrix.

I don't think that I have to argue with anybody here about the general
lameness of commercial radio, so I won't bother.  But what kind of gets
my goat, if you will, is someone here who complained about his son's
taste, and made the aforementioned comparison of Nirvana and Hendrix,
saying specifically that the former could not match the elequence of the
latter.

First off, while Hendrix is, was, and always will be, one of the
greatest guitar players ever. Period, end of story.  But personally, I
think that Cobain was an excellent guitar player.  I don't care that he
could know the inversions I know, that he didn't know a
whole-tone/half-tone scale from his harmonic minor (hey, even I get
confused sometimes), I still think, in all honesty, that he was a better
player than I am. His chord progressions were great, his infrequent
solos (when they worked) were hair raising.  He just plain rocked.

And that is what it is all about, isn't it?

Secondly, while Hendrix rocked without mercy (a given) he was a bit,
well, shall we say, lacking lyric-wise.  I guess you can't have
everything.

So I would say this: relax, enjoy the music.  There is a tone of great
stuff out there and there is more everyday.  If you don't think music is
growing anymore, check out grungish bands like Slint, the inimitable
Jawbox, Helmet, or any of the other bands that are constantly ripped off
by the halfwits they play on the radio.  Music is alive and well, I am
pleased to say.



PS: if your children were enamored of old Neil Young (who is also, if
you must know, the man) I don't know if you would be quite so
despondent.  Any who would Cobain be if not the combination of Young and
Dylan?