Nirvana and Guns N Roses, excluding 'guns n roses'' comeback studio album, we're around exactly the same time. This was the time that nothing original was happening, the days of rock n' roll, blues, hard rock and glam rock we're gone. These two bands even with their differing styles were often compared, even today. But who was greater? Who influenced music more? Who were more original? and most importantly created the better music?
Nirvana - James Hamling
When I asked my dad why he liked Nirvana he said, “It was a breath of fresh air from all the hair metal crap that was a round”. That is well a truly what Nirvana and the grunge movement they spearheaded, ending the pomposity of 10 minute long songs with 4 minute guitar solos with bland innuendo and one eye on their pay check.
Nirvana took music back to its core with its focus on good lyrics good riffs and genuinely caring about the music they made and the fans. Kurt Cobain the front man of Nirvana from the beginning days as a garage metal band in Seattle was a brilliant front man, and David “I have a man crush on Slash” Jones may try and claim Nirvanas success is dependent on Kurt’s enigmatic personality and suicide is the reason for their longevity (with their greatest hits knocking the Foo fighters off top spot in 2001, without the need for constant TV advertising) however a bands only as good as its songs. Kurt was a brilliant lyricist, “The finest day I ever had was when I learnt to cry on command, I love myself better than you I know it’s wrong but what can I do” (On a plain, 1992).
His ability to write candidly about his experiences and with influences as far ranging as John Lennon to French poet Arthur Rimbaud shows the sign of a truly great lyrist. But to the music itself 1991 to 1992 was historical time for music, Nevermind, Nirvanas second album (voted third greatest album of all time) was released to massive acclaim. Smells like teen spirit the most popular heavy rock song of all time with its tidal wave of angst which cries out to go crazy to but retaining pop undertones as catchy as those of early Beatle records. The album is littered with classics from lithium with its soft loud dynamics which perfectly combines rock and pop. To in bloom and come as you are with their brilliant riffs and dark attitude.
I could continue all day about the brilliance of Nirvana I haven’t even touched on Heart shaped box, their unplugged set or the powerful live performances. But I feel it’s time to take about that pile of tosh that is Guns and roses. David would have you believe they were hard rock revival but they were cliché ridden down to small girly singer and the chain smoker leather pant wearing idiot. Who is a not even a poor man’s version but a hobos version of Hendrix and Page. I’ll go as far to admit they had a few good songs (and a few drawn out to their extreme) but their few popular songs go only a short way to cover the shallow pool of good songs (covers of Sympathy of the Devil, live and let die and knockin on heaven’s door fall woefully below par) .Guns and Roses are poor cliché ridden, band relying on standard metal riffs and axls squealing. While Nirvana are a band of integrity, heart and a brilliant catalogue as it doesn’t matter how fast you play but how you play it.
Guns N Roses - David Jones
Sometimes it’s difficult to argue. There’s always the sense that maybe, just maybe, no matter how hard you argue, how loud you shout, you may actually be wrong. That’s why when the chance to argue a point that everyone, no matter what they try to claim, knows is the truth, comes along, there is a certain satisfaction in knowing that not only are you unequivocally correct, but that everybody else knows it, and thus such opportunities should be grasped at all costs. Of course, this is the case with the Guns N’ Roses “debate”, or, more precisely, the fact that Guns are a good few billion light years ahead of Nirvana in every way: quality, skill, song writing, live performances, and any other measurement you choose to pick. Guns N’ Roses are better than Nirvana, it really is that simple.
However, for arguments sake, I feel I should prove my point with some indisputable facts. Most notably the sheer skill of the music produced by Guns; as I write the guitar solo ending “Dust N Bones” is rattling through my earphones, and the technical expertise of Slash’s guitar alone elevates GNR far above the simplistic, distorted, course and amateur chords of Nirvanas so called hits such as the plodding “Heart Shaped Box” and the course, brass shouting which characterizes the overly chart friendly “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” So, Guns win on technical ability, but of course music is about soul, meaning and the sheer feel of the songs, something which Nirvana never seemed to recognise, instead churning out a dull array of angst ridden, boring laments sung (or should that be growled?) through in a monotone, empty voice. Nirvana could never hope to reach the emotionally charged “Don’t Cry,” the sorrowful “Estranged” or the damning incitement of war which is “Civil War.” To put it more succinctly, Guns wrote and performed songs with feeling, with meaning, songs which can be identified with, with guitar solos filled with character and the blues, whereas Nirvana simply produced pointless dirges working on only the shallowest of levels. Anybody can draw a clear distinction between Nirvanas pointless moaning “And I swear I don’t have a gun” and Axl’s heartfelt “I’ll never find anyone to replace you, I guess I’ll have to make it through this time [...] without you.”
Undoubtedly, some will try to claim that Nirvana “changed” music, or that they’re obvious lack of talent can be justified by them doing something “different.” If you find yourself able to ignore the fact that Nirvana, through their downbeat, dull sound opened the way for the thousands of generic, empty bands which seem to have flooded the music industry of late, its worth remembering that at some point in the past, the Nazi Party was something new, something original, but it would be difficult to find anyone willing to praise Hitler for “doing something new.” Besides, Guns are widely credited with changing the music scene, rescuing the world from the empty, hair metal of the 80s and restoring a classic rock, bluesy style to a world that needed to learn how to rock again.Guns N’ Roses were, and always will be, one of the greatest bands ever to make music, with their technical skill, emotion and the sheer power of their live shows they shook the world, and are, without a doubt, hugely better than Nirvana, and even comparing them to the dull, primordial grunge seems is an insult.
So there are the arguments. My opinion aside, it is really up to the reader to make their own judgement.
Ii think both writers will agree, this was not music's finest hour, but still a fine one.
Nirvana - James Hamling
When I asked my dad why he liked Nirvana he said, “It was a breath of fresh air from all the hair metal crap that was a round”. That is well a truly what Nirvana and the grunge movement they spearheaded, ending the pomposity of 10 minute long songs with 4 minute guitar solos with bland innuendo and one eye on their pay check.
Nirvana took music back to its core with its focus on good lyrics good riffs and genuinely caring about the music they made and the fans. Kurt Cobain the front man of Nirvana from the beginning days as a garage metal band in Seattle was a brilliant front man, and David “I have a man crush on Slash” Jones may try and claim Nirvanas success is dependent on Kurt’s enigmatic personality and suicide is the reason for their longevity (with their greatest hits knocking the Foo fighters off top spot in 2001, without the need for constant TV advertising) however a bands only as good as its songs. Kurt was a brilliant lyricist, “The finest day I ever had was when I learnt to cry on command, I love myself better than you I know it’s wrong but what can I do” (On a plain, 1992).
His ability to write candidly about his experiences and with influences as far ranging as John Lennon to French poet Arthur Rimbaud shows the sign of a truly great lyrist. But to the music itself 1991 to 1992 was historical time for music, Nevermind, Nirvanas second album (voted third greatest album of all time) was released to massive acclaim. Smells like teen spirit the most popular heavy rock song of all time with its tidal wave of angst which cries out to go crazy to but retaining pop undertones as catchy as those of early Beatle records. The album is littered with classics from lithium with its soft loud dynamics which perfectly combines rock and pop. To in bloom and come as you are with their brilliant riffs and dark attitude.
I could continue all day about the brilliance of Nirvana I haven’t even touched on Heart shaped box, their unplugged set or the powerful live performances. But I feel it’s time to take about that pile of tosh that is Guns and roses. David would have you believe they were hard rock revival but they were cliché ridden down to small girly singer and the chain smoker leather pant wearing idiot. Who is a not even a poor man’s version but a hobos version of Hendrix and Page. I’ll go as far to admit they had a few good songs (and a few drawn out to their extreme) but their few popular songs go only a short way to cover the shallow pool of good songs (covers of Sympathy of the Devil, live and let die and knockin on heaven’s door fall woefully below par) .Guns and Roses are poor cliché ridden, band relying on standard metal riffs and axls squealing. While Nirvana are a band of integrity, heart and a brilliant catalogue as it doesn’t matter how fast you play but how you play it.
Guns N Roses - David Jones
Sometimes it’s difficult to argue. There’s always the sense that maybe, just maybe, no matter how hard you argue, how loud you shout, you may actually be wrong. That’s why when the chance to argue a point that everyone, no matter what they try to claim, knows is the truth, comes along, there is a certain satisfaction in knowing that not only are you unequivocally correct, but that everybody else knows it, and thus such opportunities should be grasped at all costs. Of course, this is the case with the Guns N’ Roses “debate”, or, more precisely, the fact that Guns are a good few billion light years ahead of Nirvana in every way: quality, skill, song writing, live performances, and any other measurement you choose to pick. Guns N’ Roses are better than Nirvana, it really is that simple.
However, for arguments sake, I feel I should prove my point with some indisputable facts. Most notably the sheer skill of the music produced by Guns; as I write the guitar solo ending “Dust N Bones” is rattling through my earphones, and the technical expertise of Slash’s guitar alone elevates GNR far above the simplistic, distorted, course and amateur chords of Nirvanas so called hits such as the plodding “Heart Shaped Box” and the course, brass shouting which characterizes the overly chart friendly “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” So, Guns win on technical ability, but of course music is about soul, meaning and the sheer feel of the songs, something which Nirvana never seemed to recognise, instead churning out a dull array of angst ridden, boring laments sung (or should that be growled?) through in a monotone, empty voice. Nirvana could never hope to reach the emotionally charged “Don’t Cry,” the sorrowful “Estranged” or the damning incitement of war which is “Civil War.” To put it more succinctly, Guns wrote and performed songs with feeling, with meaning, songs which can be identified with, with guitar solos filled with character and the blues, whereas Nirvana simply produced pointless dirges working on only the shallowest of levels. Anybody can draw a clear distinction between Nirvanas pointless moaning “And I swear I don’t have a gun” and Axl’s heartfelt “I’ll never find anyone to replace you, I guess I’ll have to make it through this time [...] without you.”
Undoubtedly, some will try to claim that Nirvana “changed” music, or that they’re obvious lack of talent can be justified by them doing something “different.” If you find yourself able to ignore the fact that Nirvana, through their downbeat, dull sound opened the way for the thousands of generic, empty bands which seem to have flooded the music industry of late, its worth remembering that at some point in the past, the Nazi Party was something new, something original, but it would be difficult to find anyone willing to praise Hitler for “doing something new.” Besides, Guns are widely credited with changing the music scene, rescuing the world from the empty, hair metal of the 80s and restoring a classic rock, bluesy style to a world that needed to learn how to rock again.Guns N’ Roses were, and always will be, one of the greatest bands ever to make music, with their technical skill, emotion and the sheer power of their live shows they shook the world, and are, without a doubt, hugely better than Nirvana, and even comparing them to the dull, primordial grunge seems is an insult.
So there are the arguments. My opinion aside, it is really up to the reader to make their own judgement.
Ii think both writers will agree, this was not music's finest hour, but still a fine one.
2 comments:
I like both bands, but come on. Could Nirvana write November Rain? If Cobain hadn't offed himself with a shotgun, his music would be in the $5 bargain bin by now. And I'm not saying its BAD music or anything, because I like a lot of their songs, but its nothing like GN'R's. GN'R were 1000X the musicians Nirvana were, they had 1000X the variety, and they were 1000X more solid. And Axl is every bit the lyricist Kurt is, but he doesn't get recognized as such because even a lonely megalomaniac like Rose isn't crazy enough to blow his head off and get a huge, post-mortem audience of musical ameteurs to masturbate all over his selfish ass corpse. Bottom line: Nirvana is cool, but GN'R can take your breath away. End of story.
nirvana WERE the voice of a generation,shame coz you started the article well and i agree guns were a fantastic band with some great lyrics and feeling but our generation really needed someone like kurt and nirvana coz if you werent middle class with a good job or education or mr popular you felt like a freak and they were THE spokespeople for the freaks oddballs and generally anyone who werent considered perfect,so i can really only see an everlasting appeal to ladies and music connoisseurs,you sir need to evaluate your decision because rock wise and lyrically you are way off the mark!
Post a Comment