Red Mosquito

I guess I'm just the opposite. Cultural myths, particularly in music, don't really mean much to me other than that they can become roadblocks to the exposure of some other works. Social stigmas don't bother me, either. But as I said before, listening to people talk about why they hated or loved a particular piece of music has repeatedly been an insight-gaining opportunity for me, and is part of what helped open the doors to some of those artists that I wouldn't have touched otherwise. So what you like or hate about a band is way more fascinating to me than how other people react to you liking or hating that band.

I feel like you're just picking on me now

I should add that there are times when I care about the reasons behind people liking/disliking something, and that's when it's someone I know/care about. But that's because it gives me a better understanding of the person, not of the music.

For instance stip's unabashed passion for dad rock helped me realize he had kids.

I feel like you're just picking on me now

I'm really not. In this thread, I've discussed my appreciation for Hank Snow and my lack of adoration (about to be expanded upon) for Nirvana. On a Pearl Jam board. I'm not really in a good place to pick on anybody. Beyond that, even, I was really just trying to say "See, we're after different things, so the best that's going to happen is that we're going to keep finding other ways to say that we're after different things." The fact that you prefer something other than what I prefer means nothing more than exactly that.

Soma. wrote:I'm listening to Nevermind for the first time in at least a decade in an act of defiance. "In Bloom" is dripping with promise. Its everything a rock single should be.

That's one that I like, yeah.

I think part of my response to Nirvana is that, in 1993 or whatever, I was a teenager with absent parents and two younger brothers I was looking after. I was reading a lot, I was interested in politics, and I was like super stupid teenage angry. Just that godawful kind of angry that you can only really be when you're still young or coddled enough (rock star status, baby) to think that your life is super duper important. So a lot of my listening at that time came down to Pearl Jam and punk...especially Bad Religion-type change the world stuff. That's what I wanted...music about changing (saving) the world, or whatever. Songs that felt defiant, mostly, because defiance means you haven't given up. Nirvana seemed (to me) to have the awareness that things were less than what they should be, but their response to that wasn't something I cared much for. They were a little nihilistic, a little sardonic...a little too entertained by the imperfection of it all to worry about ever "fighting to get it back again." And I don't know that that's what was at the core of the songwriting, but I also think Kurt was working post-Nevermind in pursuit of a voice that would express something other than a reactionary sort of "don't let them see you cry" sarcastic cover-up without jeopardizing his overall aesthetic. Even most of In Utero has something of a sneer to it, but at least it admits to being affected.

I always thought that part of what made their Unplugged performance so engaging to so many people is that it really felt "stripped down"...revealing in a way that other acts couldn't achieve simply because of where they were at the start. You have to be putting on something of a face in order to surprise people that much when you go out with hushed, honest fragility, you know?

I can see why people like that band a lot more than I do, but even today I can't help drawing up a sense of the "bullied kid who would totally turn around and bully someone smaller," with them. It's probably just a leftover from the impression I took with me from way back when I was first exposed, and every few years or so I go back and revisit them to see if I've managed to shed it, yet. Fingers crossed.

McParadigm wrote:

I feel like you're just picking on me now

I'm really not. In this thread, I've discussed my appreciation for Hank Snow and my lack of adoration (about to be expanded upon) for Nirvana. On a Pearl Jam board. I'm not really in a good place to pick on anybody. Beyond that, even, I was really just trying to say "See, we're after different things, so the best that's going to happen is that we're going to keep finding other ways to say that we're after different things." The fact that you prefer something other than what I prefer means nothing more than exactly that.

I was not being serious there.

I think part of my response to Nirvana is that[...]

See, that's the kind of stuff that gives me much more hindsight about you than about Nirvana.

McParadigm wrote: I think part of my response to Nirvana is that, in 1993 or whatever, I was a teenager with absent parents and two younger brothers I was looking after. I was reading a lot, I was interested in politics, and I was like super stupid teenage angry. Just that godawful kind of angry that you can only really be when you're still young or coddled enough (rock star status, baby) to think that your life is super duper important. So a lot of my listening at that time came down to Pearl Jam and punk...especially Bad Religion-type change the world stuff. That's what I wanted...music about changing (saving) the world, or whatever. Songs that felt defiant, mostly, because defiance means you haven't given up. Nirvana seemed (to me) to have the awareness that things were less than what they should be, but their response to that wasn't something I cared much for. They were a little nihilistic, a little sardonic...a little too entertained by the imperfection of it all to worry about ever "fighting to get it back again." And I don't know that that's what was at the core of the songwriting, but I also think Kurt was working post-Nevermind in pursuit of a voice that would express something other than a reactionary sort of "don't let them see you cry" sarcastic cover-up without jeopardizing his overall aesthetic. Even most of In Utero has something of a sneer to it, but at least it admits to being affected.

I always thought that part of what made their Unplugged performance so engaging to so many people is that it really felt "stripped down"...revealing in a way that other acts couldn't achieve simply because of where they were at the start. You have to be putting on something of a face in order to surprise people that much when you go out with hushed, honest fragility, you know?

I can see why people like that band a lot more than I do, but even today I can't help drawing up a sense of the "bullied kid who would totally turn around and bully someone smaller," with them. It's probably just a leftover from the impression I took with me from way back when I was first exposed, and every few years or so I go back and revisit them to see if I've managed to shed it, yet. Fingers crossed.

I like this post.

I might request McP's insight into all my musical favourites from now on.

McP give us a 1000 words on The Darkness by 6:00pm.

Sarah. wrote:Anyone else really curious on stips opinion of Nirvana? Just me? Ok.

I loved nirvana. They were my gateway out of hair metal. That really was my story in my mid teens. It was everyone's. That totally happened. I found pearl jam and everything I listen to today because of nirvana. They had two great albums. Having said that, I thought pearl jam was better. The pumpkins, when they were on, were better. And eventually I went on to prefer AiCs best stuff, but nirvana was consistently better.


Having said that, they are overrated, and have become shorthand for an entire era. If we include nirvana we can ignore everything else. And I think nevermind, while great, is extremely overrated

Heathen wrote:For instance stip's unabashed passion for dad rock helped me realize he had kids.

I also agree with everything McP said regarding nirvana

digster wrote:

stip wrote:
What may change this is the way in which the democratization of music pushes against the idea of their being a canon, or even history, in music. Maybe that enhances the stature of the Beatles and any band that comes from the period where there was a common story to rock music. But maybe, in the absence of that story being told, the importance of the mythology fades, and the Beatles are finally remembered solely for the merits of the music, and not the mythology.

And the fact that The Beatles' stature has continued to endure, even thrive as music has become increasingly democratized doesn't give you pause that maybe that stature is earned?

Too soon. And again, obviously the music has to be good. It is a question, again, of how good. Do you find nirvana mythologized?

theplatypus wrote:Am I the only person who hears Obama's voice every time someone starts a post with "let me be clear"?

Nope.

Birds in Hell wrote:

stip wrote:If the Beatles just broke today they'd be remembered as just another pretty good band. Everyone would talk about how much more talented arcade fire is. and they'd be right.

Spoiler: show

It's one thing to go against me, stip. But would you be so defiant with Dana Carvey?

If you told me I had to choose someone's side to be on in an argument, but I wasn't allowed to know the topic in advance, I would take stip over Dana Carvey 100% of the time. And it'd be the right choice close to 100% of the time.

I'm just relieved to know that Dana Carvey is still alive

and tweeting, no less!

Are you on Twitter, Stip?