This is just a dedication thread to two very artistic and sorely missed Grunge leaders of our time. But this did make me wonder... what would Alice and Chains and Nirvana sound like these days? Do you think they would still be around or be listened to as much? Don't get me wrong, I wear out their old records from time to time, but would they still be around today, or be as good if they were? -Booch138 Edit: I know Alice in Chains is back together and such, but I mean as a full band (including Mike Starr, whom recently passed away as well)
as for Nirvana, no I don't think they'd sound the same. They'd probably do a Linkin Park and totally change from what they used to sound like and start making softer Mainstream "radio friendly" music.
I sadly am inclined to agree. I am just not sure about Alice in Chains. They seem like the kind of band that would evolve into a darker and darker sound, while I think that Nirvana would have only gotten poppier and more "Radio-Friendly" than they already were.
I don't think they would at all. Just look at Dave and the latest foos album. Heavier than ever. And Kurt wouldn't go for that shit either, he'd Just leave the band if they didn't take his opinion into account. He wrote the tunes anyways, so he has the most say of anyone. And AiC is still good. Personally I thought their last album only had a few decent songs but I saw them live a year or two ago and it was ****in amazing. William can sing great in his own right. He and Jerry sound great in harmony too. I think Layne is the best grunge singer out of the big bands and one of the best singers of all time.
I've read a lot about Kurt's struggle with popularity and the idea of being mainstream, I think he'd rather stop putting music out than give in to it. People often consider Nevermind to be somewhat mainstream but it really isn't true, Nirvana never put out anything for the masses, the masses just adjusted to Nirvana, and even that wasn't good enough for Kurt. I wouldn't use Foo Fighters as part of the reasoning though, some of their stuff sounds as sweet and sickly as mainstream can possibly get.
Popularity wasn't Kurt's focus as to his music and because of this wouldn't have curtailed his music to fit society. He was fairly set minded music wise and had his own vision. The grunge look would have fallen away but as for the music through newer songs it would still would have shown through. I really don't believe he'd go into hibernation. As relative to an earlier post, its the people that were drawn to him not the other way around. I greatly miss this musician and any future songs he would have written.
About the Foo Fighters: Yes I know they make some mainstream sounding stuff, but I was using their latest album as an example to show that Dave at least still knows how to rock out and make some heavy music even in his older and more mature state. If Dave can do it, than Nirvana would have no problem making classic sounding grunge at all.
Sometimes I feel like I can hear Kurts music and style through David grohl, maybe it's just my mind playing tricks. But it's good to know some people still like good music. I'm still partial to STP and sound garden still too...
Coincidentally, I had Plush stuck in my head yesterday and decided to download it from iTunes. I wonder if I still have that album around somewhere.
In a sense I get what you're saying. Dave still has a very wide range in the music he can play, but still retains that "Heart" that Cobain put into his music. I do think though, that regardless, if Cobain and Grohl were to split pathes due to music direction differences, Foo Fighters would still be as successful. They really do make great music. And I liked Badmotorfinger and Superunknown from Soundgarden. As for STP, I only really liked "Core" and "Purple".
I kind of think in the bottom of my heart that they would have. I also think that is because Dave Grohl had 3 times as much talent as Cobain and Novoselic had in their left hands.
I agree - but I think Kurt had more artistic resonation to make up for his technical shortcomings (which I think would have cleared up if he had been allowed some time to focus on his growth as a songwriter).
Absolutely. Especially when it came to lyrical value, his work was top notch. He was an awful guitarist (but hey... that was Grunge right?) but he spoke from a troubled soul. Had a lot of depth and meaning.
I will say I haven't liked anything new for a long time, I still jam out to Siamese dream lol.... Luckily the classic rock station here started to play a lot of 90's grunge like pearl jam and janes addiction, speaking of they have a new album coming soon too which I'm pretty excited for!...
For sure - but I think he had tremendous understanding of distortion and sound (especially present on In Utero - and The Priest They Called Him with William Burroughs) and if he had cleared up his head he had the potential to be a really good songwriter guitarist.
