Inspired by the "worst song ever" thread, I decided to start this one,so that one can get back on track
I just want to say that just because the music press always issues retoractive, retrospective-style stuff patting themselves on the back about supporting the true "genius", doesn't mean that that is the way it actually was
Of COURSE modern, big label artists will wax poetic about the mythological greatness of their "influences"
That's how the scam works, y'see
Take Kurt Kobain, f'rinstance (said I wouldn't... I did)
There was no vision at all behind the nirvana schtick. NONE, besides,to borrow a quote from the Simpsons, the observation that "making kids depressed is like shooting fish in a barrel"
Sorry for the fans, but honestly, musically there was almost nothing going on in their music... and yes I heard plenty of it
Now, if their music "inspired" a bunch of other angry kids to share their angst with others, so be it, but musically they brought nothing to the table.
I would even go so far as to say that Nirvana may well represent the "spirit of the age", so to speak, inspiring others to take up the same whiny torch, but there is no way that someone can seriously say that they learned any actual musical lessons from them (unless they weren't aware that you could make a song with only 2 chords in it, but that had been done already, too, about 100 years previous)
I was just tired of folks duking it out on an emotional basis... it isn't about what you like, I like a lot of pure crap too, but I know it is crap and like it anyways. Real inspiration, in a mainstream pop sense, ended officially in the 70's somewhere, once all the pop become derivative of (and largely based on) other folks translations of the source material, because the music buying public, by and large, is completely ignorant of what constitutes actual music. Like what you will, but don't confuse meaning with quality, that's where the arguments start.