Explain your stance if at all possible..
2007-09-14 10:56:51 · 22 answers · asked by ♫ՖքØØķ¥♫ 7 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Rock and Pop
Wow, those are some great answers, you are all on top of your game today!
2007-09-14 11:18:30 · update #1
A little bit of both. He was a great lyricist (no Bob dylan....) but through all the distortion, the vocals and music carried a purity that came from him, Chris and Dave. He wrote what was going on within himself and that resonated with the youth of that time (myself included).Part of it was luck - they were there at the right time in the music scene......but without the music and how great it was, they wouldn't have gone anywhere.
2007-09-14 11:47:26 · answer #1 · answered by Dani G 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well I am very biased in this answer since Nirvana is my favorite band. I would say it has to be a combination of both. He was a musical genius. He created so many simple but brilliant songs. They are deceptively simple but eminently catchy. I am not a great guitarist but I can play all of his songs. They are simple to PLAY, but to CREATE these songs, that's a whole other story. I have tried to write songs and it is not easy. A greater appreciation can be gained for most things when you attempt to do the same thing and realize how hard it is. Playing the songs is easy even for a beginner guitarist, but the creation takes genius.
Many people dismiss him as a crappy guitarist, but the complexity of the songs is not the most important thing. Every album was chock full of solid, amazing songs. There was never any filler on the albums.
As far as right place at the right time, I think there is an element of that in everything that is commercially successful. Such a thing as music requires an audience that is receptive. Without a receptive audience, the music would have fallen through the cracks and perhaps may have been discovered posthumously anyways at a later date in the future. If someone else had done something similar to Nirvana shortly before they became big, then they would not have stood out as much. Take Seether for example. They seem to me to be Nirvana hacks that may have been more successful if Nirvana had never existed.
So, genius=yes, right place right time=yes.
2007-09-14 19:38:44 · answer #2 · answered by Fish Stick Jesus 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Kurt Cobain's music has have been given a thank you to touch the soul... the guy WHO bought the international, ALL APOLOGIES, and needless to say COME AS you're... Kurt cobain is incredibly a musical genius..
2016-10-08 21:12:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The word "genius" gets tossed around way too much. Kurt Cobain was a gifted musician and poet. And I don't know that he was so much in the right place at the right time as he was a product of the time he was in. But I do tend to think that regardless of the era he was in, he would have found an artistic voice that was relevant to that time.
2007-09-14 11:46:33 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
While "Genius" is a strong word, Cobain was certainly a gifted lyricist who crafted many memorable songs, at least a few I would say are among the best ever written (and rock crits tend to agree) and landed at a time when rock audiences were growing bored with Warrant/Skid Row/Poison etc etc.
I do think proof that he and the band stand a bit above the average "grunge" outfit is that they chose to do a Leadbelly tune on their Unplugged appearance.
2007-09-14 12:18:32 · answer #5 · answered by Greg R (2015 still jammin') 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
While Cobain certainly did echo the sentiments of the teenage youth during his time, there's really no successful musician that didn't do just that. John Lennon led the antiwar movement during a time when protestors were a common sight. Pete Townshend reached out to angry young teenagers who felt that the music related to their angst and fury with society.
Cobain was a great musician, a poet, and a sad story that hurts every time it's told.
2007-09-14 12:04:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think he had alot of talent, he was a great lyricist, a great singer, but I don't think he was really a genius. Grunge was a popular genre at the time and I personally kurt was creating anything new, they were just creating really good music. My answer isn't very good comparred to the rest, but whatever =P
2007-09-14 11:59:19 · answer #7 · answered by Veronica ♥ Cobras 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think he created such simple music in a way that no one had heard for a long time; his band was pretty much the opposite of the metal bands that the music scene focused on at that time. I liked his philosophies about things. If you buy his journals, published posthumously, you can see his ideas about a lot of things and how he was very artistic. He wasn't a GENIUS but he was refreshing to rock music and helped bring about a change in the trends that were popular when Nirvana started.
2007-09-14 11:11:06 · answer #8 · answered by shraaaazy 1 · 8⤊ 0⤋
both. sometimes someone can be ahead of their time. i think if a guy like frank zappa would have been able to get started in the 90's instead of the late 60's he'd be way popular than he is. it takes the right mix of genius, and to be able to express that in a time when you can be understood. would have anyone been ready for kurt cobain in 1969? hell no. but in 1991? yea, the world was ready and able to get him and his music. the songs of nirvana weren't musically complex, but neither were those early beatles songs. hell, imagine, one of the world's greatest songs is only 4 chords. smells like teen spirit? 4 chords.
2007-09-14 18:17:47 · answer #9 · answered by joe 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He had some genius (as in ****** up heroin addict anti-hippie genius type) but he did a good AND bad thing: broke the market. He wasn't exactly the pioneer, just the guy that did the popularity. So, to answer your question:
.Genius?- a little
. Right Place at the right time?-DEFINITELY.
2007-09-14 11:37:30 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋