I read RS from time to time and all I've ever seen on The Gaslight Anthem is one or two relatively small articles. Even then, it's probably a bit of a stretch to say that anyone is hailing them as the second coming of Jesus. They make honest rock music that is probably less likely to sound dated in about five years than that of a lot of other popular bands at the moment, and that's what they get praise for. And the reason Nirvana are rated highly is because, like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin, regardless of whether they were that original or groundbreaking themselves they were way, way more influential than the average band. The popularity of bands like Green Day, REM and Linkin Park and bands influenced by them (which accounts for a lot) is largely down to that band breaking through. In fact a fair few of them might not even have formed, and for better or for worse there would have been at least a few more years of bands like Poison and Motley Crue being in that position. I'm not trying to get at anyone on a personal level but it's cheap and disrespectful to say that they're highly rated mainly because Kurt killed himself. You do realise that they were a huge band with lots of critical acclaim before that, right? The Beatles didn't gain their reputation because John Lennon was murdered (as well as George Harrison and Stuart Sutcliffe having died), The Rolling Stones didn't gain their reputation because of the way Brian Jones died, Led Zeppelin aren't huge because John Bonham choked on his own vomit, and I'm sure that Pink Floyd haven't influenced millions of musicians with their in-fighting and various instabilities and experimentations any more than their actual music. I could go on. I think there's a well-known quote stating that unhappiness and tragedy go hand in hand with genius, or something, and even though these people might not be geniuses I think it's safe to say that you can apply something along those lines to what happened to them. Obviously people are going to glorify things like famous people dying, but that happens all the time. Heath Ledger for instance. It's what the media does, glorifying negativity. A band being genuinely influential, like Nirvana, purely because of things a member did in their personal life would be an effect without a real cause.
Fair enough on The Gaslight Anthem, Dean. I'm just of the opinion that while they're not a bad band by any means, they (or specifically The '59 Sound) do not deserve the 90% + they've been receiving of late. Personally I never said Nirvana were only famous because of Kurt's death, only that I also believe they are overrated and that Rolling Stone seem to rate "influence" far too highly, often above actual merit as a band. Obviously though I can find deserving exceptions, for example The Beatles (though four of their albums being in the top 10 best albums ever is a tad over the top).
One pop song is not a huge influence. And bands like Guns N' Roses had already gone against the trend of overproduced glam rock, which is supposed to be why Nirvana were so amazing. Green Day existed already, as did that entire genre. So you can hardly credit Nirvana for that.
I do see what you mean, and I'd probably agree that they are being over-hyped by some. I mean, in Kerrang they had never even been mentioned in the magazine before they were given a cover story last summer. At the end of the day I don't think they are being praised for being something that they aren't, though, even though it might be exaggerated. As for the Nirvana stuff, I'd say they were probably a bigger departure from the rock bands that were big during the '80s than GNR, as well as perhaps the other big grunge bands such as Pearl Jam and Soundgarden. Green Day were around already but they weren't huge before Nirvana. I'm not saying that they owe their success to Nirvana, but I'm pretty certain it would at least have been harder for that sort of band to achieve the popularity they did had it not been for them.
Word. Grunge was pretty varied though, Alice in Chains and Soundgarden had the metal feel, with Pearl Jam closer to classic rock and well Nirvana was king of punk rock i guess. And personally I believe that Stone Temple Pilots sorta drifted towards Indie in a way...
You can't deny he's got talent I dislike a few songs myself, but he can sing pretty damn well, no doubt about it. And his lyrics are pretty damn crazy, imo (not that that'd have anything to do with it, but whatev.) Same as Mercury...I personally dislike his voice very much on many tracks, but damn that man could sing.
it isn't ironic that i found a download package of all 500 songs in october, it's just the truth. i don't know if it's exactly the same, but the first 20 songs didn't change. edit: sorry, it wasn't october, it was mid-november!
Oh he's a talented man, I agree with that. Very talented even. But a lot of his fans seem to think he's the second coming of Christ...
Damn, am I too late to join the fuck Nirvana team? I hate them a lot. Oh, and King's X invented grunge by the way, although they're technically psychedelic progressive metal or something along those lines. Even Eddie Vedder says so. Give em a listen.
Tool fans tend to do that. Tool/Maynard talk about specifically that in their songs [or that's one of the 'meaning' I kind of get] when I'm listening to his lyrics, yet they like to come out and do EXACTLY that. They obviously don't listen very well. What hypocrites. [Not all Tool fans are like that, just some, and it pisses me off] They think they're all high and mighty above the rest of the world for 'finding the message of Tool' or something like that. What message is there? He SPELLS out the message for you in his lyrics, what's the point? The point of someone writing a book/lesson and sending out a message is not only to LISTEN to it, but to put it to practice, they seem to not do that. As for him being a great vocalist. I think he's great, and VERY creative, and an insane lyricist. However, I don't think he deserves to be on the top 100 greatest vocalists of all time. He's got a lot of talent, but that doesn't insure him a place in the top 100 vocalists. As childish as this may sound and all bias aside, I think Chester will/should be up there soon, and hopefully he broadens his horizons [I think DBS or whatever he will call it] will do that for people in general. THere are a few people I know, who despite not having too much of a passion of Linkin Park that think Chester could do great things outside of Linkin Park. Whereas I don't think that's true myself [I like Linkin Park, who woulda guessed?], I think he'll get there eventually.
I wouldn't put Chester up on here or any of LP on these lists, like no offense, but there are way better guitarists and singers out there then LP. Even with or without including Dead By Sunrise, I still wouldn't do it. I wouldn't put Mike up on the list as a good guitarist either, despite the fact that he's got Fort Minor on his side. Two words to describe Maynard as person, as a singer, a song writer, and a guitarist - fucking brilliant. (More so because I fell in love with A Perfect Circle first and then Tool and then Puscifier.)
No one in LP deserves to be on the guitarist list, and I don't think anyone would even suggest that. Chester on the other hand is pretty much the best modern day singer. Plenty of people will disagree with that, but most would place him in the top 5 or so I think.
what about mike not as a singer or a guitar player but as a muscial mind he is ace is far as im concerned
You joking me kid right about Mike being in the list? Trent Reznor should be number #89. Not that great. Not much of a singer. I would put Chester up there IF he had continued on with Hybrid Theory manner. But nooo.
Have any of you listened to Chester lately? His lyrics have been laughable at times and his voice falters greatly in some of their live songs. I'm all for giving the guy credit but seriously? The top 5???