http://artmazine.arcadja.com

thanks!

My GF is not yet a Great Artist, but is doing a lot better in our shared field than I am. I go to a lot of parties where people want to talk to her and not necessarily me. (A lot of them do talk to me as well, and I appreciate that.) And I live with it. Because I’m an adult. Sometimes I get upset about the situation, but when I do I get upset about the specific circumstances in my life that prevent me from applying myself like she has, or the usual railings against the people who don’t understand my genius. But I would never feel the persecution that this guy does, or try to make some statement about - I don’t know, anything.

You know why? Because I’m HAPPY that my GF is doing well. And I’m glad people are realizing how great she is. Because she is great. I’m not getting the sense that Paul H-O thinks any of those things about Cindy Sherman.

But at the same time, if an artist gains great acclaim in spite (or because) of the fact that they were a douchebag who would scream scream curse words at old ladies more power to him/her. Nice is for Denny’s waitresses, not for people who I throw money at to entertain me.

Well that sums up the belief in the aristocracy of artists perfectly. And a tangential issue of this thread is that it’s almost always MALE artists that are revered in spite of being pedophiles, nasty, violent etc. etc.

While women get to serve them pancakes and suck up their abuse.

With a nice big smile.

Worship of the bad boy artist is one of the PUREST manifestations of male privilege EVER.

My view of that musical period, is basically the whole thing is Cobain vs. Corgan. It’s not the same style at all. It’s a what was (at the time) neo-punk vs. pop-rock flavored by the over-the-top sensibilities of hard rock. Minimalist vs. Maximalist. Come As You Are vs. Disarm (or if you take a wider view, Tonight, Tonight). A lot of bands were in that area, but those were, and probably still are the poles.

As mentioned, the guy who straddled the divide is Butch Vig. By and large, he probably made a lot of it happen.

And IMO, Hole just couldn’t match up to Vig, in the guise of Garbage.

In the long run, commercially, Cobain won. Corgan’s vision just isn’t that radio friendly (although I MUCH MUCH MUCH prefer it) I suspect that those growing up this decade will have similar debates between Jack White vs. Matthew Bellamy

yeah. but I bet I can post a series of tracks containing unlabeled files by female artist that expressed “bitter” and “humiliation” and you don’t know what to feel. (probably you can’t even tell if the work is done by male or female.)

However, I don’t think it’s fair to base one’s judgement of the art itself on what you think of the person. Polanski’s movies are not automatically bad because he’s a rapist. They may be something you choose not to watch because of his personal life, but they don’t magically become bad movies because he’s a convicted criminal.

(He fled the country after his conviction but before his sentencing, which is one of the reasons the LA District Attorney is never going to let him cut a deal to return to the US with no jail time.)

He himself admitted that much in interviews. Vaselines is another well known example, that everybody thought is odd. (Obviously it’s his first sound he learned from) But to compare The melvins to Nirvana is like comparing a potato to a Potato Casserole. The song structure, the bassline, riff, the whole things is different. Just about the only similarity is key preference and particular “fuzzy” sound in early nirvana’s work (obviously he learned the equipment set from the melvins) On top of that comparing sound evolution from albums to albums, live recordings of same songs in the span of his career, the whole thing makes sense. There is one underlying effort, getting away from metal. That Nirvana sound.

nirvanaclub.com/info/articles/index.html

Holes on the otherhand, just doesn’t make sense. Take “Live through this” vs. “Celebrity Skin”, those are the soul of two different persons. One is grunge like, heavy with songwriter, the other is Liz Phair-esque song writing with all sort of layers. (One with typical nirvana, large dynamic change, dissonance, choir of drone in the background, hot-warm extreme dynamic/key change, The next is elevator happy pop with basic rock form) huh…? They should at least hire better producers and songwriters and make it matched.

eg. “asking for it” — “Heaven Tonight”

In fact, Nevermind was a huge pop hit mainly because they had Butch Vig on production, and he can turn muddy, grunge sounds into pure pop beauty. Vig also worked production on various Smashing Pumpkins albums, and Love had an affair with Billy Corgan—in other words, if you’re going to fault Love for working her networks to improve her career, you have to fault Cobain for working the exact same networks.

Let’s just say, Cobain booleg and live recording is coherent through out times. Engineering or no engineering. they are all online. Holes? Completely erratic. And she can’t do pedal and complex layer (it’s that lush yet dreadfull sound of nirvana). It’s a question of execution. I seriously doubt she can get big label contract everything else beside the music.

Drug addict/hysterical personality? Cobain was such a self-involved addict and hysterical personality he killed himself after escaping from rehab. Love has done some terrible stuff, but nothing that terrible. Bad mom? Well, she didn’t kill herself, that’s for sure, so she’s got a leg up on Cobain in the parenting department.

In fact one item that drives him to suicide is the fact he sees himself in his daugther. (Sure that makes him bad parent) But you can’t say he is a bad guitarist or that Courtney Love is an accomplished musician and deserve more musical recognition. That’s bullshit.

geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Venue/6582/Nirvana/suicidenote.html

Comparing Live Through This and Nevermind, or even In Utero, strikes me as a bad idea. The albums sound very different to me, and could only really sound very much the same to someone who hasn’t listened to any other punk from the late 80s/early-to-mid-90s. Sure, they sound alike if you only listen to Top 40 stuff, but Nirvana’s stuff veered from Pixies-esque to this strange sort of melancholy and Hole was like a cross between riot grrl and the Smashing Pumpkins.

Huh…? That doesn’t make any sense (Count the beat, riff change, key change, see the overall song structure, compare the chorus) A Bach is still a Bach whether one plays it with bag pipes, trombone or an orchestra plus minor arrangement. What Hole is doing in their first album is nirvana songs.

On top of that, you can’t say “somebody is overshadowing another person, which imply comparison, then refuse admit there is such thing as comparing works. That’s schizoid.)

squashed, I’m really going to have to ask you to cut your comments to a half or third of what they are, because people are asking me to ban you. You’re not a bad person, and I don’t want to do that, but it’s getting obnoxious.

yeah yeah. I’ll do half the highest poster in a thread, and only after a post is halfway down the page. (So I got my own special rules. I can’t resist but thinking all the implications for admitting this … lol)

(but anyway I don’t think you can seriously argue “Hole” is worth listening as music work without people laughing. Somebody else is going to argue back. Compared to her contemporary, all you can say about CL, through her accomplished some work with limitation. It is the story of her effort that is worth noting, not the actual work itself. I know you have to sell the idea that women can do everything or else it’s gotta be somebody’s fault. But there are external rules you have to square too. Otherwise the argument will sound ridic. )