HermesReborn said:

Dave is a better instrumentalist (multi-instrumentalist), singer and songwriter.

[Edited 8/29/11 19:32pm]

I'm 100% certain that Dave Grohl himself would disagree with you.

vainandy said:

No need to bring them back because if they were alive, they would be either retired or selling out and making music that sounds like today's music. At least they are in a better place now......hopefully.

Sad, but true.

mynameisnotsusan said:

HermesReborn said:

Dave is a better instrumentalist (multi-instrumentalist), singer and songwriter.

[Edited 8/29/11 19:32pm]

I'm 100% certain that Dave Grohl himself would disagree with you.

Doesn't matter what he would agree with.

I'd consider him a self righteous twat if he agreed with me

He is though.

HermesReborn said:

mynameisnotsusan said:

I'm 100% certain that Dave Grohl himself would disagree with you.

Doesn't matter what he would agree with.

I'd consider him a self righteous twat if he agreed with me

He is though.

hendrix....

Prince.... in an alternate universe after 1987...

Nick Drake.... but maybe not... only three officially released albums might have helped his legacy.. who knows how mediocre he would have get after that.

Jimmi Hendrix wasnt done yet indeed... he could have jammed with Miles and Prince, and developed his music outside the blues-rock / psychedelic rock realm

Grant McLennan... a fine australian singer-songwriter, who died too soon.

HermesReborn said:

mynameisnotsusan said:

I'm 100% certain that Dave Grohl himself would disagree with you.

Doesn't matter what he would agree with.

I'd consider him a self righteous twat if he agreed with me

He is though.

I definitely prefer Kurt over Dave but it's pretty clear that Dave is a better multi-instrumentalist. As far as who is a better singer or songwriter that is a bit tougher to decide but I prefer Kurt.

I like some of the Foo Fighters' music but compared to Nirvana I find them to be a bit too bland and safe.

JoeBala said:

rialb said:

Sure but Elvis was a grown man. He could have stood up to his manager and said "no." I'm not a huge fan of Elvis but I do think he was a phenomenal talent and it is frustrating that he recorded so many mediocre songs. Imagine Elvis doing whole albums of songs by Hank Williams, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, Motown and on and on. Every week there were amazing songs being released while he was content to churn out soundtrack albums that were of dubious quality.

I don't want to overstate things, most of his '50s material was great and albums like Elvis is Back and From Elvis in Memphis were fantastic but it just seemed like he was capable of so much better.

Actually Elvis did record covers of the artist you mentioned. Sun Records, Elvis In Memphis, Elvis Back In Memphis, Elvis Is Back, Elvis Country, Elvis Today(great vocals and a personal favorite) and TTWII are ones I always recommend. There are some great bonus songs on some of the sountracks too.

Yes but I was specifically referring to him recording entire albums of those artists' songs. Elvis Country is a good album but I would have loved to hear him do an album of country standards.

For much of his peak years (1963-1967) he recorded almost exclusively fairly mediocre material (the movie soundtracks). Those were pivotal years in the history of music and he largely sat on the sidelines making bad movies. For Elvis the '60s started and ended with some of the best music that he ever recorded but he "wasted" so much potential in the middle part of the decade. As I said in an earlier post I am not a huge fan but I do respect his talent, that's why I find it frustrating diving into his catalog. There are some fantastic albums, most of which you pointed out, but when I think about what he could have achieved it makes me very sad/frustrated.

[Edited 8/30/11 18:55pm]

JoeBala said:

Adorecream said:

I would expect Elvis to remain buried, who actually still likes him except rednecks

Why must we come to this?

Some people are just plain ignorant. Either that or they're just jealous that The King still lives on and will continue to do so.

I will bring Marvin Gaye back.

I will also bring MJ, pre-Thriller, and watch him go in another direction.

benjaminira said:

Otis Reading.

rialb said:

HermesReborn said:

Doesn't matter what he would agree with.

I'd consider him a self righteous twat if he agreed with me

He is though.

I definitely prefer Kurt over Dave but it's pretty clear that Dave is a better multi-instrumentalist. As far as who is a better singer or songwriter that is a bit tougher to decide but I prefer Kurt.

I like some of the Foo Fighters' music but compared to Nirvana I find them to be a bit too bland and safe.

Well I don't think the Foos are really known to break boundaries, except maybe in the comedy realm.

Dave wasn't really trying to.

Thats the charm in it.

As a band you can't compare Nirvana with the foo's

they're two differently styled.

kinda why I just made the Dave & Kurt comparison.

Nirvana was a decent band, but they didn't reach success because of Kurt alone

Dave & Krist were very involved.

And people seldom forget that.

Instead of just liking Nirvana

People ascended Kurt as this messianic figure of rock.

Which he wasn't (that's Bono lol)

and that pisses me off.

Kurt wasn't Jim Morrison.

Or John Lennon.

If Kurt was anything he was Holden Caufield

A crude son of a bitch who was disturbed by the world where he was born

yet slightly capitivated by it.

And there's nothing wrong with that

TylerHippie?

rialb said:

For much of his peak years (1963-1967) he recorded almost exclusively fairly mediocre material (the movie soundtracks).

There are some fantastic albums, most of which you pointed out, but when I think about what he could have achieved it makes me very sad/frustrated.

[Edited 8/30/11 18:55pm]

I agree with you it makes me sad as well, but he did record some gems between 63-67. I won't go into the songs as I don't want to make this all about Elvis, and I'm a fan. There are other artists that I respect and all have been mentioned here. I love all gens of music, too bad some people don't appreciate alot of musical styles or should stay quiet when they don't like the artist mentioned. Meaning be respectful.

HermesReborn said:

Well I don't think the Foos are really known to break boundaries, except maybe in the comedy realm.

Dave wasn't really trying to.

Thats the charm in it.

As a band you can't compare Nirvana with the foo's

they're two differently styled.

kinda why I just made the Dave & Kurt comparison.

Nirvana was a decent band, but they didn't reach success because of Kurt alone

Dave & Krist were very involved.

And people seldom forget that.

hardly

You can hardly claim they're differently styled -both are firmly rooted under the umbrella of pop-rock no matter how many subgenres you wanna attach.

Dave and Krist were hired hands for all the involvement they had in Nirvana.

They don't warrent comparison because the Foo Fighters are a band that could never have existed in their own right. Had Kurt not demapped himself the Foo's would have emerged in some form anyway, even as a side project if Dave had been kept on.

[Edited 8/31/11 15:08pm]

elmer said:

HermesReborn said:

Well I don't think the Foos are really known to break boundaries, except maybe in the comedy realm.

Dave wasn't really trying to.

Thats the charm in it.

As a band you can't compare Nirvana with the foo's

they're two differently styled.

kinda why I just made the Dave & Kurt comparison.

Nirvana was a decent band, but they didn't reach success because of Kurt alone

Dave & Krist were very involved.

And people seldom forget that.

hardly

You can hardly claim they're differently styled -both are firmly rooted under the umbrella of pop-rock no matter how many subgenres you wanna attach.

Dave and Krist were hired hands for all the involvement they had in Nirvana.

They don't warrent comparison because the Foo Fighters are a band that could never have existed in their own right. Had Kurt not demapped himself the Foo's would have emerged in some form anyway, even as a side project if Dave had been kept on.

[Edited 8/31/11 15:08pm]

You can probably say that about Dave.

But Krist?

are you insane?

His friendship with Kurt spanned a decade.

You obviously have no idea about Band Dynamics.

What makes a band is shared influences and the camaraderie attached.

Grunge was subpop, that played on a great deal of punk

Foos aren't by any means grunge, they're an alt rock band.

http://www.dailymotion.co...-you_music

How about one legendary song and two Heaven-sent-but-only-lent performers -
Billy and Syreeta?

HermesReborn said:

elmer said:

You can hardly claim they're differently styled -both are firmly rooted under the umbrella of pop-rock no matter how many subgenres you wanna attach.

Dave and Krist were hired hands for all the involvement they had in Nirvana.

They don't warrent comparison because the Foo Fighters are a band that could never have existed in their own right. Had Kurt not demapped himself the Foo's would have emerged in some form anyway, even as a side project if Dave had been kept on.

[Edited 8/31/11 15:08pm]

You can probably say that about Dave.

But Krist?

are you insane?

His friendship with Kurt spanned a decade.

You obviously have no idea about Band Dynamics.

What makes a band is shared influences and the camaraderie attached.

Grunge was subpop, that played on a great deal of punk

Foos aren't by any means grunge, they're an alt rock band.

What makes a band is the music -Kurt was the autocrat, D&K weren't users -that doesn't suggest there was a strong dynamic.

Subpop was just a record label. Grunge was synonymous with alternative rock, it just indicated Seattle.

Curtis Mayfield

Stevie Ray Vaughn

Brook Benton