I agree in a way, on McCartney. His writing after the Beatles was somewhat... underwhelming? Yeah. :\
In the case of Nirvana... I admit, I will never be a fan of Cobain or his music, but I've come to the point that I can acknowledge the impact and importance of his work on the world of music at large. But I have to disagree in the case of Dream Theater. Besides the complete difference and disconnection between their two styles... to be honest, Dream Theater have never really been popular. They've been somewhat more popular in recent years, mostly due to the inclusion of their music on games like Guitar Hero, which has exposed them to a whole new group of fans.
My bias over Nirvana, which I've largely let go of, came as a result of being a fan of metal first and foremost. Smells Like Teen Spirit was seen by many as the death knell, so to speak, of Heavy Metal in the 90's. Before Nirvana showed up, the mainstream rock scene was composed mostly of hair bands, and Nirvana shook that up. In the case of hair bands... well, good riddance
( ... )
Underwhelming is right. Perhaps untempered by the rest of the band, McCartney's music tends to be the auditory equivalent of biting into a pack of confectioner's sugar. While he was/is not a bad musician per se, I would attribute most of his solo success to being an ex-Beatle, just like merteuilp mentions.
I like John Lenon just fine, a bit above McCartney, but it ain't my bag either. If I had to pick from the works of any of the ex-Beatles, my vote would go to George Harrison. I am particularly fond of his Cloud Nine album, co-produced with Jeff Lynne of ELO and featuring contributions by Lynne, Eric Clapton and Elton John among others.
On the other hand, I would think that Dream Theater's success owes more to prog-rock bands like King Crimson and Emerson Lake and Palmer than Nirvana. And thank goodness their first singer (while they were named Majesty) didn't last too long with the band - he was more on the lines of 80s hair...
Comments 6
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
So certainly has no basis for making their uninformed comments.
merteuilp opinion = disposable
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
I agree in a way, on McCartney. His writing after the Beatles was somewhat... underwhelming? Yeah. :\
In the case of Nirvana... I admit, I will never be a fan of Cobain or his music, but I've come to the point that I can acknowledge the impact and importance of his work on the world of music at large. But I have to disagree in the case of Dream Theater. Besides the complete difference and disconnection between their two styles... to be honest, Dream Theater have never really been popular. They've been somewhat more popular in recent years, mostly due to the inclusion of their music on games like Guitar Hero, which has exposed them to a whole new group of fans.
My bias over Nirvana, which I've largely let go of, came as a result of being a fan of metal first and foremost. Smells Like Teen Spirit was seen by many as the death knell, so to speak, of Heavy Metal in the 90's. Before Nirvana showed up, the mainstream rock scene was composed mostly of hair bands, and Nirvana shook that up. In the case of hair bands... well, good riddance ( ... )
Reply
I like John Lenon just fine, a bit above McCartney, but it ain't my bag either. If I had to pick from the works of any of the ex-Beatles, my vote would go to George Harrison. I am particularly fond of his Cloud Nine album, co-produced with Jeff Lynne of ELO and featuring contributions by Lynne, Eric Clapton and Elton John among others.
On the other hand, I would think that Dream Theater's success owes more to prog-rock bands like King Crimson and Emerson Lake and Palmer than Nirvana. And thank goodness their first singer (while they were named Majesty) didn't last too long with the band - he was more on the lines of 80s hair...
Reply
Leave a comment