How did Kurt Cobain attract so much attention?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="purpleRz"]Watching About a Son for the second time. So considering even he says his music was garbage mainly 3 chord rythms and he used to make a lot of the lryics about 10 minutes before he recorded the song.... what then was his secret?LockedgeMarketing.
What marketting? Nevermind is a very un-assuming record and Smells Like Teen Spirit was never expected to be any sort of hit.
He was so smexy. That's why. :PPlaWeird
He was good-looking but I wouldn't call him "smexy." :P
And I think it was that he was different from what was popular, at the time. His vocals weren't too bad, his guitar playing is an entirely different story.
[QUOTE="PlaWeird"]He was so smexy. That's why. :PDark_Knight6
He was good-looking but I wouldn't call him "smexy." :P
And I think it was that he was different from what was popular, at the time. His vocals weren't too bad, his guitar playing is an entirely different story.
Yeah, I know but I just had to say that...that small voice in my head told so :D To be serious, I didn't find his music so 'awesome', but some of the lyrics really got into me.[QUOTE="PlaWeird"]He was so smexy. That's why. :PDark_Knight6
He was good-looking but I wouldn't call him "smexy." :P
And I think it was that he was different from what was popular, at the time. His vocals weren't too bad, his guitar playing is an entirely different story.
What was so bad about his playing exactly? The man had a great ear for melody, sure he never did any face melting solos or whatever but would that have honestly adding anything to his songs?
[QUOTE="purpleRz"]Watching About a Son for the second time. So considering even he says his music was garbage mainly 3 chord rythms and he used to make a lot of the lryics about 10 minutes before he recorded the song.... what then was his secret?LockedgeMarketing. No thats not how it happen
Watching About a Son for the second time. So considering even he says his music was garbage mainly 3 chord rythms and he used to make a lot of the lryics about 10 minutes before he recorded the song.... what then was his secret?purpleRzHis secret? He knows how to make a hit song, something no band of now knows how to do. He made music that anyone could get into. I really hate when people dis his guitar work though, it just tells me what kind of road the youth of 2008 has taken to music, "faster and fancier = better" which fortunetly is not true.
[QUOTE="purpleRz"]Watching About a Son for the second time. So considering even he says his music was garbage mainly 3 chord rythms and he used to make a lot of the lryics about 10 minutes before he recorded the song.... what then was his secret?mexicangordoHis secret? He knows how to make a hit song, something no band of now knows how to do. He made music that anyone could get into. I really hate when people dis his guitar work though, it just tells me what kind of road the youth of 2008 has taken to music, "faster and fancier = better" which fortunetly is not true.Some people like to listen to talented musicians instead of mediocre ones...
[QUOTE="purpleRz"]Watching About a Son for the second time. So considering even he says his music was garbage mainly 3 chord rythms and he used to make a lot of the lryics about 10 minutes before he recorded the song.... what then was his secret?mexicangordoHis secret? He knows how to make a hit song, something no band of now knows how to do. He made music that anyone could get into. I really hate when people dis his guitar work though, it just tells me what kind of road the youth of 2008 has taken to music, "faster and fancier = better" which fortunetly is not true.
To be fair, he was a bit sloppy at times. But yeah I agree, most people these days only seem to care about souless shredding, which is something pretty much anyone can do.
[QUOTE="mexicangordo"][QUOTE="purpleRz"]Watching About a Son for the second time. So considering even he says his music was garbage mainly 3 chord rythms and he used to make a lot of the lryics about 10 minutes before he recorded the song.... what then was his secret?Darth-CaedusHis secret? He knows how to make a hit song, something no band of now knows how to do. He made music that anyone could get into. I really hate when people dis his guitar work though, it just tells me what kind of road the youth of 2008 has taken to music, "faster and fancier = better" which fortunetly is not true.Some people like to listen to talented musicians instead of mediocre ones... opinions are great.
Nirvana was a drastic change from what was popular at the time. They were raw, gritty, and honest as apposed to the egotistical self absorbed rock acts that dominated the pop charts during the 80's. Kurt was also a very depressed person and really didn't give himself enough credit as a singer, he had a very versatile voice.TyrantDragon55this is why
His secret? He knows how to make a hit song, something no band of now knows how to do. He made music that anyone could get into. I really hate when people dis his guitar work though, it just tells me what kind of road the youth of 2008 has taken to music, "faster and fancier = better" which fortunetly is not true.[QUOTE="mexicangordo"][QUOTE="purpleRz"]Watching About a Son for the second time. So considering even he says his music was garbage mainly 3 chord rythms and he used to make a lot of the lryics about 10 minutes before he recorded the song.... what then was his secret?TyrantDragon55
To be fair, he was a bit sloppy at times. But yeah I agree, most people these days only seem to care about souless shredding, which is something pretty much anyone can do.
Im not saying he's the best but he does have talent. Yea and I agree with your second part, that really has hurt the music industry imo, music has gotten to be more about showing off. Its very souless now.[QUOTE="purpleRz"]Watching About a Son for the second time. So considering even he says his music was garbage mainly 3 chord rythms and he used to make a lot of the lryics about 10 minutes before he recorded the song.... what then was his secret?mexicangordoHis secret? He knows how to make a hit song, something no band of now knows how to do. He made music that anyone could get into. I really hate when people dis his guitar work though, it just tells me what kind of road the youth of 2008 has taken to music, "faster and fancier = better" which fortunetly is not true. Not going to lie, that second sentence is a blatant fib. There's oodles of bands that can make hit songs but don't have the backing of a major label to get it established. Kurt knew how to take the "seattle sound" and implement as much pop elements as possible without losing legitimacy from the influences he took from. He took on the style(appearance-wise) of Mark Arm from Green River. They used Sub-Pop as a springboard to get a polished demo-tape and sign onto a major label. The label that signed him may not have expected Nirvana to be as huge as they got, but they marketed him perfectly. Without those music videos, who would have cared or known about Nirvana outside of Washington State? What about that cover-art that caught people's attention en-masse? It was a so-called "perfect storm" of Cobain's pop-driven grunge sound, and a fantastic marketing job on both Cobain and the the label's behalf. To deny marketing played a huge part is absolutely silly.
[QUOTE="mexicangordo"][QUOTE="purpleRz"]Watching About a Son for the second time. So considering even he says his music was garbage mainly 3 chord rythms and he used to make a lot of the lryics about 10 minutes before he recorded the song.... what then was his secret?LockedgeHis secret? He knows how to make a hit song, something no band of now knows how to do. He made music that anyone could get into. I really hate when people dis his guitar work though, it just tells me what kind of road the youth of 2008 has taken to music, "faster and fancier = better" which fortunetly is not true. Not going to lie, that second sentence is a blatant fib. There's oodles of bands that can make hit songs but don't have the backing of a major label to get it established. Kurt knew how to take the "seattle sound" and implement as much pop elements as possible without losing legitimacy from the influences he took from. He took on the style(appearance-wise) of Mark Arm from Green River. They used Sub-Pop as a springboard to get a polished demo-tape and sign onto a major label. The label that signed him may not have expected Nirvana to be as huge as they got, but they marketed him perfectly. Without those music videos, who would have cared or known about Nirvana outside of Washington State? What about that cover-art that caught people's attention en-masse? It was a so-called "perfect storm" of Cobain's pop-driven grunge sound, and a fantastic marketing job on both Cobain and the the label's behalf. To deny marketing played a huge part is absolutely silly. No i disagree, backing of a major label is just an excuse. Some of the best albums of the past years have been indie/underground, right now even if a great song was backed by a label, it probably wouldnt hit unless it sounded whats hot on the radio now.
Kurt did not know how to make that "seattle sound..." which is grunge. No other grunge band or seattle band sounded anything like Nirvana, even before them. And again i disagree with the Green River comment (one of my favorite bands) Im sorry but with out music videos oodles of bands would have not made it big, no one expected Nirvana or any of the seattle bands to make it big. Kurt was marketed but not by himself, it was only after Nevermind where he got that treatment, which he did'nt even want to begin with (and it was one of the reasons for his death)
Not going to lie, that second sentence is a blatant fib. There's oodles of bands that can make hit songs but don't have the backing of a major label to get it established. Kurt knew how to take the "seattle sound" and implement as much pop elements as possible without losing legitimacy from the influences he took from. He took on the style(appearance-wise) of Mark Arm from Green River. They used Sub-Pop as a springboard to get a polished demo-tape and sign onto a major label. The label that signed him may not have expected Nirvana to be as huge as they got, but they marketed him perfectly. Without those music videos, who would have cared or known about Nirvana outside of Washington State? What about that cover-art that caught people's attention en-masse? It was a so-called "perfect storm" of Cobain's pop-driven grunge sound, and a fantastic marketing job on both Cobain and the the label's behalf. To deny marketing played a huge part is absolutely silly. No i disagree, backing of a major label is just an excuse. Some of the best albums of the past years have been indie/underground, right now even if a great song was backed by a label, it probably wouldnt hit unless it sounded whats hot on the radio now.[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="mexicangordo"] His secret? He knows how to make a hit song, something no band of now knows how to do. He made music that anyone could get into. I really hate when people dis his guitar work though, it just tells me what kind of road the youth of 2008 has taken to music, "faster and fancier = better" which fortunetly is not true.mexicangordo
Kurt did not know how to make that "seattle sound..." which is grunge. No other grunge band or seattle band sounded anything like Nirvana, even before them. And again i disagree with the Green River comment (one of my favorite bands) Im sorry but with out music videos oodles of bands would have not made it big, no one expected Nirvana or any of the seattle bands to make it big. Kurt was marketed but not by himself, it was only after Nevermind where he got that treatment, which he did'nt even want to begin with (and it was one of the reasons for his death)
Have those same "best albums of the past years", which have been indie/underground, also been incredibly popular? I don't see rabid fanbases for TV on the Radio. Arcade Fire is somewhat well known outside of Canada, but not VERY well known. Although lately I've been happy with Sub-pop's ascendency to the upper echelons of labels in terms of reknown and influence. They finally got a plethora of really solid talent and it's done wonders for them.A major label's backing is not an excuse. Do you think Sub-pop would have had the money back then to afford high-rotation for Nirvana on MTV? Not a chance! He'd be buried in the late-night slot with all the other relatively unknown bands on both radio and TV.
You're right that a great song could be passed over if it doesn't sound like "what's hot", but at the time Nirvana was coming in, Soundgarden and Pearl jam had already been ushered in and things were changing. Obviously, as I said before, Kurt's knowledge of how to write accessible songs came in very handy at a time when people did not really care for anything on the radio. Today, people LIKE what's on the radio, because the labels are always making contstant changes to the popular sound, however minute they are. If people are told to enjoy a type of music on the radio/tv, they will. Remember The Strokes? A few weeks before their debut, the labels and MTV and whatnot were all claiming the band was going to be huge, and hyped them up. Guess what? They WERE huge. Without that hype-train, they probably wouldn't have been huge outside of their scene in NYC. They ALSO had that songwriting talent found in a decent number of bands over the past decades. They were lucky, like Nirvana was, to get that extentof support thrown behind them.
Like I said, he took the seattle sound and mixed in his pop prowess to create a radio-friendly grunge sound. The labels might nothave expected the Seattle bands to take flight like they did, but with waning interest in their current sound they were looking for an ace up the sleeve and threw their weight behind bands they normally wouldn't Nirvana wasn't given the magnitude of support some other bands from Seattle were, but that demo tape of theirs gave them a LOT of interest, for good reason.
I won't deny that after nevermind, the marketing was 99% the label, but prior to the success of nevermind, you can't say that pulling a fast one on Sub-pop so they could nab a major label contract wasn't keen marketing.
[QUOTE="mexicangordo"]No i disagree, backing of a major label is just an excuse. Some of the best albums of the past years have been indie/underground, right now even if a great song was backed by a label, it probably wouldnt hit unless it sounded whats hot on the radio now.[QUOTE="Lockedge"] Not going to lie, that second sentence is a blatant fib. There's oodles of bands that can make hit songs but don't have the backing of a major label to get it established. Kurt knew how to take the "seattle sound" and implement as much pop elements as possible without losing legitimacy from the influences he took from. He took on the style(appearance-wise) of Mark Arm from Green River. They used Sub-Pop as a springboard to get a polished demo-tape and sign onto a major label. The label that signed him may not have expected Nirvana to be as huge as they got, but they marketed him perfectly. Without those music videos, who would have cared or known about Nirvana outside of Washington State? What about that cover-art that caught people's attention en-masse? It was a so-called "perfect storm" of Cobain's pop-driven grunge sound, and a fantastic marketing job on both Cobain and the the label's behalf. To deny marketing played a huge part is absolutely silly.Lockedge
Kurt did not know how to make that "seattle sound..." which is grunge. No other grunge band or seattle band sounded anything like Nirvana, even before them. And again i disagree with the Green River comment (one of my favorite bands) Im sorry but with out music videos oodles of bands would have not made it big, no one expected Nirvana or any of the seattle bands to make it big. Kurt was marketed but not by himself, it was only after Nevermind where he got that treatment, which he did'nt even want to begin with (and it was one of the reasons for his death)
Have those same "best albums of the past years", which have been indie/underground, also been incredibly popular? I don't see rabid fanbases for TV on the Radio. Arcade Fire is somewhat well known outside of Canada, but not VERY well known. Although lately I've been happy with Sub-pop's ascendency to the upper echelons of labels in terms of reknown and influence. They finally got a plethora of really solid talent and it's done wonders for them.A major label's backing is not an excuse. Do you think Sub-pop would have had the money back then to afford high-rotation for Nirvana on MTV? Not a chance! He'd be buried in the late-night slot with all the other relatively unknown bands on both radio and TV.
You're right that a great song could be passed over if it doesn't sound like "what's hot", but at the time Nirvana was coming in, Soundgarden and Pearl jam had already been ushered in and things were changing. Obviously, as I said before, Kurt's knowledge of how to write accessible songs came in very handy at a time when people did not really care for anything on the radio. Today, people LIKE what's on the radio, because the labels are always making contstant changes to the popular sound, however minute they are. If people are told to enjoy a type of music on the radio/tv, they will. Remember The Strokes? A few weeks before their debut, the labels and MTV and whatnot were all claiming the band was going to be huge, and hyped them up. Guess what? They WERE huge. Without that hype-train, they probably wouldn't have been huge outside of their scene in NYC. They ALSO had that songwriting talent found in a decent number of bands over the past decades. They were lucky, like Nirvana was, to get that extentof support thrown behind them.
Like I said, he took the seattle sound and mixed in his pop prowess to create a radio-friendly grunge sound. The labels might nothave expected the Seattle bands to take flight like they did, but with waning interest in their current sound they were looking for an ace up the sleeve and threw their weight behind bands they normally wouldn't Nirvana wasn't given the magnitude of support some other bands from Seattle were, but that demo tape of theirs gave them a LOT of interest, for good reason.
I won't deny that after nevermind, the marketing was 99% the label, but prior to the success of nevermind, you can't say that pulling a fast one on Sub-pop so they could nab a major label contract wasn't keen marketing.
But Nirvana was big before "T.V killed the radio star," They were huge in the underground/ college radio scene. I don't understand how Pearl Jam/ Soundgarden changed anything. They just made the genre much more populare (although Pearl Jam became bigger than Nirvana at the time) I agree that people will follow what is "hot" especially with the current radio scene but what your saying about marketing is a general statement. Every band has has to be marketed. What im saying was, Nirvana did not want that, none of the grunge bands wanted that, because they knew the music and style that they were representing would become a fad. Kurt got angry at it, Pearl Jam almost broke up because of it, Alice in Chains got fed up with it.... ectYea I remember the strokes back in 2002, but let me ask you where are they now? The Strokes were one hit wonders and that was it, along with other bands that shared that whole "80's " sound (The Hives, The vines ect...) Only Interpole made it big out of all of them. Sure some of them got that hype train but again, what band has'nt?
Before Nevermind, Kurt did not want to make it big, his label pressured him and the band to become that false image that everone seen him as (not to sound redundant, but was one of his suicide reasons) I mean look at bleach, or In Utero... Bleach has to be the most hardcore grunge album ever made, and its not radio friendly at all, and In-Utero is a mix of Nevermind and Bleach, which created (a genius) disoriented mix of grunge, much like the Pixies style.
Nevermind was on a major label to begin with, so i dont see how prior to it, they pulled a fast one on sub-pop.
[QUOTE="Lockedge"][QUOTE="mexicangordo"] No i disagree, backing of a major label is just an excuse. Some of the best albums of the past years have been indie/underground, right now even if a great song was backed by a label, it probably wouldnt hit unless it sounded whats hot on the radio now.Have those same "best albums of the past years", which have been indie/underground, also been incredibly popular? I don't see rabid fanbases for TV on the Radio. Arcade Fire is somewhat well known outside of Canada, but not VERY well known. Although lately I've been happy with Sub-pop's ascendency to the upper echelons of labels in terms of reknown and influence. They finally got a plethora of really solid talent and it's done wonders for them.Kurt did not know how to make that "seattle sound..." which is grunge. No other grunge band or seattle band sounded anything like Nirvana, even before them. And again i disagree with the Green River comment (one of my favorite bands) Im sorry but with out music videos oodles of bands would have not made it big, no one expected Nirvana or any of the seattle bands to make it big. Kurt was marketed but not by himself, it was only after Nevermind where he got that treatment, which he did'nt even want to begin with (and it was one of the reasons for his death)
mexicangordo
A major label's backing is not an excuse. Do you think Sub-pop would have had the money back then to afford high-rotation for Nirvana on MTV? Not a chance! He'd be buried in the late-night slot with all the other relatively unknown bands on both radio and TV.
You're right that a great song could be passed over if it doesn't sound like "what's hot", but at the time Nirvana was coming in, Soundgarden and Pearl jam had already been ushered in and things were changing. Obviously, as I said before, Kurt's knowledge of how to write accessible songs came in very handy at a time when people did not really care for anything on the radio. Today, people LIKE what's on the radio, because the labels are always making contstant changes to the popular sound, however minute they are. If people are told to enjoy a type of music on the radio/tv, they will. Remember The Strokes? A few weeks before their debut, the labels and MTV and whatnot were all claiming the band was going to be huge, and hyped them up. Guess what? They WERE huge. Without that hype-train, they probably wouldn't have been huge outside of their scene in NYC. They ALSO had that songwriting talent found in a decent number of bands over the past decades. They were lucky, like Nirvana was, to get that extentof support thrown behind them.
Like I said, he took the seattle sound and mixed in his pop prowess to create a radio-friendly grunge sound. The labels might nothave expected the Seattle bands to take flight like they did, but with waning interest in their current sound they were looking for an ace up the sleeve and threw their weight behind bands they normally wouldn't Nirvana wasn't given the magnitude of support some other bands from Seattle were, but that demo tape of theirs gave them a LOT of interest, for good reason.
I won't deny that after nevermind, the marketing was 99% the label, but prior to the success of nevermind, you can't say that pulling a fast one on Sub-pop so they could nab a major label contract wasn't keen marketing.
But Nirvana was big before "T.V killed the radio star," They were huge in the underground/ college radio scene. I don't understand how Pearl Jam/ Soundgarden changed anything. They just made the genre much more populare (although Pearl Jam became bigger than Nirvana at the time) I agree that people will follow what is "hot" especially with the current radio scene but what your saying about marketing is a general statement. Every band has has to be marketed. What im saying was, Nirvana did not want that, none of the grunge bands wanted that, because they knew the music and style that they were representing would become a fad. Kurt got angry at it, Pearl Jam almost broke up because of it, Alice in Chains got fed up with it.... ectYea I remember the strokes back in 2002, but let me ask you where are they now? The Strokes were one hit wonders and that was it, along with other bands that shared that whole "80's " sound (The Hives, The vines ect...) Only Interpole made it big out of all of them. Sure some of them got that hype train but again, what band has'nt?
Before Nevermind, Kurt did not want to make it big, his label pressured him and the band to become that false image that everone seen him as (not to sound redundant, but was one of his suicide reasons) I mean look at bleach, or In Utero... Bleach has to be the most hardcore grunge album ever made, and its not radio friendly at all, and In-Utero is a mix of Nevermind and Bleach, which created (a genius) disoriented mix of grunge, much like the Pixies style.
Nevermind was on a major label to begin with, so i dont see how prior to it, they pulled a fast one on sub-pop.
They pulled a fast one on Sub-pop by going into the studio to record an album for them, leaving halfway through, and using what they'd recorded for Sub-pop as a demo tape to get another label. Sure, many bands go to studios to record demos, but who goes to sub-pop to record a demo tape? :P They even got the same producer if I recall, when they went to the major label.
The Strokes weren't one-hit wonders, they had a couple of great songs and their discography lasted as long as Nirvana's. :? They're working on another album but since the labels have shifted their interest away from that sound, The Strokes will have to claw tooth and nail to get any resemblance of popularity back. That's what laels dothese days. Sign an artist/band, get a hit or two out of them, and throw them out in favour of a new artist/band. The Strokes fell victim to it, Modest Mouse fell victim to it, and numerous others have as well, including Interpol("Our love to Admire" didn't get much backing behind it). Labels don't want long-lasting popularity for bands, because they don't want to pay them the money they would be making as a huge band. They'd rather spend spare change on a few bands, market them up the wazoo with high rotation, reap the profits, and then dump them. Good bands fall victim to it, and bad bands fall victim to it.
And every band has to be marketed yes, but it's hardly a general statement. I mean, Matthew Good Band was huge here in Canada, as is The Tragically Hip, but who knew/knows about them in the states? Were they marketed? Put on high-rotation? Well, they DID release albums in the USA, and they were on rotation, however it was LOW rotation, and they got nowhere. Does that mean they weren't liked in the states? More like they weren't given the chance to be liked. Placebo would be another example.
Nirvana was enjoying some college radio and inner-state success, but MANY bands get that success. Had Nirvana not gotten that high-rotation, I don't think we'd be talking about them today. That large amount of exposure combined with Kurt's ability to write simple, catchy songs, created a perfect storm. Sometimes you've got to give some credit to marketing and the label for success.I'm not saying Nirvana didn't have a hand in it, or even that they didn't have the larger hand intheir success, but substamtial credit has to be awarded.
Nirvana was a drastic change from what was popular at the time. They were raw, gritty, and honest as apposed to the egotistical self absorbed rock acts that dominated the pop charts during the 80's. Kurt was also a very depressed person and really didn't give himself enough credit as a singer, he had a very versatile voice.TyrantDragon55That and because he attacked Guns 'N Roses. Big no-no. Would you like the complete story? OK, here we go. Axl Rose and Slash went to a Nirvana show, and Courtney Love, Cobain's wife, saw them there. She said Axl was into what they were playing, he was doing the dance he does in the Sweet Child o' Mine Video. Afterwards, Axl went to talk to them, and Cobain proceeded to blow him off. Axl was'nt too bummed, he still requested Nirvana play at his birthday, and told Cobain he'd love to see them do their own version of "Welcome to the Jungle". Fast forward a bit, and Kurt Cobain talks about GNR in an interview. He refers to them as "talentless" and "self indulgent". Then, at the MTV VMA's, Axl and his girlfriend are backstage, when Cobain and Love walk by, holding their infant daughter Francis Bean. Courtney asks Axl to be the godfather, and Axl looks at Cobain and says "Shut your b**** up". Later during the show, Kurt Cobain spits on the keys of a piano he thinks is going to be used by Rose, but actually was Elton John's. I'm not singing Axl's praises, I know he's a misogynistic homophobe, and everything, but I don't think Cobain handled this properly.
What was so bad about his playing exactly? The man had a great ear for melody, sure he never did any face melting solos or whatever but would that have honestly adding anything to his songs?
TyrantDragon55
It always sounded boring and sloppy, to me.
Just because they were a change doesn't make them great. I don't get why people find them to be such a great band... I guess it doesn't really matter, though. I don't like them, but others can. So I shouldn't argue.dreDREb13Different is exactly what makes them great. It's what keeps music fresh and appealing. When everybody sounds the same and nobody is doing anything original, its the band that decides to screw that and do their own thing which will garner most respect.
[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]To me, being 17 or so when Nevermind came out, Nirvana was amazing. It was a drastic shift from all of the popular music at the time.ice_radonLoved them back in the day. Love them even more now where I actually got "with the lights out" box set. Your not kidding. That set breaks my heart, knowing how much more they could have been. In Utero is incredible.
[QUOTE="TyrantDragon55"]Nirvana was a drastic change from what was popular at the time. They were raw, gritty, and honest as apposed to the egotistical self absorbed rock acts that dominated the pop charts during the 80's. Kurt was also a very depressed person and really didn't give himself enough credit as a singer, he had a very versatile voice.auron_16That and because he attacked Guns 'N Roses. Big no-no. Would you like the complete story? OK, here we go. Axl Rose and Slash went to a Nirvana show, and Courtney Love, Cobain's wife, saw them there. She said Axl was into what they were playing, he was doing the dance he does in the Sweet Child o' Mine Video. Afterwards, Axl went to talk to them, and Cobain proceeded to blow him off. Axl was'nt too bummed, he still requested Nirvana play at his birthday, and told Cobain he'd love to see them do their own version of "Welcome to the Jungle". Fast forward a bit, and Kurt Cobain talks about GNR in an interview. He refers to them as "talentless" and "self indulgent". Then, at the MTV VMA's, Axl and his girlfriend are backstage, when Cobain and Love walk by, holding their infant daughter Francis Bean. Courtney asks Axl to be the godfather, and Axl looks at Cobain and says "Shut your b**** up". Later during the show, Kurt Cobain spits on the keys of a piano he thinks is going to be used by Rose, but actually was Elton John's. I'm not singing Axl's praises, I know he's a misogynistic homophobe, and everything, but I don't think Cobain handled this properly.
I know the story, and yeah Kurt could have handled that better. But in his mind GNR repressented everything that he hated so its atleast somewhat understandable.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment