|
|
Post by cellardoor on Jul 15, 2007 3:05:31 GMT -5
He's good. I do agree that he's overrated though. Why? He just isn't all that special to me. You can say he puts a lot of feeling into his music, but it just doesn't sound that great to me. And to Cellar Door - I think that The Strokes are overrated. Along with 90% of today's music. So just because I don't admire Jeff Buckley for musical talent means that I am "ridiculously uncultured and deaf?" Actually, I am ridiculously cultured and I can hear perfectly fine thank you. (But - I can see the point that other people are making, dead people like Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison are very overrated.) Sorry about that, I got a bit into it. You make a very valid argument, but once again I have to say, as Jay said before, it really depends on your tastes. I don't know if you are a musician, but if you are I think you would appreciate the music one hundred times more than if you weren't. And Noid, I'm not going against you - I totally agree about Kurt Cobain and Jim Morrison, but Jeff never had the CHANCE to change the industry. Nirvana immediatly grabbed attention from teenager, but Jeff didn't get the publicity they did. He had fans, yes, but not the fanbase Nirvana had before Kurt died. And just thinking about it, Jeff did change the industry - in about the same way that Nirvana did. He proved that something that wasn't mainstream (after his death) COULD become popular. |
|
|
|
Post by thepiedpiper on Jul 15, 2007 10:05:23 GMT -5
Whoever posted this thread (and I really couldn't give them the time of day), really should have thought about what they said. When Jeff Buckley died, the world recognised it as the death of a genius. It was more, bringing him to their attention to him than making him overrated. And as far as him only bieng sucessful because of his death: I remind you 'Grace' peaked on the Billboard 200 at 149. Is this sucess? Perhaps it has sold platinum a few times over, steadily but this was inevitable. I have already explained what his death did - bring him to the public eye. However, I hardly think that people bought his album: "Just to see what this dead dude did." No, they did it because of his music. Perhaps he wouldn't have been as "sucessful" with a second album had he been alive, but I know it would have still been incredible music. I don't actually see how you could overrate someone as naturally talented as him, it is only shining a light on an already bright spark. If you really want to talk overrated, we must bring to attention brilliant bands like: The Strokes. Yes, their debut Is This It was fantastic, but they really didn't have the diversity, the song-writing ability, the power to transform a mundane tune into something blissful or the creative talent of Jeff Buckley. He is someone you can only listen to if you are worthy of him. We get songs today that are catchy with a good tune but no SUBSTANCE. This is where Jeff Buckley rises above, like a phoenix. Songs like So Real, and Lilac Wine - just echo genius. Continuing with Lilac Wine: it is songs like this that really are a showcase of his talent. The opening line: "I lost myself..." brings chills to the spines of the eighty-eight year old generation. Perhaps, Buckley would be overrated if he did not burn with a fire of passion, emotion and poignancy, but he does. In fact, Jeff Buckley has really written some of the greatest songs ever. Some artists have one song that will be remembered for an eternity. Jeff Buckley, however, will be immortalized as a deity. He is a trophy in an almost empty cabinet of the twentieth century, and he raised the bar so high that any artist in the last millenium falls palingly short beneath him. Jay spoke of how not everyone will like everything. Yes this is true for things like: "Umbrella" which has reigned for seven weeks, but with Jeff Buckley - you are either deaf or ridiculously uncultured. This is the opinion of a thirteen year old. So I say to you: grow up. ok i've read your post and all the others. thanks for opining. first of all, thank you for stating that you wouldn't give me the time of day and that i'm either deaf or uncultured. those are all very points. i don't think i would consider myself uncultured and last time i checked, i wasn't deaf. it is really just a matter of taste. i agree i think with my original post i probably went a bit ott. but i have never said i don't like jeff buckley. i just think he's overrated. sure his one album was ok, it didn't really do it for me. there are true musical geniuses out there: John Coltrane Django Reinhardt Burt Bacharach Paul McCartney Stravinsky Phillip Glass Charlie Mingus And that's to name but a few, and in my opinion you can't really wedge a jeff buckley into that list. I'm not saying he's not good, he's just not GREAT. How can you honestly suggest genius compared to those people? Of course it's a matter of opinion. But from my position, the ones i've listed above are proper musical geniuses. |
|
|
|
Post by cellardoor on Jul 15, 2007 10:11:27 GMT -5
Whoever posted this thread (and I really couldn't give them the time of day), really should have thought about what they said. When Jeff Buckley died, the world recognised it as the death of a genius. It was more, bringing him to their attention to him than making him overrated. And as far as him only bieng sucessful because of his death: I remind you 'Grace' peaked on the Billboard 200 at 149. Is this sucess? Perhaps it has sold platinum a few times over, steadily but this was inevitable. I have already explained what his death did - bring him to the public eye. However, I hardly think that people bought his album: "Just to see what this dead dude did." No, they did it because of his music. Perhaps he wouldn't have been as "sucessful" with a second album had he been alive, but I know it would have still been incredible music. I don't actually see how you could overrate someone as naturally talented as him, it is only shining a light on an already bright spark. If you really want to talk overrated, we must bring to attention brilliant bands like: The Strokes. Yes, their debut Is This It was fantastic, but they really didn't have the diversity, the song-writing ability, the power to transform a mundane tune into something blissful or the creative talent of Jeff Buckley. He is someone you can only listen to if you are worthy of him. We get songs today that are catchy with a good tune but no SUBSTANCE. This is where Jeff Buckley rises above, like a phoenix. Songs like So Real, and Lilac Wine - just echo genius. Continuing with Lilac Wine: it is songs like this that really are a showcase of his talent. The opening line: "I lost myself..." brings chills to the spines of the eighty-eight year old generation. Perhaps, Buckley would be overrated if he did not burn with a fire of passion, emotion and poignancy, but he does. In fact, Jeff Buckley has really written some of the greatest songs ever. Some artists have one song that will be remembered for an eternity. Jeff Buckley, however, will be immortalized as a deity. He is a trophy in an almost empty cabinet of the twentieth century, and he raised the bar so high that any artist in the last millenium falls palingly short beneath him. Jay spoke of how not everyone will like everything. Yes this is true for things like: "Umbrella" which has reigned for seven weeks, but with Jeff Buckley - you are either deaf or ridiculously uncultured. This is the opinion of a thirteen year old. So I say to you: grow up. ok i've read your post and all the others. thanks for opining. first of all, thank you for stating that you wouldn't give me the time of day and that i'm either deaf or uncultured. those are all very points. i don't think i would consider myself uncultured and last time i checked, i wasn't deaf. it is really just a matter of taste. i agree i think with my original post i probably went a bit ott. but i have never said i don't like jeff buckley. i just think he's overrated. sure his one album was ok, it didn't really do it for me. there are true musical geniuses out there: John Coltrane Django Reinhardt Burt Bacharach Paul McCartney Stravinsky Phillip Glass Charlie Mingus And that's to name but a few, and in my opinion you can't really wedge a jeff buckley into that list. I'm not saying he's not good, he's just not GREAT. How can you honestly suggest genius compared to those people? Of course it's a matter of opinion. But from my position, the ones i've listed above are proper musical geniuses. Okay, this is where you don't get it. (Not bieng rude) We Buckley fans are defending the fact that you said he was OVERRATED. Yet you seem to have debunked this. I think you just proved he's not overrated by agreeing he is good. Oh, and I apologised for saying you were deaf and uncultured, it was ME going OTT. |
|
|
|
Post by thepiedpiper on Jul 15, 2007 10:22:52 GMT -5
oh no i understand, if i was a fan i would defend him to hilt.
but i'm not, i don't dislike him, nor do i think he's rubbish.
he's just overrated by muso's and others.
but i suppose that is to be expected when you are a fan of something.
i wouldn't like it if someone said something about my favourite artist/s.
i just have a small bug bear when it comes to people saying he was a genius (view my previous posts for geniuses)
so i do empathise with you, it's just the problem is your opinion is biased as you are a massive fan of him so you wont listen to reason. (not being rude) but my opinion is not biased because i don't have a vested interest either way.
neither would i if it was my favourite artist. that's how it is.
but i said before, have a listen nick drake, and the others on that list.
|
|
|
|
Post by cellardoor on Jul 15, 2007 10:25:46 GMT -5
It's true, I am biased, real biased.
And I've been listening to Nick Drake for a couple of months now -
But I really, I don't understand -
How can you not think he is a musical genius?
His voice jumps octaves, and his music is simply incredible.
I WOULD listen to reason if you could say to me: "Look, his music is mundane, done before, not the first..."
But you can't.
|
|
|
|
Post by thepiedpiper on Jul 15, 2007 10:33:47 GMT -5
It's true, I am biased, real biased. And I've been listening to Nick Drake for a couple of months now - But I really, I don't understand - How can you not think he is a musical genius? His voice jumps octaves, and his music is simply incredible. I WOULD listen to reason if you could say to me: "Look, his music is mundane, done before, not the first..." But you can't. i think we might end up going round in circles but as you wish: ok, Jeff Buckley reminds me a bit of Blind Melon musically, i personally find the chord sequences he uses are tired, formulaic, and cliched. his lyrics are somewhat generic. mariah carey (i'm not a fan of her either) has vocal range of about 5 octaves which is more impressive than that slightly irritating warble he uses. he reminds me of MOR (middle of the road) inoffensive standard post grunge bland radio friendly rock. if that's your thing, fine. sure he's a good musician, sure he can sing, sure he deserves some respect for being as popular as he is with only one album, sure he can play guitar but a genius he aint (again, see my list for genius) imo sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by cellardoor on Jul 15, 2007 10:46:27 GMT -5
Similar chord SEQUENCES?
No, he uses similar chords, possibly keys, octaves - but NONE of his tunes are similar.
His lyrics, perhaps, are generic (and I must say I don't agree - they are incredible emotional and he was voted third best lyricist of all time by the Times), but for me lyrics are 5% and music 95%.
And his voice: he doesn't need a five octave range (but I would wholly dissagree when you say Mariah Carey is less irritating than him. Jeff Buckley, by the way, has a four octave range - listen to Corpus Christi Carol) because his voice and can change any tune. Jay, and I agree, said he could sing anything and make it sound incredible.
Perhaps he is innofensive standard post grunge bland radio friendly (radio friendly, are you kidding?) rock, but then this is unique isn't it? How many more artists like that are there? Plus, it seems your bringing in music PREFERENCE again, which I don't think we should.
For example, my mother's now deceased mother loved opera, classical and couldn't stand anything with a guitar. Jeff Buckley was an exception and: Corpus Christi Carol was played at her funeral.
And then...Kurt Cobain? I do NOT think he is a genius in ANYWAY.
Perhaps if you look for great lyrics, which is what I bow down to Kurt for, he's your man - but musical talent?
Remember, Nirvana was a band.
I'm afraid circles (slightly disjointed ones) we'll be running my friend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick"The Noid" on Jul 15, 2007 11:08:28 GMT -5
So, I see you're a jazz/instrumental fan. Oh, I totally agree with your selections. Very few people, that I know, rarely take the time to appreciate the genius of intrumental musicians.
If you could indulge me, your selection of Paul McCartney. Why Paul McCartney in comparison with the other Beatles? John Lennon was a lyrical genius and had a great ear for hooks. And don't even get me started with George Harrison, my personal favorite. The first to add feedback, Indian style music in western music, backwards guitar playing and he totally evented the 70s rock/slide sound! His debut "All Things Must Pass" is one of my favorite albums of all time.
But with Paul... I understand his genius in his ability to write beautiful melodies and his unstopping passion for writing hit songs over the years. But in comparison with the other two Beatles or with other genius of the decade (aka Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix) he comes up, just a little, short. His finest accomplishment, argueably "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" was extremely influenced by Brian Wilson's "Pet Sounds" and "SMiLE Sessions," of which he attended its production. "Lady Madonna" is influenced by the Beach Boy's song "Wild Honey" and the "White Album" is influenced by Bob Dylan's "John Wesley Harding" and the Beach Boys' "Wild Honey/Friends" albums.
I know, I know that every artist is influenced by others and at that time every artists were borrowing from other (aka the Rolling Stones copying The Beatles). However, Paul really did need his influences and in many ways copied them. Look at the song "Back in the U.S.S.R. It even has a Beach Boy riff in the Bridge, Oh..those Ukraine girls really knock me out and leave the West behind....
Don't get me wrong!!!! I absolutely love Paul McCartney!!! I've seen him God knows how many times live and would never deny his genius in his abilities to write songs, but I just was wondering why you picked him as a genius?
|
|
|
|
Post by cellardoor on Jul 15, 2007 11:11:17 GMT -5
Noid +3.
Very intelligent
I whole-heartedly agree about Macca.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick"The Noid" on Jul 15, 2007 12:03:43 GMT -5
Why thank you very much Cellar Door. I try to defend my arguements that way people know where I'm coming from.
I understand where "Thepiedpiper" is coming from with the post-grunge-radio friendly sound, but I wouldn't put Jeff Buckley or Blind Melon in that category (That's more like Jewel and Sheryl Crow). Yes, Buckley and Blind Melon tended to write around the same chords, but heck lots of artists do that! Writing around the same chord allows artists not to strain their voice, especially those who tour a lot. David Crosby, for example, wrote tons of songs around A, and Ray Charles from wrote every song he ever sang around the keys of E and A. Does that make them less of a singer? I don't think so. They both have beautiful voices, and so does Jeff. Artists who love to sing harmony tend to write around the same chord because it makes subtle changes sound brilliant.
My favorite thing about Jeff Buckley is how he could make a cover of song his own, for example the cover of "Mama, You've Been On My Mind." I absolutely love this song and his cover gave it a haunting new dimension and an elegant beauty.
Cellar Door, I hope you've been liking Nick Drake. That's an artist, like Buckley, that was never appreciated until after he died, 25 years afterward in Drake's case. The Godfather of emo.
|
|
|
|
Post by cellardoor on Jul 15, 2007 12:05:32 GMT -5
Why thank you very much Cellar Door. I try to defend my arguements that way people know where I'm coming from. Cellar Door, I hope you've been liking Nick Drake. That's an artist, like Buckley, that was never appreciated until after he died, 25 years afterward in Drake's case. The Godfather of emo. I've been loving every second! Fantastic talent. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Jul 15, 2007 15:24:14 GMT -5
That was meant as a little joke to the Beach Boys.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nick"The Noid" on Jul 15, 2007 15:58:10 GMT -5
That was meant as a little joke to the Beach Boys. Yeah, I knew it was a joke/tribute to Brian Wilson. I just wanted to show an obivous example of Paul McCartney being influenced by the Beach Boys. It was Paul's way of trying to get Brian back into groove of writing alot of material by saying "Hey, your music matters to me, listen." But I'll give you another example of how Paul was influenced by Brian Wilson. I know for a fact that Paul McCartney was at the recording of the song "Vega-Tables" during the SMiLE Sessions and was recorded eating one of the carrots in the background music. If you listen to that song (tempo and chord structure) and then listen to Paul's contribution to "A Day In The Life" they are very similar. Check it out. *On a side note, if none of you all out there don't have or have listen to Brian Wilson's SMiLE, go buy it. It is one the greatest albums ever made and I can't imagine what it would have done if it would have been release in 1967. |
|
