Quote:
|
Originally Posted by demonrail666
I think if Pete Doherty had managed to keep himself together, The Libertines could've become quite important. Musically they were never very interesting (although nor were Nirvana, really) but I think his lyrics and general attitude did kind of capture a certain millennial zeitgeist better than any other rock band I can think of. But then I don't think they had much of a following in the US, even at their height.
|
Yeah, Libertines never really caught on in the U.S. in a big way. I think the England has more “rock stars” from the past 25 years than the U.S. does.
But I think Nirvana was musically interesting. Listen to their predecessors... even Sonic Youth and the Pixies didn’t quite have their knack for turning ugliness into *catchiness.* Both bands are/were more musically interesting and inventive than Nirvana, but Nirvana made people stand up and chant in minor chords. They embraced “punk” while utterly subverting the sing-a-long major chord nature of the Ramones, Pistols, Clash, etc. Their ear for melody and harmony was unique. Like an angsty adolescent Beatles on too much Paxil.
There was some musically interesting stuff going on with that band. The fact that they appealed to such a wide audience by playing sounds and chords that are pretty much scientifically guaranteed to decrease mood and bum people out is amazing to me to this day.
I mean, fucking “Heart-Shaped Box” was a *hit.* “Come as you Are” was a *hit.* These songs are fucking DOWNERS, but they pumped people up.
I think they knew their way around a pop hook and a noise squall in a way that’s never really been seen before or since.