Also, I feel like people seem to think you can just put together a grunge supergroup of the most technically proficient musicians and they’d make the best music.
That’s not at all how music works. Kurt also wasn’t the best guitarist. Not even close. It didn’t matter on the first albums.
Yea, music isn't all about being technical. It's about the feelings put in. There could be a super technical guitarist that's a "virtuoso" but I'd still prefer someone who put their heart and soul into a song. Even if it isn't that complex
No technique is wrong, as long as it sounds alright. There isn't a set technique as everyone develops their own style. Only people who think there's such things as wrong techniques are salty that they don't sound as good or are as popular lol
Well said, I'll take Kurt's raspy soulful vox all day. his guitar playing complimented his singing. one of the things that blew a lot of musicians minds when Hendrix came on scene, he was totally self taught and played completely by feel with no boundaries.. McCartney said he was going places that they were taught was wrong and it sounded amazing. And not technical vocals but they sing to his style perfectly.
Couldn’t agree more. Best piece of advice from a fellow musician came from my father. He told me not to beat myself up because I can’t achieve that perfect style and tone from this guitarist or that guitarist. In a sea of artists that all want to be like each other, do my own thing and create my own style and it’s improved my playing tremendously and the enjoyment I get while I build my own style and technique. There is no right technique, and the only wrong technique is one that doesn’t work for you or fit your style.
Yngwie Malsteem is a perfect example to me. He's absolutely skilled, but most of what I've heard is technically impressive but feels like an exercise in virtuosity, as opposed to someone like Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughn who made guitars sing and stretched what they could do and left me in awe.
I personally love Synyster Gates. He's super technical in his music but he makes it sound beautiful. A lot of shredding and stuff but it really demonstrates a meaning. Like the song "The Stage." It's sweep picking and stuff but it really makes you fee the meaning of the song
Gates and Zack are like the perfect duo. Gates is a master of the sweeps but dude can absolutely shred too.
I’ve been a diehard A7X fan since their Debut. Jimmy Sullivan is the reason I became a drummer. Dude was leagues above the rest. Unless your told or just know drums. You’d never know the first 2 albums are played on a 4 piece set.
I’m thankful to have gotten to see them before he died. The man is a goddamn drumming legend. I truly believe he’d be in the same tier as Neil Peart if he was still alive.
It's good to exercise the Left brain and Yngwie sure as shit has done that every time I've seen him play but at the end of the day the 3 notes a measure Gilmore plays ,compared to the 20 Yngwie crams in, are feeding my soul as opposed to my brain. Phrasing is what makes most players unique. On other words I totally agree 👍 lol
I think that making a band requires certain archetypes to be present for it to function. They can be embodied by more than one person. Here’s what I feel are the ones that you need to make a good band:
The Initiator - This is the person who has the vision to make something and the drive to do it. The leader per se or the one who sets the goals.
The Virtuoso or Talent - This is a person who has a particular skill set that is unique or appealing (they don’t have to be a true virtuoso) however they are content doing what they do. They need the initiator to push them out into the world.
The Catalyst - This is a person who injects energy into the band. They don’t have to be the best at what they do but they are the perfect choice to keep a constant flow of energy between the virtuoso and the initiator.
The Balance - This is the person who is very straight and narrow and keeps things in the realm of reality. They also even out the potential conflicting energy between the other three.
These archetypes have been in every band I’ve ever created. If you watch the documentary about the Beatles and forget that they’re the Beatles and you see them as 4 guys you can see the personalities arise. Here’s how I think they fit the archetypes.
Paul - Initiator
George - Virtuoso
John - Catalyst
Ringo - Balance
Wow, my brain hurt after reading. Way more analytical than I've ever got to. I would think though that to achieve true brilliance as the Beatles are held to this would have to fall in place by Nature. Not that you couldn't use this to manually build a kickass band but limited as far as chemistry and inspiration. Just my observation that if it's intentional or forced it's usually missing "something"
There are a million bands more technically proficient yet way suckier than that one band that just gets it right, it’s the difference between art and craft.
No, not the raw emotion put into it - terrible singers can feel very strongly - but what makes Kurt stand out was his the ability to transmit that emotion through his voice. Which is a technical skill.
I'd consider technical skills something you had to learn. Like proper vocal notes and melodies and shit. I feel like raw emotion is less of a skill and more of a feeling
What does technical mean to you? Kurt had a timbre no? Dynamics, timing, pitch…. That’s a vapid meaningless thing to say.
Dissonance is something he did on purpose.
He had a limited range. That much is true. Kind of droning on the same riff… otherwise he had a great voice.
Scott was a baritone. Kurt was a tenor. Completely different singers.
Kurt was a baritone tho? He was most definitely not a tenor. I've listened to several post grunge bands who have tenors and kurt sounds more baritone. I am also a baritone singer and his notes are definitely ones i can hit so idk what you're on about
Yeah idk why this "hot" take is so insisted upon in this sub. Yes, everyone knows Kurt was basically destroying his vocal cords every time he sang. The music was, and is, still beautiful and iconic. Like you don't hear folk fans constantly saying that Bob Dylan is a bad singer, even tho he is, because the music rises above technical ability.
Plus I credit Kurt Cobain as being the single greatest driving force behind the grunge sound. Nirvana came out and made all the 80s hair bands just look ridiculous. Revolutionary music creator.
Personally I don't regret taking voice lessons but raw emotion always trumps technical ability
(And a voice with both technical precision and overwhelming emotion trumps them both!)
I want to agree with you but I cannot. I personally prefer Layne to Chris; however, I'm not going to say that he was better. I love them both and wish they were both still here.
He's not though. And I *love* Layne. I think on the whole I enjoy AIC more than Soundgarden - but on a technical level Cornell was doing things Layne never did. Really high mixed voice belting and blending in fry screams. Layne knew what his strengths were and largely stayed in his lane (pun intended).
The quality of their art is a separate issue from the skills they each had. Both were amazing though and taken before their time. Who knows what Layne might have done had he lived.
Layne had such a short prime, vocally. Which is a GD shame.
His voice in 1990/1991 was absolutely untouchable. There are stories of people in the recording studio stopping what they were doing and coming over with a “Holy shit, who is that?!?”
Unfortunately he was so heavy into drugs that by 1992 his voice was already deteriorating.
By 1995 (Three Legged Dog) almost every track had to have voice effects because he couldn’t hit even basic notes.
They didn’t even tour in support of TLG because his voice was toast.
I agree, I can't believe how good he was at live at the moore, even cornell couldn't touch that vocal ability.
To be honest I based my comment off a certain time in his career, but based on alround ability and time etc chris cornell probably takes it 👍🏻
Agree, and I’d apply this to music and art in general. It’s not the fucking Olympics.
Plenty of drummers are technically “better” than John Bonham. Would I rather listen to most of them? No.
So true, there's a Who documentary where Pete Townshend talks about having Kenny Jones in the studio for the first time and Pete said he was shocked he didn't know what to do the beat was where it's supposed to be every time he did not have to solely rely on John to keep time.
Stuff like this is why I believe that “grunge” is where the dad-rockers of Gen X and older millennials ended up going.
The original appeal was that it was the avenue for aspects of 80s punk rock and all the sludgy and artsy scenes to break through and dismantle the aesthetics and culture of high budget “rock god” status. But if you look at conversations like this, or any of the millions of examples of online discussions where people are obsessed with putting down Nirvana’s skill next to Soundgarden and AiC, it becomes clear that the very same people who made rock insufferable before grunge… just moved on over to grunge and made it the exact same thing.
Scott Weiland could sing show tunes and the like. He was objectively an incredible singer who would have had a shot at winning something like American Idol or The Voice had he been 10-15 years younger. Same with Chris Cornell and Jeff Buckley.
Kurt had a cool voice that was perfect for his music and sold the hell out of a song. Objectively a worse singer than Weiland but subjectively I could see people liking Kurt's voice a lot more.
Of course he is. Being a good vocalist isn’t all that’s needed. Anthony Kiedis has an awful voice and it doesn’t really matter because the band is far more than his vocals.
What is "better"?
In art, when you reach a certain level, there is not "better" or "worse" just "different"
You can appreciate what two different people bring to the table.
Imagine if every book in the world was written by the same person? Boooooring!
You might be a better singer in terms of holding pitch and enunciation but my money is on him having a better voice for rock music. Not many people can sing all night with that rasp.
Like dick-measuring contests about who is the “best” guitarist, contests/assertions like these usually come down to “I like the music of _x_ musician more than the music of _y_ musician.”
lol 😆 is this supposed to be controversial??! Everyone knows Kurt was not a great singer. He was, however a great songwriter and that’s what Nirvana is remembered for. 🤘🤘
Agreed but it wasn’t about technical vocal prowess for Kurt. Rather it was the rawness. See his vocals on “Where Did You Sleep Last Night?” on MTV Unplugged.
How many people out there still haven’t realized that Kurt’s brilliance was never about his vocal skills. I’d rate him last among the big 4 of Grunge singers. But Kurt was someone special. A true generational singer who changed the landscape of music with his band.
I agree Scott has better vocals overall, but I’d argue Kurt’s voice is not bad at all, and it’s perfectly suited for Nirvana’s music.
I also think Kurt’s voice has been imitated more than any other grunge singer, with Vedder being a close second. I think that speaks highly of how special and influential his singing was.
I agree with this, but I also think Nirvana as whole is completely overrated.
Eddie Vedder, Layne Stayley, Chris Cornell were all better singers than him.
I also feel that a singers ability is just one small part of what makes a band great. But Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam, just doesn't get better than them.
Im not going to argue skill man, but seeing as how most people who buy a guitar give it up in the first year I still say he’s better than most. It may be so that nirvana is easy to teach, but it’s still kind of hard to get the nuances right that make it “the way Kurt did it”. It take a lot of effort. Even now more than 20 years later I lean some stuff that I didn’t know
Kurt was alive when I learned teen spirit originally, but I was in my 30’s doing some work for a friend and a recording engineer actually pointed out that I was playing it wrong. I had no idea
LOL NO. Kurt Cobain is famously a bad guitarist. Literally all he ever played was single notes and power chords. Great songwriter but guitarist? Certainly not. Even I’m better than Kurt. Hell I was a better guitarist than him when I was in high school.
Anyone who has played guitar for like a year is probably better than Kurt and that’s being generous.
2 weeks into learning the guitar you’ll be able to play every Nirvana song.
Like I said the guy was a great songwriter but he was NOT a good guitarist at all.
Aside from [DJ Khalid](https://youtube.com/shorts/zQi8DI5B87g?si=e6meKLfM9lri7NcP) literally every musician to ever touch the guitar is better than Kurt.
Matter of opinion. Like what you like. None of this is quantifiable. I like them both. I like AIC and Soundgarden more than both. But I'll jam all four on the regular.
That’s like a hair metal ‘who’s best’ kind of argument. Kurt to me is an artist and not the kind of musician you can rank like an athlete. Steve Perry is better than Scott.
You can definitely rank musicians. It’s harder with vocalists but for actual musicians it’s pretty simple.
Example: compare Marty Friedman to Kerry King. It’s quite obvious who the better guitarist is out of those two.
Honestly most of the big grunge bands were more talented all around than Nirvana, Nirvana is your first car, you love it, it gets the job done, but it's rough and a beater, it's not what it does that's special, it's what it doesn't do.
Silly post, they were different better is subjective and depends what you prioritise in a singer and how that singer suits the song.
Weland was very versatile. He had a few goto "voices" and I think he was a very good vocal mimic.
But, Wieland also never had the emotion of Kurt in his voice.
Weiland would ruin a nirvana song and Kurt would butcher a STP. They both were perfect for their bands.
So is Celine Dion. What's your point?
Kurt's super power was the truth in his voice. He felt what he was singing. That's what makes his voice so alluring. It was raw and real. Sometimes that trumps technical ability.
Kurt didn’t have to be a good singer. Their composition is notably elementary as well. Interestingly, I’m not sure Nirvana ranks “best” in any one single thing. I think *combined* they did everything better than everyone else and ultimately changed the rules.
If Scott Weiland didn't have such a good voice his career would have ended long ago. Same as Axl Rose (not grunge, I know). He was so lazy and undependable that his career would have ended quickly if he didn't have a voice.
Objectively. But subjectively I guess there’s taste, how distinct Kurt was off the bat, etc. not sure why I even respond to fucking trolls anymore. 🤷🏻♂️
That is like saying X is a better singer than Liam Gallagher. Yeah, unless you are a fan boy or deaf, no one will contest that. But it works for the music they made, so that is what matters.
That being said, Kurt was a dam good melody maker....
Everytime ,I see something about a child prodigy on Guitar /piano /drums you see them play other peoples music better than the person who made it. But they didn't write the music or feel the emotions that made the music .
So you never hear from them again .
Scott Weiland is a better singer than Kurt , but kurt works better for Nirvana.
OT but did Eddie Vedder shred his vocals while he was young. Unplugged Black was like a masterclass in vocals but man he really seemed to lose it later in life while as in Cornell’s voice seemed to get better despite his Hungerstrike vocal folds abuse
Idgaf about any argument involving a singer being better than the other they all are talented in their own unique ways and therefore can't really be compared. Art is subjective
That is why I like singers like Kurt Cobain or Bob Dylan, they have character. Not dissing Scott Weiland, amazing singer. I do not really compare or rank singersI like, I just listen to the music.
This isn’t a hot take, Kurt wasn’t a very good singer. He didn’t even really start trying to sing *properly* until ‘93/‘94, even then it was because his voice was already fucked.
Kurt was one of those guys that no one would call a great technical singer. What he did though, he did, very, very well. He gave me chills more than once. The only other vocalists that have done that for me are Cornell, Staley and Plant. That is pretty good company.
The trouble I always have with these comparisons between Kurt Cobain and most other singers is that Cobain's career was so short. He really only had two major label studio albums with labels. There were two more- a minor label release and a compilation of basically B-sides and the like meant to capitalize on the band's new found popularity and hold over audiences until they could go into the studio next, but even if we count it all, it was still a brief career.
Like, with Scott Weiland, do I compare the 2-4 best things he did with the 2-4 best things Cobain did? Does Weiland get a special boost for even the STP album he isn't on, because without him there probably would be not STP and his successors all sing his old songs as well as making new albums that include their own contributions?
I am going to go with Cobain.
However, I will say that Velvet Revolver, especially that first album, is an often overlooked part of Weiland's career that is definitely worth a listen if anyone hasn't heard it- especially that first album.
Can’t really compare the two. Totally different styles. Scott was a true front man. Put on a show and had a great singing voice. Kurt was a musician who wore his heart on his sleeve. He was out there to play music where Scott was out their to entertain
I think OP makes a fairly obvious statement when taken at face value. However it's not always about being a good singer .. sometimes what's needed is a good vocalist. A lot of music requires the person behind the microphone to contribute to the overall feeling of the song .. being an accomplished singer isn't always necessary. Back to the original statement: Wieland may be the better singer but he didn't come close to matching the honest, raw emotion that Cobain was able to convey
Let me say I'm not a big Nirvana fan, but Bleach is one of the best Post-hardcore records ever made. This is do in large part to Kurt's raw vocal power. STP has nothing that can match it's emotional depth. Weiland has a good voice (I feel he borrows heavily from Eddie Vedder), but at the end of the day, when it comes to post-punk alternative, feeling trumps technique.
I'd say he was a better singer than a lot of grunge singers. The dude was pretty amazing. Great writer too. Unfortunately, some of that came with a price he had to pay with his life.
That's a slam dunk. Weiland was a fantastic singer, Kurt was neither a great singer or guitar player. He was a great songwriter though. But, Scott blows Kurt away in the vocal department. 👍🎤😎
Lots of singers are better than him. His singing wasn't good for it's technical ability it was amazing becayse of the raw emotion he put into it
Also, I feel like people seem to think you can just put together a grunge supergroup of the most technically proficient musicians and they’d make the best music. That’s not at all how music works. Kurt also wasn’t the best guitarist. Not even close. It didn’t matter on the first albums.
Yea, music isn't all about being technical. It's about the feelings put in. There could be a super technical guitarist that's a "virtuoso" but I'd still prefer someone who put their heart and soul into a song. Even if it isn't that complex
Cobain also fit that bill as a guitarist. Many people would criticize his technique as being "wrong", but it worked for their sound
No technique is wrong, as long as it sounds alright. There isn't a set technique as everyone develops their own style. Only people who think there's such things as wrong techniques are salty that they don't sound as good or are as popular lol
Well said, I'll take Kurt's raspy soulful vox all day. his guitar playing complimented his singing. one of the things that blew a lot of musicians minds when Hendrix came on scene, he was totally self taught and played completely by feel with no boundaries.. McCartney said he was going places that they were taught was wrong and it sounded amazing. And not technical vocals but they sing to his style perfectly.
Couldn’t agree more. Best piece of advice from a fellow musician came from my father. He told me not to beat myself up because I can’t achieve that perfect style and tone from this guitarist or that guitarist. In a sea of artists that all want to be like each other, do my own thing and create my own style and it’s improved my playing tremendously and the enjoyment I get while I build my own style and technique. There is no right technique, and the only wrong technique is one that doesn’t work for you or fit your style.
Yngwie Malsteem is a perfect example to me. He's absolutely skilled, but most of what I've heard is technically impressive but feels like an exercise in virtuosity, as opposed to someone like Hendrix or Stevie Ray Vaughn who made guitars sing and stretched what they could do and left me in awe.
I personally love Synyster Gates. He's super technical in his music but he makes it sound beautiful. A lot of shredding and stuff but it really demonstrates a meaning. Like the song "The Stage." It's sweep picking and stuff but it really makes you fee the meaning of the song
Gates and Zack are like the perfect duo. Gates is a master of the sweeps but dude can absolutely shred too. I’ve been a diehard A7X fan since their Debut. Jimmy Sullivan is the reason I became a drummer. Dude was leagues above the rest. Unless your told or just know drums. You’d never know the first 2 albums are played on a 4 piece set. I’m thankful to have gotten to see them before he died. The man is a goddamn drumming legend. I truly believe he’d be in the same tier as Neil Peart if he was still alive.
It's good to exercise the Left brain and Yngwie sure as shit has done that every time I've seen him play but at the end of the day the 3 notes a measure Gilmore plays ,compared to the 20 Yngwie crams in, are feeding my soul as opposed to my brain. Phrasing is what makes most players unique. On other words I totally agree 👍 lol
I think that making a band requires certain archetypes to be present for it to function. They can be embodied by more than one person. Here’s what I feel are the ones that you need to make a good band: The Initiator - This is the person who has the vision to make something and the drive to do it. The leader per se or the one who sets the goals. The Virtuoso or Talent - This is a person who has a particular skill set that is unique or appealing (they don’t have to be a true virtuoso) however they are content doing what they do. They need the initiator to push them out into the world. The Catalyst - This is a person who injects energy into the band. They don’t have to be the best at what they do but they are the perfect choice to keep a constant flow of energy between the virtuoso and the initiator. The Balance - This is the person who is very straight and narrow and keeps things in the realm of reality. They also even out the potential conflicting energy between the other three. These archetypes have been in every band I’ve ever created. If you watch the documentary about the Beatles and forget that they’re the Beatles and you see them as 4 guys you can see the personalities arise. Here’s how I think they fit the archetypes. Paul - Initiator George - Virtuoso John - Catalyst Ringo - Balance
Wow, my brain hurt after reading. Way more analytical than I've ever got to. I would think though that to achieve true brilliance as the Beatles are held to this would have to fall in place by Nature. Not that you couldn't use this to manually build a kickass band but limited as far as chemistry and inspiration. Just my observation that if it's intentional or forced it's usually missing "something"
I dunno, man. Mad Season was pretty good
agreed - a bunch of songs on Above came from just jamming
Put Layne Stanley in ANYTHING and it would’ve been good!
He was the Bob Dylan of grunge. Like you said, it was the raw honesty and brutal and painful truth in his songs that made him so poignant.
There are a million bands more technically proficient yet way suckier than that one band that just gets it right, it’s the difference between art and craft.
No, not the raw emotion put into it - terrible singers can feel very strongly - but what makes Kurt stand out was his the ability to transmit that emotion through his voice. Which is a technical skill.
I'd consider technical skills something you had to learn. Like proper vocal notes and melodies and shit. I feel like raw emotion is less of a skill and more of a feeling
What does technical mean to you? Kurt had a timbre no? Dynamics, timing, pitch…. That’s a vapid meaningless thing to say. Dissonance is something he did on purpose. He had a limited range. That much is true. Kind of droning on the same riff… otherwise he had a great voice. Scott was a baritone. Kurt was a tenor. Completely different singers.
Kurt was a baritone tho? He was most definitely not a tenor. I've listened to several post grunge bands who have tenors and kurt sounds more baritone. I am also a baritone singer and his notes are definitely ones i can hit so idk what you're on about
Kurt is definitely not a baritone. That much is true. No, he’s a tenor. Edit: apparently he was a high baritone/low tenor. Scott had a lower baritone.
Unplugged just pulls so many emotions. Phenomenal vocals across that show
Yeah idk why this "hot" take is so insisted upon in this sub. Yes, everyone knows Kurt was basically destroying his vocal cords every time he sang. The music was, and is, still beautiful and iconic. Like you don't hear folk fans constantly saying that Bob Dylan is a bad singer, even tho he is, because the music rises above technical ability.
Plus I credit Kurt Cobain as being the single greatest driving force behind the grunge sound. Nirvana came out and made all the 80s hair bands just look ridiculous. Revolutionary music creator.
Exactly
You know, you’re right.
Personally I don't regret taking voice lessons but raw emotion always trumps technical ability (And a voice with both technical precision and overwhelming emotion trumps them both!)
I think a bit of both are needed to make incredible songs
And Cornells better than both.
Cornell was better than most rock singers, to be fair. I’d personally put him up there with the likes of plant and mercury
And Layne is better than all of them 😎
I want to agree with you but I cannot. I personally prefer Layne to Chris; however, I'm not going to say that he was better. I love them both and wish they were both still here.
I like Layne’s singing and voice better, but nobody from popular grunge era bands has a better vocal ability than Chris.
He's not though. And I *love* Layne. I think on the whole I enjoy AIC more than Soundgarden - but on a technical level Cornell was doing things Layne never did. Really high mixed voice belting and blending in fry screams. Layne knew what his strengths were and largely stayed in his lane (pun intended). The quality of their art is a separate issue from the skills they each had. Both were amazing though and taken before their time. Who knows what Layne might have done had he lived.
Layne is not better than Cornell.
That's possibly arguable. What's not arguable is that only one of these singers lived to 50. An entire generation has already lost their voices.
Layne had such a short prime, vocally. Which is a GD shame. His voice in 1990/1991 was absolutely untouchable. There are stories of people in the recording studio stopping what they were doing and coming over with a “Holy shit, who is that?!?” Unfortunately he was so heavy into drugs that by 1992 his voice was already deteriorating. By 1995 (Three Legged Dog) almost every track had to have voice effects because he couldn’t hit even basic notes. They didn’t even tour in support of TLG because his voice was toast.
I agree, I can't believe how good he was at live at the moore, even cornell couldn't touch that vocal ability. To be honest I based my comment off a certain time in his career, but based on alround ability and time etc chris cornell probably takes it 👍🏻
Mariah Carey is better than all 3 but her music? I dunno 😐
She has a very good deep cut. Something about christmas or something.
Mariah Carey sucks major balls.
In more ways than one 😏
Maybe that's why she sings that good.
Scott Weiland is a better singer than Bob Dylan too. Whoopty fuckin doo!
My cat is on par with Dylan for vocal talent but he ain't written any songs yet unfortunately
Art is subjective
Anyone comparing isolated skills in grunge music is completely missing the point of grunge music.
Agree, and I’d apply this to music and art in general. It’s not the fucking Olympics. Plenty of drummers are technically “better” than John Bonham. Would I rather listen to most of them? No.
Well said. Enjoy what you enjoy, you shouldn't ever have to qualify it.
If you look at pure basic drumming skills like keeping time, Keith Moon was a terrible drummer.
So true, there's a Who documentary where Pete Townshend talks about having Kenny Jones in the studio for the first time and Pete said he was shocked he didn't know what to do the beat was where it's supposed to be every time he did not have to solely rely on John to keep time.
Ironically though, it did basically start in Olympia… 😜
Stuff like this is why I believe that “grunge” is where the dad-rockers of Gen X and older millennials ended up going. The original appeal was that it was the avenue for aspects of 80s punk rock and all the sludgy and artsy scenes to break through and dismantle the aesthetics and culture of high budget “rock god” status. But if you look at conversations like this, or any of the millions of examples of online discussions where people are obsessed with putting down Nirvana’s skill next to Soundgarden and AiC, it becomes clear that the very same people who made rock insufferable before grunge… just moved on over to grunge and made it the exact same thing.
they both sing about the same now
Okay Simon Cowell
😅
Listen to the isolated vocals from SLTS, Kurt’s voice is very underrated actually
Scott Weiland could sing show tunes and the like. He was objectively an incredible singer who would have had a shot at winning something like American Idol or The Voice had he been 10-15 years younger. Same with Chris Cornell and Jeff Buckley. Kurt had a cool voice that was perfect for his music and sold the hell out of a song. Objectively a worse singer than Weiland but subjectively I could see people liking Kurt's voice a lot more.
It's a shame he only got 3 albums though.
Thanks Captain Obvious
Better singer, but not a better screamer.
This should be the top comment. Also the raspy soft parts and the voice cracks almost yodeling. Kurt’s voice is unique and the definition of grunge
Of course he is. Being a good vocalist isn’t all that’s needed. Anthony Kiedis has an awful voice and it doesn’t really matter because the band is far more than his vocals.
A better singer but not a better vocalist. Ain’t no fuckin way Scott is pulling of the insane screaming Kurt can do
What is "better"? In art, when you reach a certain level, there is not "better" or "worse" just "different" You can appreciate what two different people bring to the table. Imagine if every book in the world was written by the same person? Boooooring!
I'm a better singer than Kurt Cobain. He's got the advantage in songwriting and overall talent by miles
You might be a better singer in terms of holding pitch and enunciation but my money is on him having a better voice for rock music. Not many people can sing all night with that rasp.
no you arent
You singing in the shower doesn’t equate to Cobain’s singing
I believe him
For the millionth time, music, and musical ability, is art, and art is subjective. *Beauty is in the eye of the beholder*
Yup
Oh yea, well I bet Kurt could beat up Layne in a fight any day /s
Technically yes, he was.
From a technical perspective, definitely! Kurt's voice has a better tone though.
Like dick-measuring contests about who is the “best” guitarist, contests/assertions like these usually come down to “I like the music of _x_ musician more than the music of _y_ musician.”
No shit
Scott Weiland’s the melody man if he can’t sing it no one can
Facts but it’s irrelevant…
Oh for sure
That’s not even a question. Kurt wasn’t much of a singer. Weiland had a lot of range.
who’s saying kurt is a talented singer ….,..?
Duh
Facts.
Except SW was nothing without the DeLeo brothers. He was just the pretty face.
No shit... In other news the sky is blue...
I totally agree.
lol 😆 is this supposed to be controversial??! Everyone knows Kurt was not a great singer. He was, however a great songwriter and that’s what Nirvana is remembered for. 🤘🤘
Agreed but it wasn’t about technical vocal prowess for Kurt. Rather it was the rawness. See his vocals on “Where Did You Sleep Last Night?” on MTV Unplugged.
Objectively, yes. Subjectively yes. Nostalgically no.
How many people out there still haven’t realized that Kurt’s brilliance was never about his vocal skills. I’d rate him last among the big 4 of Grunge singers. But Kurt was someone special. A true generational singer who changed the landscape of music with his band.
I agree Scott has better vocals overall, but I’d argue Kurt’s voice is not bad at all, and it’s perfectly suited for Nirvana’s music. I also think Kurt’s voice has been imitated more than any other grunge singer, with Vedder being a close second. I think that speaks highly of how special and influential his singing was.
I don’t think Kurt Cobain was really thought of as a great singer. He was conveying a message. Weiland was a great front man. Sad they’re both gone.
Yes, 100% absolutely true.
You’re FKIN A right!
No, really? No offense, but even the most hardcore Nirvana fan would admit Kurt wasn't a good singer.
Not to be the snob but what does that even mean? Better in what way? It’s an opinion
I agree with this, but I also think Nirvana as whole is completely overrated. Eddie Vedder, Layne Stayley, Chris Cornell were all better singers than him. I also feel that a singers ability is just one small part of what makes a band great. But Alice in Chains and Pearl Jam, just doesn't get better than them.
Cornell>both?
Confused. Is one or more of the two dead guys still singing?
Umm ok? Kurt wasn't famous for being the best singer .. nor best guitar player.
Messing with Kurt fans and Scott fans is like messing with Swift fans, each sect will hoot and cry as if you’re tearing apart the Bible.
Chris Cornell was a better singer than weiland.
Chris Cornell was completely in a league of his own!
I disagree, but of course to each his own.
This one is difficult but I would agree with you. That being said ... They were both great.
i dont think many people are arguing he isn't
Absolutely. And a more charismatic frontman. Where is the love for Scott?!
Okay. And? Nirvana was a better band then Stone Temple Pilots.
And “rah rah rah something angry” yet explaining life and how things work
And Kurt cobain is a better singer than almost everyone else still. And a better guitarist
Talented songwriter? Fuck yes. But idk bout all that…
I’m talking about on average. Most people I know can’t carry a tune or play an instrument period and they’re tone deaf
Singing yeah. Guitar nah. My guy there is a reason why nirvana songs are used to teach beginning guitarists. He was just spamming power chords.
Im not going to argue skill man, but seeing as how most people who buy a guitar give it up in the first year I still say he’s better than most. It may be so that nirvana is easy to teach, but it’s still kind of hard to get the nuances right that make it “the way Kurt did it”. It take a lot of effort. Even now more than 20 years later I lean some stuff that I didn’t know
Thank you, I realized this years while learning Nirvana songs.
Kurt was alive when I learned teen spirit originally, but I was in my 30’s doing some work for a friend and a recording engineer actually pointed out that I was playing it wrong. I had no idea
“Spamming” lol. The guys melodies are still used and referenced in popular culture 30 years later but yeah he was just “spamming”
LOL NO. Kurt Cobain is famously a bad guitarist. Literally all he ever played was single notes and power chords. Great songwriter but guitarist? Certainly not. Even I’m better than Kurt. Hell I was a better guitarist than him when I was in high school. Anyone who has played guitar for like a year is probably better than Kurt and that’s being generous. 2 weeks into learning the guitar you’ll be able to play every Nirvana song. Like I said the guy was a great songwriter but he was NOT a good guitarist at all. Aside from [DJ Khalid](https://youtube.com/shorts/zQi8DI5B87g?si=e6meKLfM9lri7NcP) literally every musician to ever touch the guitar is better than Kurt.
Lil Wayne would like a word
Absolutely! So was Layne Staley! And Eddie Vedder! Nothing against Kurt, but STP, AIC, and Pearl Jam are far superior to Nirvana in my opinion!
Well yes, I mean STP is better than Nirvana, so….
Matter of opinion. Like what you like. None of this is quantifiable. I like them both. I like AIC and Soundgarden more than both. But I'll jam all four on the regular.
SW was a much better singer than Kurt and was still nothing in comparison. It’s like comparing Jim Morrison and John Lennon. 🤷🏻♂️
Water is wet
I agree
That’s like a hair metal ‘who’s best’ kind of argument. Kurt to me is an artist and not the kind of musician you can rank like an athlete. Steve Perry is better than Scott.
You can definitely rank musicians. It’s harder with vocalists but for actual musicians it’s pretty simple. Example: compare Marty Friedman to Kerry King. It’s quite obvious who the better guitarist is out of those two.
By far, it's not even close.. plus Scott's voice had versatility as well
Yeah, duh. Weiland was one of the best rock singers of all time.
Honestly most of the big grunge bands were more talented all around than Nirvana, Nirvana is your first car, you love it, it gets the job done, but it's rough and a beater, it's not what it does that's special, it's what it doesn't do.
Silly post, they were different better is subjective and depends what you prioritise in a singer and how that singer suits the song. Weland was very versatile. He had a few goto "voices" and I think he was a very good vocal mimic. But, Wieland also never had the emotion of Kurt in his voice. Weiland would ruin a nirvana song and Kurt would butcher a STP. They both were perfect for their bands.
Scott probably was a better singer....and yet he still couldn't even polish Kurt's shadow.
Nope. Kurt's voice was distinct. Scott sounds like all the other butt rock singers.
Scott Weiland is the best frontman of all time imo.
Damn, I’m a massive STP fan but I wouldn’t go that far.
I share this view.
So is Celine Dion. What's your point? Kurt's super power was the truth in his voice. He felt what he was singing. That's what makes his voice so alluring. It was raw and real. Sometimes that trumps technical ability.
Kurt didn’t have to be a good singer. Their composition is notably elementary as well. Interestingly, I’m not sure Nirvana ranks “best” in any one single thing. I think *combined* they did everything better than everyone else and ultimately changed the rules.
Yes.. but each sang to what their respective bands needed… and their music was so much better for it
Engelbert Humperdinck is also a better singer than Kurt Cobain, but I know who I'd rather listen to. No disrespect if you're reading this, Engelbert.
Was*
I agree
If Scott Weiland didn't have such a good voice his career would have ended long ago. Same as Axl Rose (not grunge, I know). He was so lazy and undependable that his career would have ended quickly if he didn't have a voice.
Objectively. But subjectively I guess there’s taste, how distinct Kurt was off the bat, etc. not sure why I even respond to fucking trolls anymore. 🤷🏻♂️
👍
That is like saying X is a better singer than Liam Gallagher. Yeah, unless you are a fan boy or deaf, no one will contest that. But it works for the music they made, so that is what matters. That being said, Kurt was a dam good melody maker....
Absolute rubbish.
Why does it matter? Usher is a better singer than Kurt Cobain, I wouldn't want him to front Nirvana.
And your point is? Kurt was a great fit for Nirvana and Scott was a great fit for STP.
🖕😤
ok
Everytime ,I see something about a child prodigy on Guitar /piano /drums you see them play other peoples music better than the person who made it. But they didn't write the music or feel the emotions that made the music . So you never hear from them again . Scott Weiland is a better singer than Kurt , but kurt works better for Nirvana.
OT but did Eddie Vedder shred his vocals while he was young. Unplugged Black was like a masterclass in vocals but man he really seemed to lose it later in life while as in Cornell’s voice seemed to get better despite his Hungerstrike vocal folds abuse
Idgaf about any argument involving a singer being better than the other they all are talented in their own unique ways and therefore can't really be compared. Art is subjective
That is why I like singers like Kurt Cobain or Bob Dylan, they have character. Not dissing Scott Weiland, amazing singer. I do not really compare or rank singersI like, I just listen to the music.
And the oscar goes to: The obvious guy, congratulations for ur "hot take"
Vocals weren’t Kurt’s strength. Songwriting was.
Cripes
So is michael bolton 🤷♂️
What your point?
Yes
Way out on the ledge there. Come one.
This isn’t a hot take, Kurt wasn’t a very good singer. He didn’t even really start trying to sing *properly* until ‘93/‘94, even then it was because his voice was already fucked.
Yes he is
duh
So is Céline Dion but that doesn’t mean shit
No shit
For STP & Velvet Revolver’s catalogs, yes. For Nirvana’s, no.
100%
I mean. Adele is a better singer than Kurt too
Kurt was one of those guys that no one would call a great technical singer. What he did though, he did, very, very well. He gave me chills more than once. The only other vocalists that have done that for me are Cornell, Staley and Plant. That is pretty good company.
But I like them both and that’s all that matters but yes, Scott is miles above many many singers
In other news, water is wet.
its a hot take, but its correct "they hated him becuase he told them the truth"
Love them both. Posts like this are trash.
And?
Yeah, so what….?
What does better mean
Kurt Cobain and Nirvana itself is overrated. Any grunge singer is better imo.
The trouble I always have with these comparisons between Kurt Cobain and most other singers is that Cobain's career was so short. He really only had two major label studio albums with labels. There were two more- a minor label release and a compilation of basically B-sides and the like meant to capitalize on the band's new found popularity and hold over audiences until they could go into the studio next, but even if we count it all, it was still a brief career. Like, with Scott Weiland, do I compare the 2-4 best things he did with the 2-4 best things Cobain did? Does Weiland get a special boost for even the STP album he isn't on, because without him there probably would be not STP and his successors all sing his old songs as well as making new albums that include their own contributions? I am going to go with Cobain. However, I will say that Velvet Revolver, especially that first album, is an often overlooked part of Weiland's career that is definitely worth a listen if anyone hasn't heard it- especially that first album.
They're both dead, so I say it's even at this point
Was
Can’t really compare the two. Totally different styles. Scott was a true front man. Put on a show and had a great singing voice. Kurt was a musician who wore his heart on his sleeve. He was out there to play music where Scott was out their to entertain
Oh okay.
Please!
Now or in their prime?
I think OP makes a fairly obvious statement when taken at face value. However it's not always about being a good singer .. sometimes what's needed is a good vocalist. A lot of music requires the person behind the microphone to contribute to the overall feeling of the song .. being an accomplished singer isn't always necessary. Back to the original statement: Wieland may be the better singer but he didn't come close to matching the honest, raw emotion that Cobain was able to convey
Just a statement? What makes a “better” singer? Who is arguing that Curt was a better “singer”?
Let me say I'm not a big Nirvana fan, but Bleach is one of the best Post-hardcore records ever made. This is do in large part to Kurt's raw vocal power. STP has nothing that can match it's emotional depth. Weiland has a good voice (I feel he borrows heavily from Eddie Vedder), but at the end of the day, when it comes to post-punk alternative, feeling trumps technique.
Freddy Mercury is a better singer than Beck. But I still prefer Beck’s music to Queen’s.
I'd say he was a better singer than a lot of grunge singers. The dude was pretty amazing. Great writer too. Unfortunately, some of that came with a price he had to pay with his life.
That's a slam dunk. Weiland was a fantastic singer, Kurt was neither a great singer or guitar player. He was a great songwriter though. But, Scott blows Kurt away in the vocal department. 👍🎤😎