|
Post by vanhagar3000 on Nov 29, 2007 21:28:24 GMT -5
I'm going to go with Rhoades, because I don't think he gets the noterity he would have gotten. It's also sad that he died with no illicit substances found in his body.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Beaumont on Nov 30, 2007 3:40:48 GMT -5
Bon Scott? Really? Huh.
I almost went with Kurt Cobain, because the man really had a knack for writing good melodies and rock music. He's most underappreciated in the areas that he was really gifted in. Their last album was also their best, and I would've loved to have heard what would've come after. A pity.
Still, I'm not picking Kurt. I chose John Lennon. I'm reading through an excellent, reasonably well-balanced biography of John now, and he really is a tragic figure. His life was far darker, and he was far more volatile, than the public generally realizes. However, towards the end of his life, he was finally finding some peace and normalcy, and I think it's tragic he had to die when he did, right as it was all coming together for him. He was a fascinating, conflicted man.
|
|
|
Post by Bix Dugan on Nov 30, 2007 12:52:08 GMT -5
I went with Kurt. Great melodies. What did the world miss out on?
For all the "grunge" stuff that followed, very little grabbed me like Nirvana.
And Lennon would be a close second. Great solo work.
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Beaumont on Dec 1, 2007 1:17:24 GMT -5
Nirvana had something that none of their follower bands have been able to reproduce. Not sure what it is, but it's what makes them great. I'm not even a grunge fan, really. Kurt was also heavily influenced by The Pixies, so he can't be too bad.
Lennon's solo stuff is hit or miss, for me. I enjoy the man, more than the music.
|
|
|
Post by Crowfan on Dec 7, 2007 21:49:17 GMT -5
I chose Buddy Holly, although for me Bon Scott would be a close second.
|
|
|
Post by solgroupie on Dec 8, 2007 0:05:57 GMT -5
i went with SRV. i was a huge fan of his back in the late 80's, early 90's. he was touring with clapton when he died, and i was lucky enough to get tickets to one of the concerts. i only got my ticket because SRV was opening for clapton. i liked EC, but considered myself a bigger SRV fan. as it turns out, the crash he died in occurred just before the concert i was going to. i was devastated. i worked for a small town newspaper at the time and stayed glued to the AP machine all afternoon as details slowly trickled in. i went to the concert anyway and was surprised, hurt and a little pissed that clapton never said one word about SRV. it took some time before i gave in and became more of a fan of clapton after that, but only because of his passion for the blues. i almost chose robert johnson because of that passion i share. but as talented as johnson was, i don't think he revolutionized the blues as much as people say. he was great, but there were a lot of others who were just as notable.
aside from that, i would have gone with lennon. it's sad to think of the music he would have produced if not for the actions of that twisted soul who killed him.
|
|
|
Post by soundandvision on Dec 8, 2007 0:22:14 GMT -5
I'll stick with my era.. Jeff Buckley for me, too. Met him briefly at an instore at the record store I worked at, super nice person. Had a chance to go see one of the shows at Barristers (that ended up being some of his last -- I'm from Memphis) but did not. Kicked myself for a long time over that... Still can't believe he died that way, the Miss. River is unkind.
|
|
|
Post by Weirdo Writer on Dec 8, 2007 16:03:15 GMT -5
I have to go with Hendrix- I often find myself wondering just what sort of even more groundbreaking music he could have made if he'd lived longer.
|
|