Chris Cornell Is Overrated

yosi1

DOSW wrote:

Grrr..... :mad:

So what if people think Soundgarden is the best band ever? That's their opinion! You aren't any more correct than they are when you say Led Zeppelin or Pearl Jam or whatever band you like the most is the greatest band in history.

THERE IS NOTHING OBJECTIVE ABOUT MUSIC.

I'm sick of everyone complaining that Chris Cornell is overrated. He is not overrated. You just don't like him as much as other people. How hard is that to understand?

You're wrong and you're right at the same time. Music is objective in the sense, that some people can play instruments well, and compose good music and some people can't. For example, Jimmy Page is a great guitarist, and I can't play anything on guitar. That is objectively true. Also, I can enjoy STP more than any other music I know, but that doesn't mean I think they are as good as Led Zeppelin. There is a subtle difference. I'm not saying Led Zeppelin is the best band because I like them the most, but because I think they were more talented, even if I enjoy listening to STP more.

However, you are right in saying that music is subjective in terms of taste and this is why I say Chris Cornell is overrated. Because, music is subjective, but many people on this board claim that Chris is THE BEST singer ever. He has written THE BEST music ever, and NO ONE can touch him. That in itself overrates Chris Cornell. Someone may like Chris Cornell more than any other singer, and that is a totally legitimate opinion. But to say his music is objectively better than anyone else's, is not legitimate because like you said, taste is subjective.



Edit: And technically you answered your own question. You said "nothing about music is objective", but saying "Soundgarden/Chris Cornell is the best band/singer ever" is an objective statement, and that is the problem with it.

nowayimfaithfull

yosi wrote:

You're wrong and you're right at the same time. Music is objective in the sense, that some people can't play instruments well, and compose good music and some people can't. For example, Jimmy Page is a great guitarist, and I can't play anything on guitar. That is objectively true. Also, I can enjoy STP more than any other music I know, but that doesn't mean I think they are as good as Led Zeppelin. There is a subtle difference. I'm not saying Led Zeppelin is the best band because I like them the most, but because I think they were more talented, even if I enjoy listening to STP more.

However, you are right in saying that music is subjective in terms of taste and this is why I say Chris Cornell is overrated. Because, music is subjective, but many people on this board claim that Chris is THE BEST singer ever. He has written THE BEST music ever, and NO ONE can touch him. That in itself overrates Chris Cornell. Someone may like Chris Cornell more than any other singer, and that is a totally legitimate opinion. But to say his music is objectively better than anyone else's, is not legitimate because like you said, taste is subjective.

yos what it comes down to is these guys need to hear it over and over and over. I used to be that way with pj, its something that longevity takes care of and chris is not real consistant.

yosi1

nowayimfaithfull wrote:

yos what it comes down to is these guys need to hear it over and over and over. I used to be that way with pj, its something that longevity takes care of and chris is not real consistant.

Agreed.

facepollution

nowayimfaithfull wrote:

Chris is overated on this website its a fact, you guys think everyhting said if not for the prasie of perfect, its insulting to you guys and its the whole point here.

Still you are missing the point, I'm by no means saying everything Cornell does is perfect, BUT when he hit his stride as a singer in the early 90's, there were very few people in mainstream music who could do what he could do. Is that simple enough? To overrate something, means to heap praise on something that is undeserving.

If you look at singing as an art and compare it with another form of art like painting, for example, would you not say that somebody who did an incredibly detailed landscape was more 'technically' talented than someone who splashed a few colours on a page and called it abstract? You may prefer the abstract picture, but it doesn't mean it's technically better. It's the same with singing in my book. Cornell at his best, was far superior to the vast majority of singers out there. Now some people may not like the tone of his voice or the high notes or whatever, but that should not be used as an excuse to say he wasn't good at what he did.

This whole debate really has gone full circle. My final position on the whole debate is: just because I deem Cornell the best technical rock singer, does not mean he would necessarily be my favourite singer. At a push I would probably take Vedder over Cornell because Ed has other things going for him as a singer and performer. But the fact remains, Cornell had a UNIQUE talent that very few singers have, thus he deserves respect for it - that is not overrating, but like I said before, giving credit where credit's due.

nowayimfaithfull

facepollution wrote:

Still you are missing the point, I'm by no means saying everything Cornell does is perfect, BUT when he hit his stride as a singer in the early 90's, there were very few people in mainstream music who could do what he could do. Is that simple enough? To overrate something, means to heap praise on something that is undeserving.

If you look at singing as an art and compare it with another form of art like painting, for example, would you not say that somebody who did an incredibly detailed landscape was more 'technically' talented than someone who splashed a few colours on a page and called it abstract? You may prefer the abstract picture, but it doesn't mean it's technically better. It's the same with singing in my book. Cornell at his best, was far superior to the vast majority of singers out there. Now some people may not like the tone of his voice or the high notes or whatever, but that should not be used as an excuse to say he wasn't good at what he did.

This whole debate really has gone full circle. My final position on the whole debate is: just because I deem Cornell the best technical rock singer, does not mean he would necessarily be my favourite singer. At a push I would probably take Vedder over Cornell because Ed has other things going for him as a singer and performer. But the fact remains, Cornell had a UNIQUE talent that very few singers have, thus he deserves respect for it - that is not overrating, but like I said before, giving credit where credit's due.

Yes you see it this way, but not everyone, your admittance of preferring vedder would spark debates as a singer and performer.

You didnt use the word perfect anywhere in this closing.

peace.

We shall gather again when his solo album comes out.

facepollution

nowayimfaithfull wrote:

Yes you see it this way, but not everyone, your admittance of preferring vedder would spark debates as a singer and performer.

You didnt use the word perfect anywhere in this closing.

peace.

We shall gather again when his solo album comes out.

I should have said as singer/writer/performer really, cause I think Ed's real strength lies in his incredible lyrics.

Anyway bring on...uh..Carry On!!!

yosi1

facepollution wrote:

Still you are missing the point, I'm by no means saying everything Cornell does is perfect, BUT when he hit his stride as a singer in the early 90's, there were very few people in mainstream music who could do what he could do. Is that simple enough? To overrate something, means to heap praise on something that is undeserving.

If you look at singing as an art and compare it with another form of art like painting, for example, would you not say that somebody who did an incredibly detailed landscape was more 'technically' talented than someone who splashed a few colours on a page and called it abstract? You may prefer the abstract picture, but it doesn't mean it's technically better. It's the same with singing in my book. Cornell at his best, was far superior to the vast majority of singers out there. Now some people may not like the tone of his voice or the high notes or whatever, but that should not be used as an excuse to say he wasn't good at what he did.

This whole debate really has gone full circle. My final position on the whole debate is: just because I deem Cornell the best technical rock singer, does not mean he would necessarily be my favourite singer. At a push I would probably take Vedder over Cornell because Ed has other things going for him as a singer and performer. But the fact remains, Cornell had a UNIQUE talent that very few singers have, thus he deserves respect for it - that is not overrating, but like I said before, giving credit where credit's due.

That's a pretty valid argument.

nowayimfaithfull

facepollution wrote:

I should have said as singer/writer/performer really, cause I think Ed's real strength lies in his incredible lyrics.

Anyway bring on...uh..Carry On!!!

I think of them as all, its all part of rock we are not talking about american idol makers.

these guys are all great singer/songwriter/performers

nowayimfaithfull

yosi wrote:

That's a pretty valid argument.

It was hard to respond to it, I really wasnt directing my points towarsds him completely either more towards searchlightsoul.

DOSW

yosi wrote:

You're wrong and you're right at the same time. Music is objective in the sense, that some people can play instruments well, and compose good music and some people can't. For example, Jimmy Page is a great guitarist, and I can't play anything on guitar. That is objectively true. Also, I can enjoy STP more than any other music I know, but that doesn't mean I think they are as good as Led Zeppelin. There is a subtle difference. I'm not saying Led Zeppelin is the best band because I like them the most, but because I think they were more talented, even if I enjoy listening to STP more.

However, you are right in saying that music is subjective in terms of taste and this is why I say Chris Cornell is overrated. Because, music is subjective, but many people on this board claim that Chris is THE BEST singer ever. He has written THE BEST music ever, and NO ONE can touch him. That in itself overrates Chris Cornell. Someone may like Chris Cornell more than any other singer, and that is a totally legitimate opinion. But to say his music is objectively better than anyone else's, is not legitimate because like you said, taste is subjective.



Edit: And technically you answered your own question. You said "nothing about music is objective", but saying "Soundgarden/Chris Cornell is the best band/singer ever" is an objective statement, and that is the problem with it.

Look at someone like Kurt Cobain. Technically, he can't reach the same notes as a guy like Plant or Cornell can. So that means that objectively he's simply not as good a singer as those two, right? But lots of people prefer his voice over Plant's or Cornell's... therefore, in those people's eyes, he's a better singer. SUBJECTIVE.

Same goes with guitar players... compare Neil Young against Eddie Van Halen or Jimmy Page. Technically, he's not as fast as those two. But in my view, he's a better guitarist because I simply like the sounds he makes more than the other two. SUBJECTIVE.

And when people say "Chris Cornell is the greatest singer ever," it's clearly their subjective opinion. Now you're just mixing semantics.


In my view, something is overrated only if people hail something as the greatest ever without even knowing well what it is they are hailing. For instance lots of people think Led Zeppelin is the greatest band of all time without knowing any songs besides Stairway and Rock and Roll. Same goes with Nirvana... people wear Nirvana shirts and talk about how Kurt Cobain is a genius because that's what they think will make them sound cool, while at the same they don't even know Nirvana released another album after Nevermind. THAT is when something is overrated... when people base their opinion on the public consensus, and they don't formulate one based on what they like themselves.

Ledbetterman10

DOSW wrote:

In my view, something is overrated only if people hail something as the greatest ever without even knowing well what it is they are hailing. For instance lots of people think Led Zeppelin is the greatest band of all time without knowing any songs besides Stairway and Rock and Roll. Same goes with Nirvana... people wear Nirvana shirts and talk about how Kurt Cobain is a genius because that's what they think will make them sound cool, while atthe same they don't even know Nirvana released another album after Nevermind. THAT is when something is overrated... when people base their opinion on thepublic consensus, and they don't formulate one based on what they like themselves.

I know exactly what you're saying here but I disagree with your reasoning. I think, when you DO know what you're hailing, and you say it's the greatest thing, THAT'S when it's overrated. saying Led Zeppelin is the greatest band just on the basis of Stairway to Heaven is just ignorant. Never hearing In Utero or Bleach but saying Nirvana is the greatest band is also ignorant. if they don't know what they're talking about, what does their opinion matter anyway?

a PERFECT example of this was RollingStone's list of the 100 greatest guitarists. Kurt Cobain was ranked 12th. ahead of David Gilmour, ahead of Pete Townshend, etc. now, anyone who knows anything about guitar playing or Nirvana knows that Kurt Cobain is not the 12th greatest guitarist of all time. the people who made this list are simply ignorant. they just don't know what they are talking about. being over praised by people like that doesn't make you overrated. when your true fans who know you overpraise you, and downtalk people who don't like you, that's when you become overrated. as I feel Cornell has become on this site.


I am a huge Nirvana fan. I own every album, every rare song, bootlegs, the whole deal. I have listened to them for years and their songs are the ones that made me first want to play guitar. now, if I were to say Kurt Cobain was the 12th greatest guitarist, then THAT would be overrating him. because I'm obviously just being biased as a fan of his to say that he's that good when have consumed enough Nirvana to know that he isn't.

that's why this thread was started. anyone who knows rock music, 90's rock in particular, knows Soundgarden is a great band and Chris Cornell is a great frontman. but the Soundgarden fans on this site, the ones who know all about their music, go above and beyond subjective in their praise of him. they show obvious bias, and that is overrating them. People wearing Nirvana shirts who never listen to them and say that Kurt's a great songwriter are idiots. people who listen to Nirvana albums and say that Kurt's a great songwriter, while not wrong or right, are entitled to that opinion.

yosi1

DOSW wrote:

Look at someone like Kurt Cobain. Technically, he can't reach the same notes as a guy like Plant or Cornell can. So that means that objectively he's simply not as good a singer as those two, right? But lots of people prefer his voice over Plant's or Cornell's... therefore, in those people's eyes, he's a better singer. SUBJECTIVE.

No. In their eyes they like him more. Taste is subjective, and therefore neither is better. Also, I'm not basing better entirely in terms of range, there are many other factors that go into how good a singer is.

DOSW wrote:

Same goes with guitar players... compare Neil Young against Eddie Van Halen or Jimmy Page. Technically, he's not as fast as those two. But in my view, he's a better guitarist because I simply like the sounds he makes more than the other two. SUBJECTIVE.

Again, you are mixing up an objective, technical skill, with a subjective, taste. Just because you like him more, doesn't make him better, even in your view, it just means you prefer him.

DOSW wrote:

And when people say "Chris Cornell is the greatest singer ever," it's clearly their subjective opinion. Now you're just mixing semantics.

Your right, it is semantics, but it seems you're mixing it up.

DOSW wrote:

In my view, something is overrated only if people hail something as the greatest ever without even knowing well what it is they are hailing. For instance lots of people think Led Zeppelin is the greatest band of all time without knowing any songs besides Stairway and Rock and Roll. Same goes with Nirvana... people wear Nirvana shirts and talk about how Kurt Cobain is a genius because that's what they think will make them sound cool, while at the same they don't even know Nirvana released another album after Nevermind. THAT is when something is overrated... when people base their opinion on the public consensus, and they don't formulate one based on what they like themselves.

I agree that bands are overrated when people just say they are great without knowing anything about them. But, I think bands/singers are also overrated when people claim they are 'the best', when they mean they prefer them, and also say things like, 'no one is even close by comparison' when again, its just taste. Also, when they cannot accept any criticism about the band/singer whatsoever. That too is overrating.

yosi1

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

I know exactly what you're saying here but I disagree with your reasoning. I think, when you DO know what you're hailing, and you say it's the greatest thing, THAT'S when it's overrated. saying Led Zeppelin is the greatest band just on the basis of Stairway to Heaven is just ignorant. Never hearing In Utero or Bleach but saying Nirvana is the greatest band is also ignorant. if they don't know what they're talking about, what does their opinion matter anyway?

a PERFECT example of this was RollingStone's list of the 100 greatest guitarists. Kurt Cobain was ranked 12th. ahead of David Gilmour, ahead of Pete Townshend, etc. now, anyone who knows anything about guitar playing or Nirvana knows that Kurt Cobain is not the 12th greatest guitarist of all time. the people who made this list are simply ignorant. they just don't know what they are talking about. being over praised by people like that doesn't make you overrated. when your true fans who know you overpraise you, and downtalk people who don't like you, that's when you become overrated. as I feel Cornell has become on this site.


I am a huge Nirvana fan. I own every album, every rare song, bootlegs, the whole deal. I have listened to them for years and their songs are the ones that made me first want to play guitar. now, if I were to say Kurt Cobain was the 12th greatest guitarist, then THAT would be overrating him. because I'm obviously just being biased as a fan of his to say that he's that good when have consumed enough Nirvana to know that he isn't.

that's why this thread was started. anyone who knows rock music, 90's rock in particular, knows Soundgarden is a great band and Chris Cornell is a great frontman. but the Soundgarden fans on this site, the ones who know all about their music, go above and beyond subjective in their praise of him. they show obvious bias, and that is overrating them. People wearing Nirvana shirts who never listen to them and say that Kurt's a great songwriter are idiots. people who listen to Nirvana albums and say that Kurt's a great songwriter, while not wrong or right, are entitled to that opinion.

Good post.

facepollution

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

a PERFECT example of this was RollingStone's list of the 100 greatest guitarists. Kurt Cobain was ranked 12th. ahead of David Gilmour, ahead of Pete Townshend, etc. now, anyone who knows anything about guitar playing or Nirvana knows that Kurt Cobain is not the 12th greatest guitarist of all time. the people who made this list are simply ignorant. they just don't know what they are talking about. being over praised by people like that doesn't make you overrated. when your true fans who know you overpraise you, and downtalk people who don't like you, that's when you become overrated. as I feel Cornell has become on this site.

See I agree totally with the first part, but look at it this way, Cornell TECHNICALLY as a singer is the equivalent to Gilmour or Townsend in terms of what he can do with his 'instrument' i.e his voice.

Ledbetterman10

facepollution wrote:

See I agree totally with the first part, but look at it this way, Cornell TECHNICALLY as a singer is the equivalent to Gilmour or Townsend in terms of what he can do with his 'instrument' i.e his voice.

Please don't even get me going on Gilmour vs. Cornell as a singer/guitarist.

and why is Cornell's voice so "technically" good? I don't really get this. his wide vocal range maybe?

nowayimfaithfull

facepollution wrote:

See I agree totally with the first part, but look at it this way, Cornell TECHNICALLY as a singer is the equivalent to Gilmour or Townsend in terms of what he can do with his 'instrument' i.e his voice.

Chris brings a full dimension of sound with his voice as compared to these guys instruments.
He does have that talent.
Gilmour is a very good guitar player.
The chords he plays and that sound he gets out of that guitar is very sophisticated.
He is one of the best for that alone.
Neil Young is good like that. Just listen to how he nails I got Id. Mike shreds and is my fav, but Neil makes his guitar flow. These guys get the most out of their instruments. Over playing technical, as does Chris.

Pearl Jam and toast

nowayimfaithfull wrote:

Chris brings a full dimension of sound with his voice as compared to these guys instruments.
He does have that talent.
Gilmour is a very good guitar player.
The chords he plays and that sound he gets out of that guitar is very sophisticated.
He is one of the best for that alone.
Neil Young is good like that. Just listen to how he nails I got Id. Mike shreds and is my fav, but Neil makes his guitar flow. These guys get the most out of their instruments. Over playing technical, as does Chris.

Neil is one of my favorite guitarists because he sort of lacks structure.. You can really feeeeeeeeell his guitar playing. Gilmour is amazing but different. I agree about what ledbetterman said about Kurt 100%.

BTW what happened to this thread dying?

facepollution

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Please don't even get me going on Gilmour vs. Cornell as a singer/guitarist.

and why is Cornell's voice so "technically" good? I don't really get this. his wide vocal range maybe?

Cornell = good singer, Gilmour = good guitarist, that is all I mean by that.

Cornell's range is one of the things that makes him such a good singer, and as I've said before, it's not just the fact he can/could sing high, he could also do very low stuff too. His voice is also pretty versatile, he could go from metal screaming, to soulful and bluesy stuff. What's more, his vocal control was spot on too. Put bluntly, it's not easy to sing in the way that he does, very few people can sing like that without extensive training. I could trawl up a load of blurb from vocal coaches praising Cornell's voice, I guess they would know better than all of us.....man this is giving me brain ache

last ditch attempt, try singing along to say a random Foo Fighters song (or any mainstream rock band) then try singing along to Four Walled World by TOTD, and see which is easiest.

ii44

Soundgarden is a great band and Chris Cornell is a great frontman. but the Soundgarden fans on this site, the ones who know all about their music, go above and beyond subjective in their praise of him. they show obvious bias, and that is overrating them.

I'm the biggest Soundgarden fan I know, when I talk of Chris' abilities I'm being objective.

I think, here, Chris is overrated in Soundgarden, and underrated in Audioslave. For example, I don't think that Beyond the Wheel is that impressive. There are a lot of heavy metal singers that can sing in a ridiculously high falsetto. It's just basic heavy-metal silliness.

At the same time, people here dislike Audioslave because they are a blatant pop band. They think Chris' singing has gone down hill because he couldn't sing Beyond the Wheel or New Damage or whatever.

Fact is, Chris has a great pop-voice that has a uniquely hard edge to it. He could win on American Idol (if he were 20 year younger), or he could make awesome artful heavy metal, or he could just do solo acoustic stuff. There's a wonderful versatility there. You don't hear what he brings to the table that in many pop voices. I think this part of his singing ability is under appreciated.

For me the reason Chris so great is because his voice can go from sounding absolutely gorgeous to totally menacing on a dime, and it sounds completely natural. The high notes were just a bonus. This is why I love songs like Gasoline, Shadow on the Sun etc. and I don't think he did enough of this in Soundgarden.

I hope this can clear something up.

Ledbetterman10

ii44 wrote:

I think, here, Chris is overrated in Soundgarden, and underrated in Audioslave.

I totally agree with this