So this happened: Singer Lana Del Rey does an interview with the Guardian. In it, during a conversation about icons who died young, she says she wishes she were dead too. Frances Bean Cobain (Kurt Cobain and Courtney Love’s daughter) catches wind of Rey’s comments and responds via Twitter:

The death of young musicians isn’t something to romanticize. I’ll never know my father because he died young & it becomes a desirable feat because ppl like u think it’s “cool.” Well, it’s f–king not. Embrace life, because u only get one life. The ppl u mentioned wasted that life. Don’t be 1 of those ppl. ur too talented to waste it away.

Rey, prior to Frances’ Tweets, tried to back peddle out of her comments, but the Guardian’s interviewer, Tim Jonze, posted the audio from the interview, which subsequently caused Rey’s foot to jump in her mouth.

First of all, congrats to Frances for stepping up to the plate to say something. If there was ever any victim of Cobain’s suicide, it was her. However, while I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that they wished they were dead for the “fame” of it, Rey certainly isn’t the first to “romanticize” the artists who’ve died young.

As a society we’ve created The 27 Club to gasp at all the talented people who’ve died at the age of 27. Various publications have printed stories about these people, and when someone dies at 28 or 29 we will without fail say that they missed getting into the 27 club by 1 or 2 years, whatever the case may be.

Clearly, in my opinion, and I’m no professional, Rey is suffering from depression. She should be seeking help and perhaps Frances should have addressed that instead.

Have a listen to the interview segment (below) in which Rey says she wishes she were dead. Was she led to say that? Did the interviewer coerce her or take her statements out of context?

And, did Frances do the right thing?

Rock Hard \m/

We repelled the mainstream. And see, there’s one thing you have to remember about Nirvana, is Nirvana didn’t go to the mainstream, the mainstream came to Nirvana. And that was our big crisis.

- Krist Novoselic at Nirvana‘s 2014 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction

Besides being the widow of the late Kurt Cobain, what right does she have to be there. Well, she does have the rights to the Nirvana catalog, so there’s that. The fact is, however, that she had nothing to do with Nirvana’s eventual greatness. She’s not being honored, Dave Grohl and Kirst Novelsic are. Love might have a right to be there, but out of respect and dignity she should politely not attend.

What I think she’s doing is using this event as a patform from which to launch — or at least publicize, because it launched today on February 14th — her official YouTube channel/Webseries. In the “trailer” for the YouTube series, Love states: “Is there anybody on the planet who would be watching this that doesn’t know that Dave Grohl and I don’t get along?” Watch the trailer in the player above.

Adding to the evenings inevitable awkwardness, Love said to Access Hollywood,
“We’re going to go to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and I think we’re all sitting at the same table.” Watch Love share more in the video below.

The 29th annual Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony takes place on April 10th. HBO will show the ceremony in May.

Weigh in: Should Courtney Love attend the induction ceremony?

Rock Hard \m/

In an interview with Team Rock Radio, Gene Simmons talked about a number of things. Besides the newly purchased LA KISS arena football team, an upcoming KISS movie, his new book, and subtly insulting Ace and Peter, the Demon talked extensively about rock iconography.

Essentially, Simmons disregards Kurt Cobain as an icon because Nirvana doesn’t have an extensive enough catalog and dying prematurely doesn’t necessarily equate to icon status. And I agree with him. Yes, Cobain helped usher in a musical revolution, if you will, but he certainly didn’t do it alone — and as I’ve said before, Cobain was in the right place at the right time.

The bigger issue I have with Simmons’ comments have to do with his assertion that there haven’t been any icons since the years prior to 1984. By his definition, a musical icon is someone who exceeds the music and has a deep catalog. The first part of his statement dealt with the years between 1958 and 1983, and he challenged the interviewer to name 100 icons from those years. He answered for her, citing bands/artists like Elvis Presley, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, The Who, Aerosmith, KISS, and Led Zeppelin. But like a good sheep, the interviewer was mum when Simmons asked her to name icons from the last 30 years, emphasizing his point by saying that there haven’t been any. That’s a problem.

Gene’s bold assertion negates the work of many bands/artists within rock and metal, and big ones too. Now, I’m going to name a few bands as icons from the last 30 years, though I’m sure that’s not what Simmons meant, because he opened that can by naming his band, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, etc.

So, Mr. Simmons, although I love you and KISS to death, do you mean to tell me that the following bands/artists are not icons?
-Metallica
-Megadeth
-Anthrax
-Slayer
-Dave Grohl
-Iron Maiden (I’m extending into the years prior to 1984 a little here, but I think it’s warranted)
-Guns ‘n’ Roses
-Mike Patton
-Rob Zombie
-Pantera
-Bon Jovi
-Henry Rollins
-Red Hot Chili Peppers
-Dio
-Pearl Jam
-Motley Crue

So, those are the main ones I can come up with on the spot, and I think it proves the point that there have been plenty of icons since 1984. Simmons is right on another point though; record labels don’t back bands like they used to.

But I encourage you to check out the short interview. Then Yell about it in the comments section below.

Rock Hard \m/

5 reasons dave grohl eclipses kurt cobain – credit: nirvana

I was a teenager when Nirvana broke into the mainstream with “Smells Like Teen Spirit” back in 1991. With an impressionable mind, I happily joined the legions of plaid-shirt/painter-pants-wearing kids claiming to be depressed and bucking the status quo.

It was an amazing time: the music industry was turned on its head, kids began expressing existentialist ideas, and we finally had a voice to call our own after being force fed our Baby Boomer parents’ idols since birth. In addition to a voice, we also had a sound, a genre, and a subculture. It was a counter-culture movement not seen since the Vietnam anti-war era of the ‘60s, and it was ours.

At the forefront of this “alternative” scene was Nirvana and Kurt Cobain, along with Dave Grohl and Krist Novoselic. There’s no doubt that Cobain was the hero of the day and it was tragic when he took his own life in 1994, but in doing so he secured his place in rock’s pantheon of greats. His death also catapulted Nirvana’s legacy into the stratosphere, and now nobody can say anything bad about the band or Cobain. Well, I’m here to try.

Yes, Nirvana was huge prior to 1994. And thanks to Cobain’s death they became legend and bigger than ever after 1994. I don’t think, however, that their success would have continued if Cobain had kept on keeping on. More like they would have slipped into our memories like Guns N’ Roses has.

While Cobain wrote some great songs (and they still hold up today), Nirvana’s true talent sat behind the kit – Dave Grohl. Besides appearing to be a truly genuine guy, there are many ways that Dave Grohl eclipses Kurt Cobain – here are five.

5. Grohl Is A Multi-Instrumentalist

How many instruments a band member plays does not gauge his talent, but it is a barometer to how musical he is. I have no doubt that Cobain played more than just the guitar, but when a band’s drummer is a better guitarist than its lead guitarist, it’s likely that you don’t play drums very well. And when said drummer moves on to front his own band as vocalist and lead guitarist, well…

Calling Kurt Cobain a great guitarist is like praising mediocrity. I can barely play guitar and can hear the powerchord simplicity of Cobain’s playing. Cobain was, at best, a great melody maker.

Dave Grohl plays drums, guitar, bass, and piano. That alone doesn’t equate to being more talented than Cobain, but Grohl plays these instruments (at least two of them better than his late bandmate) well enough to record a full album.

4. Grohl Would Have Made It Without Nirvana

After Cobain’s death, Grohl went on to record a Foo Fighters’ demo. He played all the instruments, and shopped the demo around the old-fashioned way — through cassette trading. With his identity hidden, Grohl attracted major label attention.

I feel that Cobain, on the other hand, was in the right band, at the right place, in the right time. In other words, dumb luck.

Since the success of the Foo Fighters, Grohl has gone on to start or be a part of a number of other projects and to perform with a number of legends.