Why Nick Cave is the greatest ‘serious’ rock musician of our time. Period. The End.

There’s a fairly compelling—I’ll go so far as to deem it “persuasive”—argument to be made that of any musician of the modern era who has sustained a long, long multi-decade career, that Nick Cave has—consistently—been the greatest “serious” rock musician of our time.

Woah, woah, woah! Wait just a minute there, buddy! Greater than Bob Dylan, the Beatles, or the Stones you say? Well, no, not necessarily, obviously that’s a pretty subjective opinion just to throw out there—although it does actually happen to be the one that I hold—but do consider that the Rolling Stones had (definitively) peaked by 1972, that the best of the Beatles’ solo work was in the rear view mirror by 1974 and that the last truly great album made by Bob Dylan was probably 1975’s Blood on the Tracks. Don’t get me wrong, I hate U2 and always have, but even I can give them credit for having had a remarkably good run of it, certainly maintaining quality in their output, some level of reinvention and a decent hit single every couple of years for four decades. Face it, the Rolling Stones couldn’t do that, so they turned themselves into the world’s greatest Rolling Stones cover band. David Bowie? He burns brightly for a good few years, that’s true, but then Let’s Dance happens. Joni Mitchell? Nope. What about Neil Young? How many Neil Young songs from the 80s, 90s, 00s or the current decade can you even name let alone hum? Prince’s post 80s output was always a mixed bag. Roger Waters hasn’t exactly embarrassed himself over the years, of course, but in terms of new music, unlike Prince, he’s not been all that prolific. The same could be said of Tom Waits.

Now, Nick Cave on the other hand, has released 16 studio albums, numerous film soundtracks, live albums and recorded many significant contributions to projects spearheaded by others. There’s also the matter of his work with the Birthday Party, novels, screenplays, films, lectures, acting and much more. He’s a prolific creator and most of his output—nearly all of it if you ask me—is really ****ing good. There is simply no equivalent to Let’s Dance in Cave’s entire body of work. He’s never put out a **** album, just ones that were less good than others. Nick Cave might not sell out football stadiums or go platinum, but neither did Johnny Cash. How many middle-aged rock stars put out one of their very best songs (“Jubilee Street”) entering the fifth decade of their career? Have any? Did even Frank Sinatra do anything like that? I don’t think so.


Photo of Nick Cave & the Bad Seeds by Sam Barker

What if I shifted my premise (ever so slightly) to “Nick Cave is the greatest serious rock artist of the past 30 years”? I suspect a few more of you might come on board with that revised assessment as nearly all of the competition drops off when you frame it that way. But don’t take my word for it, there’s a brand new compilation—the first in 19 years—out today via BMG, that covers 30 years of Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds’ output. Handpicked by longtime collaborator Mick Harvey and Cave himself, there’s not a single bad track on any of the different versions of Lovely Creatures: The Best of Nick Cave and The Bad Seeds (1984-2014) but having said that, as a longtime Nick Cave fanatic myself, going back to the first Birthday Party album, I’d have largely chosen a much different selection. Some overlap, but honestly not a lot. This is not to say that “my” version would be any “better” than theirs, naturally, only that it would be significantly different—how could they have left off “A Box for Black Paul” I wondered—but this is merely a mundane testament to the fact that Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds’ back catalog is both vast, and brilliant. My selection would need to be spread across many more discs, I guess. Like 20 CDs or so.

PS: shocked by this content ^? Well, to be honest....it's not that of mine, so don't kill me, but I know for sure this content will give us a nice discussion, despite the fact the audience of this site is somehow conservative and despite the fact I know for sure there will be even members here who would even never have heard of Nick Cave.... (odd, I know)
Me personally, I have Nick Cave in high esteem, but am more interested what YOU think of the opinion of the writer above. So, please, discuss the content above, but stay gentle...

Here is (by the way) the source where I took the content from:
The Singer: Why Nick Cave is the greatest ‘serious’ rock musician of our time. Period. The End.

 

It's an opinion. Someone who considers Cave a bit corny, as I do, wouldn't share it.

 

Not sure that I like the 'serious' tag, but I would suggest David Bowie as a better candidate for your title

 

Cave is up there with the greats.....the best of his generation....followed on a great tradition etc etc and arguably the last musician/songwriter to be seriously considered up with the very best popular music has produced....but is he up there with the originals in true head to head battle? Tough call.

His latest work shows part of the problem....Skeleton Tree and the movie...which by a strange paradox I just watched for the first time...throw up an interesting problem...in the modern era can the event/experience overshadow the art? There is a problem because the modern instant spreading of information hits before an artist can create.....who really knew Dylan divorced/separated before BOYY...no goldfish bowl for Robert Plant or even Clapton to an extent.....but if you dive in early and allow that exposure to yourself then the event/experience/tragedy can overwhelm or even alternatively you can struggle because of the illusion of fame/reputation/persona to find the reality in the experience.....

 

Cave...corny? Try again......

 

I think Nick Cave deserves wider exposure and is clearly a great rock artist. Underrated, except he is not "rated" a lot. That said, there is a lot of repetition and sameness about his work that is not transcendent (compared with, say, Tom Waits, who usually makes it work). This is clear in Cave's live show as well -- as good as he is in performance. A couple of hours of that stuff is plenty. So, nah -- he is far from "the greatest" if such a thing exists ... but I like that the argument is being made.

Paul Kelly is another terrific artist from Down Under who gets even less love elsewhere.

Would like to see Cave continue in film, he's really good at that, too.

 

Yeah....
I'm not the biggest fan of 'serious'...
so, if you say so...

 

I get it. His fans obviously appreciate the "intense" act more than I do.

 

One problem is that I don't agree with any of those statements.

 

I don't think the amount of time an artist has maintained consistency is a great indicator of overall quality. The Beatles and Led Zeppelin were both around for about a decade and both had nearly flawless discographies, but I would still consider them far more prolific than a band like Queen, who put out fairly consistent albums for nearly three times as long and regularly changed their style. It's sort of a quality over quantity thing. Also, when it comes to a band like The Rolling Stones, their good albums are so good that it makes it easy to forget about the bad ones.

 

If there would be a scale where greatest musician of our time was 10 and a nobody was 0, i would give nick cave between 2 and 4...

 

If you condsider 72 middle aged than please listen to Americana by Ray Davies and everything else he's done post-Kinks. Absolutely amazing stuff.

As to your Neil Young question, how many songs after 1980 can I sing or hum? My answer is about 90% of them. Some of his all time greatest songs are post-1980. A few :

This Notes For You
American Dream
No More
Crime Im The City
Rockin In The Free World
From Hank To Hendrix
I'm The Ocean
Dead Man
Harvest Moon
Slipaway
Over And Over
Razor Love
It's A Dream
The Restless Consumer

I could go on...and on.


But there isn't really a greatest, just people on the top tier.

 

He's pretty mannered, and the Brechtian Jim Morrison act has been done already, but obviously he's talented and driven and will be the right cup of tea for some and not others.

 

Everybody has an act...his is a good one..whose do you prefer?

 

I'm no authority on the life's work of Nick Cave but from what I am familiar with, I would tend to agree that it doesn't display the kind of artistic restlessness and exploration of some of the artists that the OP feels Cave should rank higher than. And while it may be true that there is no equivalent to Let's Dance ( and that's not even the nadir of Bowie's oeuvre ) in the Cave catalogue, I'm not sure that it features an equivalent to Low or Station To Station or Diamond Dogs, either. Or Sign O' The Times. Or even Mule Variations. I'm not a Nick Cave detractor, just not in awe of what he's done.

D.D.

 

He's refined and developed his writing in a very powerful way....a lot of artists struggle to do that....if you want to label him a cliche because Jim Morrison did it first...you'd need to shut rock and roll down....and then show Chris Martin a video of Jim Morrison so he could get rock and roll in the first place......

 

Cave is interesting in that arguably he's went the other way....ramshackle and ensemble rock and roll to a more plaintive style....the newer records have started to build up a layered modern sampling/experimental style sound....it works better sometimes than others.....but he is of a different generation of the first, 2nd and maybe even 3rd generation writers......

 

I'll be generous and give him a 4. I don't find his work compelling. Interesting, yes.

 

Do you think that would do it ? That's a level of optimism beyond anything I'm capable of conjuring up. And do we really need to have Chris Martin racking up obscenity charges ?

D.D.

 

Indeed, but the heavy sturm and drang can come off as laughable, all that is missing are Cookie Monster vocals to come off as completely comedic.

 

For me Bowie will always be number one.

What I would say is that Cave's Push The Sky Away is very, very, very close to being right up there.

Whether it's a Low or STS is difficult to answer but what it is is a tremendous piece of work with one of the best vocal deliveries in Higg's Boson Blues I've ever heard.

I'll dive deeper into Cave over time, and he has my huge respect as an artist.

 

Nick Cave's musical career is far less varied than The Beatles & Bowie. I agree with the people who find him corny, as obviously talented as he is. I admire Nick Cave but just can't warm to him. I've heard the majority of his music and can honestly say I've never been surprised or amazed by anything he's done. The relentless darkness of his music gets on my nerves, even though I know he has a sense of humour.

All this makes me sound like I dislike Nick Cave, I don't, but I also don't share the reverence many have for him, so personally can't consider him a 'great'.

 

'serious'? does that mean there are 'non-serious' rock musicians...? And if so, do they know that they're non-serious?

 

Love this! Made me laugh!

Tom Waits has that covered though...

 

I've met many Nick Cave fans who are insufferable snobs and do think music should be 'serious' and musicians should be 'artists'. Boring.