The previous post has spawned a discussion of sorts about legends. It's been said that the assignment of that term to a particular individual is subjective, and that's certainly true. I think that the statement "So and so is a legend in his field" can be rationally debated, however, and here are some guidelines I use in making that distinction.

First, the person must excel in the mechanics of his/her field. If that is physics, the "legend" must be in the forefront, developing theories that are beyond the norm for physicists. Albert Einstein would be a physics legend. If that field is guitar, the "legend" must first be a virtuoso. Being a star isn't enough- any half-baked jerk with a horseshoe up his ass can be a star. William Hung proved that. Being a star that plays guitar isn't enough - Bruce Springsteen is a guitar player, not a guitar legend. People rave about his songs and his performances, not his guitar licks. To be a guitar legend, one must be better than excellent at PLAYING THE GUITAR. The Boss is good - not extraordinary.

Added to that, this virtuosity must be inarguable. In other words, a non-fan should feel obligated to give credit. There are people who may not be Eric Clapton fans, and feel that he is overrated. If they said, however, that Clapton couldn't play guitar to save his soul, they'd get little support, even from other non-fans. Even someone who doesn't care for Clapton's songs and style have to credit his ability and status. Same for Jeff Beck, Jimmy Page, and Hendrix. By the same token, I would say "I don't care for Springsteen's music or his style, but he's definately become a rock legend in his own right."

To be considered a legend also takes time. You may be a virtuoso, but will you last? Will you leave your mark? Will you make a difference? Time is the factor, as Mark noticed, that made Stevie Ray Vaughn a "future" legend in 1983- you can't become a legend the same year your debut album is released. To reach legendary status, you have to either excel in your field for 25+ years, or burn brightly in that field before an untimely death.

Finally, I consider it a factor that the true "legend" crosses genres. If people who don't normally pay attention to what you do have heard of you, you may be a legend. People who didn't listen to blues still listened to Stevie Ray. People who don't like country can still recognize- and respect- Johnny Cash. I have no interest in baseball, but I know the names Ruth, DiMaggio, Stengel, Mantle, and Mays. Legends all.

So you can see why, according to my system, Kurt Cobain falls short. His appeal was certainly not cross-cultural. I don't know anyone that liked Nirvana who wasn't predisposed to like hard rock. Anyone who isn't so disposed dismissed them offhand, without feeling obligated to respect their ability. Furthermore, he was by no means a "virtuoso". This is not subjective. You may like a musician's style, but that does not make that person a virtuoso. For instance, I like Lou Reed and Ian Hunter, but neither has virtuoso status as guitarists. That comes from the respect of other guitarists, something that Stevie Ray Vaughn had in spades.There will never be a book called "How to play guitar the Kurt Cobain way." However, a book called "How to play with guns the Kurt Cobain way" might clear some of the algae out of the gene pool.

I HAVE heard it claimed that Cobain had a profound impact on his fans. I've even heard him called "The voice of a generation", although that makes me think that the generation in question must have suffered from various congenital defects (although to be fair, my generation's biggest protest song was Sammy Hagar's diatribe against the national speed limit). I think it cheapens the idea of a legend when it's applied to someone too weak to keep living, though. Especially someone with a wife and kid, and everything in his favor. Pussies can't be legends.

All that said, I have SLOWLY come around to liking SRV. There are still a lot of blues guitarists that I personally prefer.

But there is no doubt that he is a guitar legend.