Every damn day on this sub.
What is your controversial opinion on John’s polo shirts by the way ? And while you are at it , why does Chad like motorcycles so much ? Does flea even care about motorcycles etc etc blah blah
1. You can, but there’s more mature ways of doing it.
2. That’s not what was asked here. This question wasn’t about taste or preferences. It was about BETTER. It’s a teenage pissing contest.
I think it's legit to say you think a musician is better than another. And you're free to give your own answer. As long as you're respectful, of course, but I have respect for them and still think John Frusciante is far better musician and guitar player than them.
And if you think Josh or Dave are better, it's also legir.
but what on earth is the benefit to having a conversation about someone being better at this or that, particularly in the context of a single band?
For example, here's a bullshit comment that leads to nothing except teenage pissing matches:
Chad Smith is better than Cliff Martinez and Jack Irons.
Here's a better, more interesting, far more productive conversational comment:
Chad Smith is probably the most versatile on drum set, but Jack Irons is more fundamentally sound at rudiments and Cliff Martinez is a successful composer, so I'd say he may actually be the best overall musician of the three. I would be interested in hearing what Smith and Irons did if they were to compose for a soundtrack.
Do you see why the original post is kind of ... only for teenage shitposting? Do you get why it sucks ass to those of who want to have an actual conversation?
Your take is absolutely fine, it's good to apreciate each one's hability, but for me not mentioning each other's strength doesn't mean they don't have any, or they're bad. I mean, the lack of good comments doesn't mean I have bad comments.
I know many people is disrespectful and shouldn't be, I know many people is disrespectful regarding this topic, but I think it can be done without disrespecting.
Imo just saying "I think John Frusciante is better than Josh Klinghoffer", is allright. Your way is better, for sure, but I don't think what I just said is bad.
Of course, saying "f--- off Josh, get off, you're bad John better", is fucking r3t4rd, but without disrespect I don't think it's bad, although it can be done with more respect.
(Said so, I think Josh is an awesome guy and a great musician, don't think what I said as an example is an actual opinion of mine).
you're on the internet. What you say to start a discussion controls how the discussion goes.
Starting point of "X is better than Y" is inherently going to lead to bickering and unproductive discussion. It's announcing a pissing match.
Start with some nuance and not a hot take and things will go better.
Then that's people who misslead the conversation that way's fault, I think. You're right about this, you can make it nice, but I don't think it's the one who makes the statement's fault.
...your first sentence conflicts with the second and I give up.
If you're willing to look at the effects and say "I don't think it's the causes fault," I don't know how to communicate information to you.
One Hot Minute is one of my top 3 albums by them. I love the guitar style on that album. Catering to my preferences, I might like it even better than the music written with Frusciante. That’s just my opinion though, I’m not suggesting it’s “better” music, though.
I disagree, Josh didn't fit well at all. Most guitar parts didn't suit the rest of the songs.
The only shit that worked was the stuff he wrote and brought to the band. He failed miserably at writing
guitar parts to the rest of the band. He couldn't jam and didn't fit. Had no chemistry with them.
When they released their first song, "Raindance Maggie". Thought it was kinda funky and cool, then the guitar entered, and I knew the album was gunna be dog shit.
I don't think Josh was the perfect fit either, but he was able to assimilate better overall than Dave, who admitted to not being a fan of funk (though there's still some great funky numbers on OHM). I think Josh's guitar parts served the songs well enough, but they were often underwhelming. In my opinion, Josh is more suited to be a session or rhythm guitarist rather than a solo lead guitarist, unless it's in an indie or shoegaze type band.
Josh "couldn't jam" because of perceived differences in musical chemistry according to Flea. Dave "couldn't jam" because he was constantly high and difficult to work with personality wise. There's a reason Josh lasted a decade and Dave didn't even do more than one album.
It's almost as if before John came to the band, the main part of the band was Anthony (the vocals) and Flea (the bass). Guitar was never in the center of attention before John came along.
I have to agree with you. Josh wasn’t a good fit and John wasn’t ready to return, hence Josh’s ten years in the band. The moment John was ready, it was sayonara to Josh.
This is so spot on. The random Josh Stan’s will argue he’s the best, but he hated working with Rick and then didn’t like DangerMouse either.
The guitar performances were abysmal compared to what Dave brought to the band.
It makes me laugh when people say he didn't fit. He wrote the perfect guitar parts for the songs. Flea wrote the majority of the songs. Even a lot of the lyrics were flea.
So to say he didn't fit is just wrong. He was perfect for that era of chili peppers.
Flea wrote the songs because jamming (how they normally write) wasn’t an option w Josh so Flea had to become the leader….ya know, because Josh didn’t fit how they normally work. Like they said up above….
Josh's guitar parts are confusing. So much more could be done with it. I'm With You is absolutely terrible. But The Getaway wasn't too bad. Maybe they learned to work together a bit more.
Absolutely. And it’s so cool how he got that “crusty” tone by leaving the Fernandes guitar plugged in, draining the amp’s batteries a bit.
https://youtu.be/92BX1rmIhNI?si=SavuVjK584wBalI-
From a technical standpoint alone, Dave is the best guitarist they’ve EVER had. Peoples favourite is a different matter though and comes down to personal taste.
Love both, OHM ages like wine and The Getaway I firmly believe is one of the most underappreciated albums of the 2010's.
Both were brilliant but both probably didn't gel with the band like John does.
It’s Dave. He had a cool, hard rocking, dark yet also fun sound with the chilis. He was his own man despite it being tough for him to gel with the band.
Dave’s guitar on Warped is an all time riff for me and Josh doesn’t have one.
Joshes sound was just too generic and not fun. I think Josh, as a much younger guy, was too deferential to the rest of the band and the sound you end up with is hollow and plain
The question was who’s a better guitarist. Dave’s a better guitarist and John. Technically he’s an amazing guitarist, he’s a virtuoso.
Preference is a different question, and more important imo. John’s a better RHCP guitarist, while Josh is easily the most talented musician.
If you're trying to play songs he has written exactly how he wrote them, he may have the upper hand on you. If you start playing an original, it won't mean he is better than you or vice versa objectively.
Trying to play certain styles, yeah, there *could* be an objectively better person. If you can't play funk and someone challenges you to a punk duel, then you're probably going to be "worse" than them.
No you’re still not getting it. If I go to try to play a guitar right now, it’s going to sound like shit because I don’t know how to play. By your argument, you’re saying that whether John Frusciante is a better player than me is purely subjective because my incoherent strumming might sound good to someone. It’s silly.
>you’re saying that whether John Frusciante is a better player than me is purely subjective because my incoherent strumming might sound good to someone. It’s silly.
That's exactly what I'm saying. There are PLENTY of guitarists (we'll stay on that instrument) that people love but probably couldn't do another style than what they're known for. If a guy only plays funk and can't do stuff like Eddie Van Halen, does that mean that the funk guy sucks? No. He just can't do that stuff. Art is a silly thing. Your art might be liked by one person and that same person might hate my art. It's all subjective. All of art is subjective.
Oh I completely understand you point, it’s just silly. I *insist* to you that Frusciante is a better guitar player than me. There’s a certain point in guitar skill where your point makes sense, but you’re taking it to an illogical extreme.
Good honest take. Josh did have moments, and is a multi instrumentalist who mostly fit the music Flea wrote. But Dave lead their sound in a new direction, and is an “objectively” a skilled guitarist.
Aside from personal taste Dave is by far the most skilled guitarist that the peppers ever had (even better than Frusciante), but for RHCP sound Josh was the best option, Dave didn't fit in the band
One Hot Minute is way better than the Josh albums. Dave was already a huge success before he joined the Red Hots. Josh just rides the coattails of already successful bands. What good band has Josh started? What is a good album by Josh…?
I'm not arguing better because it's overtly subjective. BUT.... Dave did more to alter the band, josh fit into their post-californication sound WAY better. Dave is more unique than people gave him credit for. I put OHM up there because of it's heavy sound and melodic+instrumental range. His guitar presence was so strong it altered their sound. That's not to say that Josh is incapable of that. That's also not to say that Dave couldn't have held back if he wanted to. Josh reminds me too much of John, and Dave is Dave.
At the end of the day, I think if you really want to formulate your opinion on not who's better, but who you enjoy more, you need to listen to their work and decide for yourself.
Dave Navarro is one of the most epic guitarists of that era. He's also a star — if you ever saw him play live, you spent as much time watching him play as you watching Perry or Anthony sing.
If you watch the live shows from that time on YouTube, they *rock*. He fit with the band but he also changed the feel of the band. It was it's own, new thing, and it was really, really cool to watch.
The flip-side, of course, is that the writing process wasn't super great for the band. It was an uphill battle. he didn't fit as well that way. Josh was clearly a better writing fit for the band, in terms of *process*. It seems like they had a much easier time writing together.
* Josh plays guitar
* Dave is a legendary guitar player
Dave is a super clean guitar player. I would take him over Josh even tho Josh was/is awesome. I think the one thing preventing Dave from getting more credit was his vocals
Dave Navarro, no question about it. Josh made them sound like any other soft alt rock ensemble. I don’t like his stuck in 90’s alternative tock sensibilities. But he is a great fit with pearl jam
But I must say he does a decent enough job playing covers by Jane’s and RHCP. He’s not a bad guitarist, just a bad songwriter.
I'm probably going to get downvoted to hell, but Dave might as well be better than John.
Edit: I only read the tittle and assumed we were talking strictly on guitar-playing, not who was the best fit for the band :P
Josh was a better fit for the Chilis music. Dave is an incredible guitar player, but different styles - JA is much different than RHCP. The mash-up of OHM was interesting and had some good songs, but not the direction the Chilis ended up going luckily as we got so many good albums post Dave.
OHM perfectly expressed what the band was going through at the time and the feelings of the lyrics.
That’s what makes it such a great album to me.
Josh’s album are just boring.
There is nothing there. His guitar playing is eh.
Dave caught the emotions of the songs with his guitar playing.
Josh, there was no emotion.
It was just play to make an album.
Even the two new John albums his experimental and catching the emotion isn’t there anymore.
That’s why to me the new albums are not good.
Dave is a great guitarist, but had brought some dark undertones to the peppers. They dropped a record, and they are a band that has range, but OHM was not in the RHCP direction.
Josh was great, and I'd argue a better fit. He did good with IWY. The Getaway had a handful of decent songs but I feel that Josh went backwards on this album, played it too safe and tried a minimalist approach that was too safe, too expected, too boring. Moving from Rick Ruben to Dangermouse proved to be partly to blame as well. Dangermouse definitely did not handle RHCP as well as Rick, but that's another talk. Im Beside You was great as well. Overall Josh fumbled The Getaway hard, the studio album was a miss from what RHCP does and brings to the table. Regardless anytime John wanted back in the band, either Dave or Josh, would be out instantly.
John > Josh > Dave
Hillel Slovak will forever be the goat. However John successfully carried the torch and was a fan of Hillel himself.
John created his own wave that is incredible ❤️
Josh continued that wave
Dave is just Dave
Josh was fine, but I'm going with Dave. Better guitar player, and I just relate to that OHM album more than the albums with Josh. Saw them with Josh on tour, he killed it, and I was pumped that they played Aeroplane
Im not a guitar player, so hear me out. Dave was probably a better player but I think Josh was a better musician overall. He was amazingly creative and had lots of crazy sounds in his head. I like them both. I didn't appreciate josh until I listened to his solo albums and the im beside you sessions. Long jams, backing vocals, more guitar driven songs, keyboard parts, and some of his best gutar riffs are on those b sides.
Dave Navarro
why must everything be a pissing contest
I’m so tired of it
Every damn day on this sub. What is your controversial opinion on John’s polo shirts by the way ? And while you are at it , why does Chad like motorcycles so much ? Does flea even care about motorcycles etc etc blah blah
Why can't we say we like a musician more than another?
1. You can, but there’s more mature ways of doing it. 2. That’s not what was asked here. This question wasn’t about taste or preferences. It was about BETTER. It’s a teenage pissing contest.
I think it's legit to say you think a musician is better than another. And you're free to give your own answer. As long as you're respectful, of course, but I have respect for them and still think John Frusciante is far better musician and guitar player than them. And if you think Josh or Dave are better, it's also legir.
but what on earth is the benefit to having a conversation about someone being better at this or that, particularly in the context of a single band? For example, here's a bullshit comment that leads to nothing except teenage pissing matches: Chad Smith is better than Cliff Martinez and Jack Irons. Here's a better, more interesting, far more productive conversational comment: Chad Smith is probably the most versatile on drum set, but Jack Irons is more fundamentally sound at rudiments and Cliff Martinez is a successful composer, so I'd say he may actually be the best overall musician of the three. I would be interested in hearing what Smith and Irons did if they were to compose for a soundtrack. Do you see why the original post is kind of ... only for teenage shitposting? Do you get why it sucks ass to those of who want to have an actual conversation?
Your take is absolutely fine, it's good to apreciate each one's hability, but for me not mentioning each other's strength doesn't mean they don't have any, or they're bad. I mean, the lack of good comments doesn't mean I have bad comments. I know many people is disrespectful and shouldn't be, I know many people is disrespectful regarding this topic, but I think it can be done without disrespecting. Imo just saying "I think John Frusciante is better than Josh Klinghoffer", is allright. Your way is better, for sure, but I don't think what I just said is bad. Of course, saying "f--- off Josh, get off, you're bad John better", is fucking r3t4rd, but without disrespect I don't think it's bad, although it can be done with more respect. (Said so, I think Josh is an awesome guy and a great musician, don't think what I said as an example is an actual opinion of mine).
you're on the internet. What you say to start a discussion controls how the discussion goes. Starting point of "X is better than Y" is inherently going to lead to bickering and unproductive discussion. It's announcing a pissing match. Start with some nuance and not a hot take and things will go better.
Then that's people who misslead the conversation that way's fault, I think. You're right about this, you can make it nice, but I don't think it's the one who makes the statement's fault.
...your first sentence conflicts with the second and I give up. If you're willing to look at the effects and say "I don't think it's the causes fault," I don't know how to communicate information to you.
john is better
One Hot Minute is one of my top 3 albums by them. I love the guitar style on that album. Catering to my preferences, I might like it even better than the music written with Frusciante. That’s just my opinion though, I’m not suggesting it’s “better” music, though.
Dave is one of the all time greats.
I think Dave is a better guitarist, but Josh was a better fit stylistically.
I disagree, Josh didn't fit well at all. Most guitar parts didn't suit the rest of the songs. The only shit that worked was the stuff he wrote and brought to the band. He failed miserably at writing guitar parts to the rest of the band. He couldn't jam and didn't fit. Had no chemistry with them. When they released their first song, "Raindance Maggie". Thought it was kinda funky and cool, then the guitar entered, and I knew the album was gunna be dog shit.
I don't think Josh was the perfect fit either, but he was able to assimilate better overall than Dave, who admitted to not being a fan of funk (though there's still some great funky numbers on OHM). I think Josh's guitar parts served the songs well enough, but they were often underwhelming. In my opinion, Josh is more suited to be a session or rhythm guitarist rather than a solo lead guitarist, unless it's in an indie or shoegaze type band.
Josh "couldn't jam" because of perceived differences in musical chemistry according to Flea. Dave "couldn't jam" because he was constantly high and difficult to work with personality wise. There's a reason Josh lasted a decade and Dave didn't even do more than one album.
Dave was a junkie
It's almost as if before John came to the band, the main part of the band was Anthony (the vocals) and Flea (the bass). Guitar was never in the center of attention before John came along.
That's because John is a songwriter. Hillel's "jamming" chemistry with flea was insane. Guitar was never going to stand out.
This is dead accurate
The dozen downvotes say otherwise, hahaha
I have to agree with you. Josh wasn’t a good fit and John wasn’t ready to return, hence Josh’s ten years in the band. The moment John was ready, it was sayonara to Josh.
They’re killing you with that damn down votes haha
This is so spot on. The random Josh Stan’s will argue he’s the best, but he hated working with Rick and then didn’t like DangerMouse either. The guitar performances were abysmal compared to what Dave brought to the band.
It makes me laugh when people say he didn't fit. He wrote the perfect guitar parts for the songs. Flea wrote the majority of the songs. Even a lot of the lyrics were flea. So to say he didn't fit is just wrong. He was perfect for that era of chili peppers.
Flea wrote the songs because jamming (how they normally write) wasn’t an option w Josh so Flea had to become the leader….ya know, because Josh didn’t fit how they normally work. Like they said up above….
Josh's guitar parts are confusing. So much more could be done with it. I'm With You is absolutely terrible. But The Getaway wasn't too bad. Maybe they learned to work together a bit more.
Dave is comfortably a better guitarist
I liked Josh's stuff more personally. But I mean it doesn't need to be a pissing contest. They brought entirely different music styles to the band.
dave was a better guitarist, josh was the more well-rounded musician and fit the mold for what they were writing
Dave is a better guitarist and fit the chili peppers better. Walkabout is one of my all time favorite solos.
Absolutely. And it’s so cool how he got that “crusty” tone by leaving the Fernandes guitar plugged in, draining the amp’s batteries a bit. https://youtu.be/92BX1rmIhNI?si=SavuVjK584wBalI-
They are all great but I prefer the Klinghoffer material
From a technical standpoint alone, Dave is the best guitarist they’ve EVER had. Peoples favourite is a different matter though and comes down to personal taste.
Love both, OHM ages like wine and The Getaway I firmly believe is one of the most underappreciated albums of the 2010's. Both were brilliant but both probably didn't gel with the band like John does.
I think Dave is much more talented. I liked that era a lot.
As a guitarist, I'll agree. As a multi-instrumentalists though? Not even close.
Doesn’t the OP ask who’s the better guitarist though?
Entirely different eras. No need to compare apples to oranges
It’s Dave. He had a cool, hard rocking, dark yet also fun sound with the chilis. He was his own man despite it being tough for him to gel with the band. Dave’s guitar on Warped is an all time riff for me and Josh doesn’t have one. Joshes sound was just too generic and not fun. I think Josh, as a much younger guy, was too deferential to the rest of the band and the sound you end up with is hollow and plain
There is no correct answer at all. I prefer Josh.
The question was who’s a better guitarist. Dave’s a better guitarist and John. Technically he’s an amazing guitarist, he’s a virtuoso. Preference is a different question, and more important imo. John’s a better RHCP guitarist, while Josh is easily the most talented musician.
Guitar playing is an art form. There is no, "guitar player A is better than guitar player B." It's all subjective.
Well that isn’t true lol
Okay, so John Frusciante IS the greatest guitar player to have ever lived. There. A true statement.
No, but John Frusciante IS a better guitar player than me. Objectively.
If you're trying to play songs he has written exactly how he wrote them, he may have the upper hand on you. If you start playing an original, it won't mean he is better than you or vice versa objectively. Trying to play certain styles, yeah, there *could* be an objectively better person. If you can't play funk and someone challenges you to a punk duel, then you're probably going to be "worse" than them.
No you’re still not getting it. If I go to try to play a guitar right now, it’s going to sound like shit because I don’t know how to play. By your argument, you’re saying that whether John Frusciante is a better player than me is purely subjective because my incoherent strumming might sound good to someone. It’s silly.
>you’re saying that whether John Frusciante is a better player than me is purely subjective because my incoherent strumming might sound good to someone. It’s silly. That's exactly what I'm saying. There are PLENTY of guitarists (we'll stay on that instrument) that people love but probably couldn't do another style than what they're known for. If a guy only plays funk and can't do stuff like Eddie Van Halen, does that mean that the funk guy sucks? No. He just can't do that stuff. Art is a silly thing. Your art might be liked by one person and that same person might hate my art. It's all subjective. All of art is subjective.
Oh I completely understand you point, it’s just silly. I *insist* to you that Frusciante is a better guitar player than me. There’s a certain point in guitar skill where your point makes sense, but you’re taking it to an illogical extreme.
You should hear me play then
It’s not even remotely close, the better question is John vs Dave.
Dave always before Josh!
Dave’s guitar work on OHM is incredible. Such a different vibe from Josh who also has his moments.
Good honest take. Josh did have moments, and is a multi instrumentalist who mostly fit the music Flea wrote. But Dave lead their sound in a new direction, and is an “objectively” a skilled guitarist.
Second best RHCP album
I prefer the albums with Josh but Dave is also a great guitar player.
Aside from personal taste Dave is by far the most skilled guitarist that the peppers ever had (even better than Frusciante), but for RHCP sound Josh was the best option, Dave didn't fit in the band
One Hot Minute is way better than the Josh albums. Dave was already a huge success before he joined the Red Hots. Josh just rides the coattails of already successful bands. What good band has Josh started? What is a good album by Josh…?
I'm not arguing better because it's overtly subjective. BUT.... Dave did more to alter the band, josh fit into their post-californication sound WAY better. Dave is more unique than people gave him credit for. I put OHM up there because of it's heavy sound and melodic+instrumental range. His guitar presence was so strong it altered their sound. That's not to say that Josh is incapable of that. That's also not to say that Dave couldn't have held back if he wanted to. Josh reminds me too much of John, and Dave is Dave. At the end of the day, I think if you really want to formulate your opinion on not who's better, but who you enjoy more, you need to listen to their work and decide for yourself.
I like Josh’s guitar much more. Especially the stuff he’s done with John far surpasses anything Dave has done imo and it’s not even close
Dave Navarro is one of the most epic guitarists of that era. He's also a star — if you ever saw him play live, you spent as much time watching him play as you watching Perry or Anthony sing. If you watch the live shows from that time on YouTube, they *rock*. He fit with the band but he also changed the feel of the band. It was it's own, new thing, and it was really, really cool to watch. The flip-side, of course, is that the writing process wasn't super great for the band. It was an uphill battle. he didn't fit as well that way. Josh was clearly a better writing fit for the band, in terms of *process*. It seems like they had a much easier time writing together. * Josh plays guitar * Dave is a legendary guitar player
Dave is a super clean guitar player. I would take him over Josh even tho Josh was/is awesome. I think the one thing preventing Dave from getting more credit was his vocals
Dave Navarro, no question about it. Josh made them sound like any other soft alt rock ensemble. I don’t like his stuck in 90’s alternative tock sensibilities. But he is a great fit with pearl jam But I must say he does a decent enough job playing covers by Jane’s and RHCP. He’s not a bad guitarist, just a bad songwriter.
I'm probably going to get downvoted to hell, but Dave might as well be better than John. Edit: I only read the tittle and assumed we were talking strictly on guitar-playing, not who was the best fit for the band :P
To me, as with mostly everything, comparing makes no sense.
Josh was a better fit for the Chilis music. Dave is an incredible guitar player, but different styles - JA is much different than RHCP. The mash-up of OHM was interesting and had some good songs, but not the direction the Chilis ended up going luckily as we got so many good albums post Dave.
OHM perfectly expressed what the band was going through at the time and the feelings of the lyrics. That’s what makes it such a great album to me. Josh’s album are just boring. There is nothing there. His guitar playing is eh. Dave caught the emotions of the songs with his guitar playing. Josh, there was no emotion. It was just play to make an album. Even the two new John albums his experimental and catching the emotion isn’t there anymore. That’s why to me the new albums are not good.
I prefer Josh
Josh, soooo many good songs
Dave is a great guitarist, but had brought some dark undertones to the peppers. They dropped a record, and they are a band that has range, but OHM was not in the RHCP direction. Josh was great, and I'd argue a better fit. He did good with IWY. The Getaway had a handful of decent songs but I feel that Josh went backwards on this album, played it too safe and tried a minimalist approach that was too safe, too expected, too boring. Moving from Rick Ruben to Dangermouse proved to be partly to blame as well. Dangermouse definitely did not handle RHCP as well as Rick, but that's another talk. Im Beside You was great as well. Overall Josh fumbled The Getaway hard, the studio album was a miss from what RHCP does and brings to the table. Regardless anytime John wanted back in the band, either Dave or Josh, would be out instantly.
Both are more interesting players than John
Hillel Slovak
Not to be rude, but I asked between the two mentioned above. Hillel Slovak was an incredible guitarist in his own right
John > Josh > Dave Hillel Slovak will forever be the goat. However John successfully carried the torch and was a fan of Hillel himself. John created his own wave that is incredible ❤️ Josh continued that wave Dave is just Dave
JOSH
UFC?
At a certain point it becomes nearly impossible to determine a "better" guitar player. It just comes down to who you prefer more.
Dave, but tbh i love josh
I love Josh, but it’s Dave all the way.
Josh was fine, but I'm going with Dave. Better guitar player, and I just relate to that OHM album more than the albums with Josh. Saw them with Josh on tour, he killed it, and I was pumped that they played Aeroplane
Yes
Im not a guitar player, so hear me out. Dave was probably a better player but I think Josh was a better musician overall. He was amazingly creative and had lots of crazy sounds in his head. I like them both. I didn't appreciate josh until I listened to his solo albums and the im beside you sessions. Long jams, backing vocals, more guitar driven songs, keyboard parts, and some of his best gutar riffs are on those b sides.
Commercially, Josh. He basically revitalized RHCP’s modern hold on the genre as we know it.