It's funny how so may on here have bought into the Nirvana hype. How about naming me all these great bands that Nirvana inspired. If Nirvana had never existed Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, RHCP, NIN, STP, AIC, Oasis, Smashing Pumpkins, and all the other big bands from the early 90's would have still broken through and become famous. The only thing Nirvana really did that was culturally relevant was usher in an era of flannel crap. The way I see it those of us who were in Junior High School at the time got cheated because the girls dressed grungy instead of slutty like today.
The second most influential band of all time has to be Black Sabbath.
I dont think that is true at all, take a look at how successful those bands were before Nirvana were around. Nirvana got people interested in that style of rock music........if it wasnt for them, there is a very good chance that many of those would not have had the success that they did.
And for the second part, the question was of importance......not influence. I dont think Black Sabbath was the second most influential band either.
Alpine Valley 2000
Summerfest 2006
"Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
name another band that changed the cultural landscape and really ushered in a new era during the last 15 years? Name another band that really kickstarted a movement? Name another band who has had a lead singer with the exception of Ed, who has had as much charisma, and charm and a way of describing the pain of his generation?
Nirvana were and still are big. If they werent extremely important what the hell were they?
Its funny, on the Nevermind thread people acted like that was one of the more important records to come out of the last 15 years. Yet, when we start suggesting that the band itself, and Kurt had a major impact, no, they are overhyped.
I didn't read this whole thread, cause its pretty fucking big, I'm going to respond to this post.
To say that Nirvana is the most important band since the Beatles in my opinion is ludicrous. The Beatles ended 40 years ago (almost), Nirvana first got big 16 years ago. Can one really make the argument that no bands changed the musical landscape, or affected music in a big way in those 26 years before Nirvana? That would be ignoring bands like Led Zeppelin, who in my opinion are the most important band since the Beatles (sure they overlapped, but Led Zeppelin's influence lasted until late into their career). Also, what about band's like Pink Floyd, or the Grateful Dead. Surely their influence on music was at least as great as that of Nirvanas.
I'm not going to say that Nirvana didn't impact the music scene, but I am going to say that history has been VERY kind to Nirvana thus far.
you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane.
and to think how much they progressed in such a short time.. in terms of studio output.. 62-69 thats a mere 7 years... or 2 Pearl Jam albums :rolleyes:
be honest here folks... Nirvana are a good band, but their musical output went from punk-rock based music to ehhhh punk-rock based music.. take the Zep for instance... Rock, Blues, Folk, etc... its got the lot and far outweighs anything Nirvana have done
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
length of time has nothing to do with it. So Jimi by your definitions would have made a huge impact because he only released 3 records in his lifetime.
He may have but Ringo isnt a songwriters arsehole.
Its not about quantity, but quality.
ok.. Elvis wrote 2 songs in his life? are those 2 songs better than the Beatles entire back catalogue?
No is the answer
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
length of time has nothing to do with it. So Jimi by your definitions would have made a huge impact because he only released 3 records in his lifetime.
who is this directed at?
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
You don't have to be a fan to understand how important to rock they are.
no. obviously i hate music.
and the beatles had less impact on rock, as far as i'm concerned, than led zepplin, black sabbath, hendrix and pink floyd. none of whom (except for ozzy) were much influenced by the beatles.
It's threads like this that make me wonder why people cant just enjoy the music for what it is, rather than pigeon-holing and labeling tags on it.
Nirvana imo wrote three awesome records, as well as Incesticide, Unplugged, Muddy Banks and WTLO, on top of that I have a good 30 or so boots and some DVD's to enjoy, they had a massive effect on my life back in the day and I continue to enjoy their music and cant see that changing.
Never been into The Beatles, they just never have clicked, plus you get fed a steady diet of them from early years of school singing their songs round a piano in class and stuff(where I went to school at least).
As for people having a huge influence on music between the two bands how about The Clash, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, U2 all these have had a big impact on the sound of music today.
First you make it a Ringo/Elvis arguement, now its the Beatles/Elvis arguement.
However, this isnt a "who wrote the most songs?" arguement..
never made an Ringo/Elvis 'argument', it was a statement of fact... it defies belief that people think Elvis to be greater or better than The Beatles... and i was pointing out that Elvis was a trained monkey and that even the 'braindead drummer' of the Beatles wrote more songs than the performing monkey... now if Elvis had spent more time writing his own songs rather than shoving suppositories up his arse and eating 4000 calorie sandwiches.. then we'd have an argument... but he was too busy being deluded to be creative
Of course its not a "who wrote the most songs argument"... George Harrison didnt write too many but what he did write has been regarded as some of the most beautiful songs of all time... "Something" has even been described as the best Beatles song of all time by Frank Sinatra.
Now Lennon/Elvis.... theres an arguement
not really... you just said that in your opinion the 2 songs elvis wrote are better than the combined back catalogue of The Beatles... with that narrow-mindedness we arent going to have 'an argument'... you'll pick Elvis every time whereas common sense normally prevails and you have to acquiesce and agree that those 2 songs ARE NOT better than the Beatles entire back catlogue... thats nonsensical to even suggest that.
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
never made an Ringo/Elvis 'argument', it was a statement of fact... it defies belief that people think Elvis to be greater or better than The Beatles... and i was pointing out that Elvis was a trained monkey and that even the 'braindead drummer' of the Beatles wrote more songs than the performing monkey... now if Elvis had spent more time writing his own songs rather than shoving suppositories up his arse and eating 4000 calorie sandwiches.. then we'd have an argument... but he was too busy being deluded to be creative
Of course its not a "who wrote the most songs argument"... George Harrison didnt write too many but what he did write has been regarded as some of the most beautiful songs of all time... "Something" has even been described as the best Beatles song of all time by Frank Sinatra.
not really... you just said that in your opinion the 2 songs elvis wrote are better than the combined back catalogue of The Beatles... with that narrow-mindedness we arent going to have 'an argument'... you'll pick Elvis every time whereas common sense normally prevails and you have to acquiesce and agree that those 2 songs ARE NOT better than the Beatles entire back catlogue... thats nonsensical to even suggest that.
FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH FOR THE DUMB FOR THE DUMB FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH FOR THE DUMB FREE SPEECH FOR THE DUMB FREE FUCKEN SPEEEEEEECH.
FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH FOR THE DUMB FOR THE DUMB FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH FOR THE DUMB FREE SPEECH FOR THE DUMB FREE FUCKEN SPEEEEEEECH.
excellent... resorting to the posting mentality of a drug-addled, obese jumpsuit-wearing, burgermunching monkey i see
:cool:
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
i fail to see that who wrote their own songs and who didn't is relevant. world class classical musicains don't complain that they are playing mozart rather than their own compositions. so who cares who does and doesn't write their own music. elvis was a talented singer who maybe wasn't so hot at writing music. so his manager got guys in that could write great music for him. no one ever moans at bluesmen playing old blues standard that they didn't write.
and as for ringo, wasn't it mccartney who said, when asked if ringo was the best drummer in the world, 'best drummer in the world? he's not even the best drummer in the beatles!'
and as for ringo, wasn't it mccartney who said, when asked if ringo was the best drummer in the world, 'best drummer in the world? he's not even the best drummer in the beatles!'
it was John who said that
my point was that even Ringo has written more songs than Elvis... so hoe can Elvis be compared to The Beatles in terms of songwriting or musicianship... he just cant!!!! as a performer he is right up there.. but he isnt 'better' than The Beatles... he just isnt
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
It's funny how so may on here have bought into the Nirvana hype. How about naming me all these great bands that Nirvana inspired. If Nirvana had never existed Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, RHCP, NIN, STP, AIC, Oasis, Smashing Pumpkins, and all the other big bands from the early 90's would have still broken through and become famous. The only thing Nirvana really did that was culturally relevant was usher in an era of flannel crap. The way I see it those of us who were in Junior High School at the time got cheated because the girls dressed grungy instead of slutty like today.
The second most influential band of all time has to be Black Sabbath.
How old are you?
Bright eyed kid: "Wow Typo Man, you're the best!"
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
i'm trying to say there is an incomparable difference between coming up with a good solo or riff for someone ELSE's song and WRITING YOUR OWN GODDAMN SONG!
How many songs did\does Mike take credit for WRITING ...
LYRICS, MELODY, GUITAR, ETC ...
Kurt had quite a fucking few.
jeez.
And uh ... lets see ... Down is a REAL hard song to play ... i don't think Kurt could have EVER come up with something THAT complicated ... :rolleyes:
some of you need to wake up.
Most pearl jam is pretty easy, save some solos ...
Faithful, Given to Fly, Tremor Christ
these songs are NO HARDER THAN MOST ANY NIRVANA SONG
Tremor Christ is MIND NUMBINGLY EASY ... Kurt had harder songs to play on Bleach!
Faithful is a cakewalk and given to fly ain't much either.
The next two you possibly get a "moderate difficulty" rating on and inside job, i dunno ... could be a bit harder,
but i've never tried it cause i don't really like it myself.
and Kurt could play a mean solo (of sorts) himself!
actually he only had 3 songs. the quietish one, the noisy one and the one that went quiet/loud/quiet. or was it loud/quiet/loud... anyway, i forget. everything he wrote was a variation on one of those three themes. christ by the end of his life he was bored of it himself!
so were nirvana & kurt.
that's what pisses me off about these arguments.
they all neglect the fact that nirvana were absolutely huge and representative of a fucking generation DURING their short career ... Nirvana worship was not born of Kurt's death ... maybe it sealed the deal but they were already at rock god status ...
you don't have a whole industry sucking at your ass-hole ... writing countless bullshit article after bullshit article, devoting ENTIRE zines to your photos and pointless quotes ... jesus people ... it WAS a cultural phenomenon ...
i think most of these stupid arguments stem from the mouths of fucking ignorant kids who weren't even cognizant of their own thoughts during KCs life time ... for them to talk about the relative or perceived importance of a band that met it's demise before their mental arrival is just crap ...
and if you were old enough to appreciate it and somehow didn't ... then i just shake my head.
:( :( :(
i don't know why i feel forced into these debates, but it's like no one will pony up to defend the fuckers anymore. nirvana were and remain important to what rock n roll has shaped in to ... the poppy sound of distorted guitars was never a mainstream item before their arrival ... and it is THE PARADIGM which most all current rock is based on.
sweet lord.
figure it out.
do the math.
Wow very intellectual, this must have taken 4 years to write, or you are a closet nirvana fan.
Its all good though, and to not understand why people dont show the nirvana scene respect is maybee because what seperates kurt from the beatles is longevity, and a disrespectfull parnoid condidtion in which he treated every other good seattle band like dogshit. As crazy as lennon was he never went out of his way to trash his compettiton.
Not to mention the beatles had way more range with their writing, similiar to some other band we used to follow, I cant think of their name at the moment, but they have done a few gigs.
...nope, the most overhyped band ever.....if Kurt did not become headless, they would never get the glory they do.
In passing through this waste of a thread, this is hands down the dumbest statement I have seen since you mentioning sellng a gorge poster for a downpayment on a house.
And nik, kurt was a great leader for the 90s, but you are going a tad bit overboard. BETTER THAN MIKE, where did kurt incorparate blues in his music.
You guys are nuts, these conversation are all about going overboard to just plain boast.
First PJ post, long time listener ....think this thread is sorta dying but had to give my two cents....
Tom Petty is an idiot. Not that Nirvana wasn't great, they were (I am a fan); but Petty's statement does more than just praise Nirvana, it diminishes the work of not only countless rock bands but several genres of music spawned from rock that weren't 'Grunge'. Arguing influence or importance in music is a slippery slope but to keep it narrow for now, PJ had many more direct copy cats. I mean for crying out loud STP had bands on THEIR coat-tails...
Run DMC. Beastie Boys and (shudder) N.W.A. Hundreds of new artists. Millions of listeners. Billions of albums sold. Run DMC btw was sorta labeled as rock at the begining before anyone knew what was happening. I am not a huge fan of the genre (although i've come around some lately), but the impact and influence and sweat of countless musicians can't be pushed aside because Kurt is dead and we need to overstate his importance as is human nature...think Len Bias, Stevie Ray Vaughn, JFK
PJ and Nirvana revived rock & roll. These guys architected a new music industry. Or how bout those more recent musicians that have made Hip Hop listenable. Mainstream. Whiter and somehow more familiar to our own genre. Outkast. The Fugees. Tribe Called Quest. They made Hip Hop the best selling genre of music for a decade.
Or what about the countless of other highly influential bands more in line and just as if not more influential as they surely influenced Kurt; Ramones, the Jackson 5, the Sex Pistols, the Clash, U2, The Police....From when were Nirvana the most important since? The Beatles? LOL! Jimi is after the Beatles. Kurt. And Jimi do not belong in the same sentence.
Now it's enough with all this artistic hierarchical crap Yes it's fun to debate now and then but it's really about the music so listen more and argue less.
"Women, can't live with'm....pass the beer nuts" - Norman Peterson
Tom Petty is a fuckin idiot. . I know him cause he was singing with Eddie, but what more. Maybe in USA is more popular, but not in the world. Nirvana is a legend.........
22 nov. Santiago
23 nov. Santiago
25 nov. Buenos Aires
26 nov. Buenos Aires
Comments
I dont think that is true at all, take a look at how successful those bands were before Nirvana were around. Nirvana got people interested in that style of rock music........if it wasnt for them, there is a very good chance that many of those would not have had the success that they did.
And for the second part, the question was of importance......not influence. I dont think Black Sabbath was the second most influential band either.
Summerfest 2006
"Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
I didn't read this whole thread, cause its pretty fucking big, I'm going to respond to this post.
To say that Nirvana is the most important band since the Beatles in my opinion is ludicrous. The Beatles ended 40 years ago (almost), Nirvana first got big 16 years ago. Can one really make the argument that no bands changed the musical landscape, or affected music in a big way in those 26 years before Nirvana? That would be ignoring bands like Led Zeppelin, who in my opinion are the most important band since the Beatles (sure they overlapped, but Led Zeppelin's influence lasted until late into their career). Also, what about band's like Pink Floyd, or the Grateful Dead. Surely their influence on music was at least as great as that of Nirvanas.
I'm not going to say that Nirvana didn't impact the music scene, but I am going to say that history has been VERY kind to Nirvana thus far.
John left in September 1969.
and didn`t like The Beatles,...bored.
23 nov. Santiago
25 nov. Buenos Aires
26 nov. Buenos Aires
http://www.myspace.com/delonelyman
and to think how much they progressed in such a short time.. in terms of studio output.. 62-69 thats a mere 7 years... or 2 Pearl Jam albums :rolleyes:
be honest here folks... Nirvana are a good band, but their musical output went from punk-rock based music to ehhhh punk-rock based music.. take the Zep for instance... Rock, Blues, Folk, etc... its got the lot and far outweighs anything Nirvana have done
Nirvana just gave a voice to a small legion of angry bums and junkies.
Importance is not one of the adjectives I would use to discribe them.
greater how? Ringo wrote more songs than Elvis.
He may have but Ringo isnt a songwriters arsehole.
Its not about quantity, but quality.
ok.. Elvis wrote 2 songs in his life? are those 2 songs better than the Beatles entire back catalogue?
No is the answer
who is this directed at?
No is the answer indeed.....
In your opinion.
First you make it a Ringo/Elvis arguement, now its the Beatles/Elvis arguement.
However, this isnt a "who wrote the most songs?" arguement.
As for your question above, I believe so, yes. But thats just my opinion.
Ringo is/was just a braindead drummer, who dabbled in song writing. The simpleness of his work appealed to some. Doesnt make it great.
Now Lennon/Elvis.... theres an arguement.
no. obviously i hate music.
and the beatles had less impact on rock, as far as i'm concerned, than led zepplin, black sabbath, hendrix and pink floyd. none of whom (except for ozzy) were much influenced by the beatles.
Nirvana imo wrote three awesome records, as well as Incesticide, Unplugged, Muddy Banks and WTLO, on top of that I have a good 30 or so boots and some DVD's to enjoy, they had a massive effect on my life back in the day and I continue to enjoy their music and cant see that changing.
Never been into The Beatles, they just never have clicked, plus you get fed a steady diet of them from early years of school singing their songs round a piano in class and stuff(where I went to school at least).
As for people having a huge influence on music between the two bands how about The Clash, The Ramones, The Sex Pistols, U2 all these have had a big impact on the sound of music today.
never made an Ringo/Elvis 'argument', it was a statement of fact... it defies belief that people think Elvis to be greater or better than The Beatles... and i was pointing out that Elvis was a trained monkey and that even the 'braindead drummer' of the Beatles wrote more songs than the performing monkey... now if Elvis had spent more time writing his own songs rather than shoving suppositories up his arse and eating 4000 calorie sandwiches.. then we'd have an argument... but he was too busy being deluded to be creative
Of course its not a "who wrote the most songs argument"... George Harrison didnt write too many but what he did write has been regarded as some of the most beautiful songs of all time... "Something" has even been described as the best Beatles song of all time by Frank Sinatra.
not really... you just said that in your opinion the 2 songs elvis wrote are better than the combined back catalogue of The Beatles... with that narrow-mindedness we arent going to have 'an argument'... you'll pick Elvis every time whereas common sense normally prevails and you have to acquiesce and agree that those 2 songs ARE NOT better than the Beatles entire back catlogue... thats nonsensical to even suggest that.
FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH FOR THE DUMB FOR THE DUMB FREE SPEECH FREE SPEECH FOR THE DUMB FREE SPEECH FOR THE DUMB FREE FUCKEN SPEEEEEEECH.
excellent... resorting to the posting mentality of a drug-addled, obese jumpsuit-wearing, burgermunching monkey i see
:cool:
and as for ringo, wasn't it mccartney who said, when asked if ringo was the best drummer in the world, 'best drummer in the world? he's not even the best drummer in the beatles!'
it was John who said that
my point was that even Ringo has written more songs than Elvis... so hoe can Elvis be compared to The Beatles in terms of songwriting or musicianship... he just cant!!!! as a performer he is right up there.. but he isnt 'better' than The Beatles... he just isnt
How old are you?
Typo Man: "Thanks kidz, but remembir, stay in skool!"
HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-!!!!!!!!
THANKS, I NEEDED TO READ THIS TYPE OF RANTING TODAY. I JUST REALIZED THAT YOUR ARE OBVIOUSLY JOKING! WOW!
i knew it was probably one of the four. except maybe ringo!
actually he only had 3 songs. the quietish one, the noisy one and the one that went quiet/loud/quiet. or was it loud/quiet/loud... anyway, i forget. everything he wrote was a variation on one of those three themes. christ by the end of his life he was bored of it himself!
Fuck, I knew that, my math is just bad.
Wow very intellectual, this must have taken 4 years to write, or you are a closet nirvana fan.
Its all good though, and to not understand why people dont show the nirvana scene respect is maybee because what seperates kurt from the beatles is longevity, and a disrespectfull parnoid condidtion in which he treated every other good seattle band like dogshit. As crazy as lennon was he never went out of his way to trash his compettiton.
Not to mention the beatles had way more range with their writing, similiar to some other band we used to follow, I cant think of their name at the moment, but they have done a few gigs.
no more shows
Summerfest 2006
"Why would they come to our concert just to boo us?" -Lisa Simpson
In passing through this waste of a thread, this is hands down the dumbest statement I have seen since you mentioning sellng a gorge poster for a downpayment on a house.
And nik, kurt was a great leader for the 90s, but you are going a tad bit overboard. BETTER THAN MIKE, where did kurt incorparate blues in his music.
You guys are nuts, these conversation are all about going overboard to just plain boast.
LATER
no more shows
Tom Petty is an idiot. Not that Nirvana wasn't great, they were (I am a fan); but Petty's statement does more than just praise Nirvana, it diminishes the work of not only countless rock bands but several genres of music spawned from rock that weren't 'Grunge'. Arguing influence or importance in music is a slippery slope but to keep it narrow for now, PJ had many more direct copy cats. I mean for crying out loud STP had bands on THEIR coat-tails...
Run DMC. Beastie Boys and (shudder) N.W.A. Hundreds of new artists. Millions of listeners. Billions of albums sold. Run DMC btw was sorta labeled as rock at the begining before anyone knew what was happening. I am not a huge fan of the genre (although i've come around some lately), but the impact and influence and sweat of countless musicians can't be pushed aside because Kurt is dead and we need to overstate his importance as is human nature...think Len Bias, Stevie Ray Vaughn, JFK
PJ and Nirvana revived rock & roll. These guys architected a new music industry. Or how bout those more recent musicians that have made Hip Hop listenable. Mainstream. Whiter and somehow more familiar to our own genre. Outkast. The Fugees. Tribe Called Quest. They made Hip Hop the best selling genre of music for a decade.
Or what about the countless of other highly influential bands more in line and just as if not more influential as they surely influenced Kurt; Ramones, the Jackson 5, the Sex Pistols, the Clash, U2, The Police....From when were Nirvana the most important since? The Beatles? LOL! Jimi is after the Beatles. Kurt. And Jimi do not belong in the same sentence.
Now it's enough with all this artistic hierarchical crap
23 nov. Santiago
25 nov. Buenos Aires
26 nov. Buenos Aires
http://www.myspace.com/delonelyman