Is Nirvana the most important band since the Beatles

Cheguevara6 wrote:

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?

BinFrog wrote:

Must not be much of a fan of music I suppose.

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.

Pearler wrote:

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..

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.

Pearler wrote:

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:

Arctangent wrote:

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

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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!

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!

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

John left in September 1969.

Fuck, I knew that, my math is just bad.

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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.

Sawyer wrote:

...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.

LATER

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.