Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: WaveThatFlag
Um, I love the Who, but artistically speaking, Nirvana was a much more important band. Much more.

No way.
Tommy? Quadrophenia? Who's Next? My Generation? Won't Get Fooled Again? Baba O'Reilly? Who are You?
Or Smells like Teen Spirit and Come as you Are.

12 posted on 11/20/2002 11:31:38 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: Dan from Michigan
No way. Tommy? Quadrophenia? Who's Next? My Generation? Won't Get Fooled Again? Baba O'Reilly? Who are You? Or Smells like Teen Spirit and Come as you Are. It's not about how many songs you can name... They did to music what very artists can do... they changed it. Weather you like their music or not, they did change the entire direction of mainstream music. The WHO just turned up the volume and broke stuff...
14 posted on 11/20/2002 11:37:12 AM PST by Nouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Dan from Michigan
Kurt Ca-blam!

Sung to the tune of You're so Vain

Ku-urt Cobain, I guess they'll sing the next one without you....

15 posted on 11/20/2002 11:39:36 AM PST by mumbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: Dan from Michigan
I'm not rating one band over the other stylistically (although your experience with Nirvana appears a bit superficial). I'm saying that Nirvana was more important artictically. They had a more profound effect on rock music.
34 posted on 11/20/2002 12:05:34 PM PST by WaveThatFlag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson