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.
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
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
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson