You make a good point.

But it's only going to inspire people to bring up a bunch of bubblegum pop singers like Britney Spears and The Spice Girls.

Most annoying...this new band called Facktion that my little brother now likes. :mad:

You to make a good point. I withdraw the last comment. But Nirvana are still talented, although how talented they were is detable. I like them though, so there's no changing my mind.

Nirvana did what the record companies needed a band to do, which was make music popular again. Now, I honestly think Nirvana sucks, but without them music may not have survived. Although I'm sure another band would have easily replaced them.

An argument against Nirvana that I actually agree with. If you hadn't said Nirvana sucked then you might have had an extremely good point...

Talent itself is debatable, which is why i wish this guy would answer my question already.

I know people who really judge talent on technical ability alone, and their idea of good lyrics are words that rhyme and making use of words like "hell", "fire", "release" and "confusion" on every song.

To me songwriting comes first, if Nirvana weren't good songwriters, no one would waste their time with them, because they weren't great musicians by the technical sense of the word... Lyrics obviously count, though they are not essential, as in the case for AC/DC... Nirvana just had great chemistry for a band, to me chemistry, subtlety, melody, rhythm and everything else is more important than how complex the melodies are or what time pattern a beat is in...

To me, feeling, emotion, energy... These things may be completely subjective but to me they mean a lot more than chops.... And that is why Pavement are a better band than Racer X.

Alright, I guess I can kinda feel that. You see Nirvana the way I do snap music, rhythm, melody, groove if you will. Something to chill/party to.:beer:

i hate the monkees

I grew up listening to them

F*ck off

:mad:

^ grrr its on now mr 2000 year old