the death of capitilism: What a very compelling reply. If anything, you're the one who should be shutting the *** up. Get lost, we don't need ignorance like yours here.

Crowquill: They didn't revolutionize anything of the 90's. All they did was take a genre which has existed since the early eighties into public eye. As far as the band itself went, they brought nothing to the sound that hasn't been done before.

Did I say music? Nope, all you did was repeat what I said, genus.

Tons of bands havn't brought anything new to a sound, does it make them bad? Not really, just because a band is mind blowingly original doesn't make them bad.

lmao two words search funtion

im not ignorant seems as though you are though

Ha! What irony you showcase. If you're going to try to sarcastically mock me with the word genius, the least you could do is spell the word right.

But that's besides the point. Yes, bands don't necessarily need to be innovative to be good. But when you call a band revolutionary for causing something which was enevidable for the music industry? Er, no. You'll need much more reason than that.

Contradiction much? "But when you call a band revolutionary for causing something which was enevidable for the music industry?". Point remains, they did cause it making them revolutionary in that way.

Pwned. Foo'

Hahaha... really? You don't consider telling someone to shut the **** up, saying a band like Nirvana is revolutionary because we've made so and so said threads about them, then finishing the reply by calling that person a noob ignorant?

:laughing:

Continue your little bitch fight via PMs.
Also, look up ignorant in your dictionary, I swear thats the most overused 'insult' ever and barely anyone knows what it actually means.

But that's not revolutionary. It's just being successful.

To revolutionize something, would be to change it in a radical manner. Which nirvana did do for 90s mainstream music.