|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: | |||
0 | 0% | ||
Voters: 0. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-10-2006, 11:33 PM | #1213 (permalink) | |
Ad Astra
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 730
|
Quote:
Me = Nirvana fanatic anyone who disagrees = Forrest Gump |
|
09-10-2006, 11:35 PM | #1214 (permalink) |
isfckingdead
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 18,967
|
Okay, for one hes dead so all that shold be in past tense ;D. I see your point, but I disagree with it. Making music is funner then covering it, and if nirvana wants to sound a paticular way then its fine. Tons of other bands sound like other bands.
|
09-10-2006, 11:42 PM | #1215 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14
|
"Singer/guitarist Kurt Cobain was aware that Nirvana risked alienating its core fanbase of punk and indie rockers with its recent superstardom, and the band chose Steve Albini, a well-respected "recording engineer" (working with the likes of The Pixies, major influences to Nirvana) and member of the bands Rapeman and Big Black, to record the album." - exerpt of Wikipedia entry for "In Utero"
|
09-10-2006, 11:48 PM | #1218 (permalink) | |
Inexplicably Back
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 830
|
Quote:
And On topic. Nirvana, not insanely talented yes. But like it or not, extremely well recieved and they did, in a way, revolutionize Grunge as a genre. Saying a band sucks, means nothing. You may personally dislike them, but to go so far as to brand them is a waste of time. I'm sure I probably think a lot of the bands you listen to aren't all that great, but respectively, they've all done their part for the Music industry. Be it large, like Nirvana, or small, like False Advertising (Sorry) |
|