Civic Depreciator

It bothers me when people pull that bull**** on a band, especially on a forum dedicated to music outside of just the mainstream.

Edit: Yeah, I know. I was just talking about the whole sales points you made.

Urban Hat€monger ?

I was quoting sales figures and talking about their exposure over here after the grunge thing died . I never said anything about personal preference.

__________________

Civic Depreciator

You didn't need to. We all know your opinions on Pearl Jam, so there's obviously going to be an inherent bias thrown in whenever you discuss the band.

Urban Hat€monger ?

And like I said. I didn't bring them up Rezz did.

And what inherent bias? I also have said on a number of occasions Oasis output post 1995 is bloody awful. Did you conveniently forget this?

__________________

Civic Depreciator

Which is why you gave sales statistics of their debut album.

Urban Hat€monger ?

Do you have the attention span of a goldfish or something?

Rezz was comparing the two bands popularity and I pointed out just how popular Oasis were and that it was probably more than what he gave them credit for THATS ALL.

If you bother to actually read the thread instead of trying to point score you might see this.

__________________

Civic Depreciator

Chill out.
No, Rezz was talking about how memorable song names were to people less familiar with the bands he was talking about. You brought up popularity with the sales of their B-sides album.

Edit: Besides, Rezz wasn't comparing Oasis and Pearl Jam's popularity. He was saying just like Oasis, people not in tune with music would have trouble naming Pearl Jam songs.

SubPop

Oasis and MM maybe but Nirvana and Metallica are not over rated. Those two bands changed popular music and in both cases for the better.

I was a metal head in the mid/late 80's and what metallica did was pioneering, they were a real standout. What they have done since ....and justice for all, hasn't been all that ground breaking as they have slipped into corporate rock mode. I can understand how younger people could say they are over rated as you have not witnessed them in their glory years.

Also unless you are over the age of about 30 I don't think you can really grasp the effect that Nirvana had, not just on popular music but on youth culture itself. There has been nothing that has even come close to their influence since. Now if you were into **** rock their effect probably would have been bad for you, but if you had a poofteenth of good musical taste in you it was a very good and refreshing thing. Once again young people who were not there could be excused for thinking Nirvana were a bunch of guys who could hardly play their instrument and who wrote simple songs that were pretty middle of the road. I don't think their would be an oasis or an modest mouse if nirvana didn't break the mainstreams appetite for bands like G&R and Warrant. Sure there were other bands that were as good as or better than Nirvana in the alternative/punk scene but they didn't break thorough, Nirvana did and that is why their importance is not overrated, if anything I have found that amongst teenages today they are often underrated and written off as simple.

Civic Depreciator

It's never a good idea to talk about the influence Nirvana has had, unless you want to chart into the territories of post-grunge, and trust me, you don't want to.

Dr_Rez

I posted that Oasis was big sales wise, and that like Pearl Jam people do not actually know much about them. (song names, members names, history, etc...)

Urban was saying that Othat might not be true since Oasis sold so well, but Pearl Jam did not outside of US.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*