[TGB!]

[quote=bukdez][quote="TGB!":c6108]

Originally Posted by "Sgt. Duffy":c6108

Rock actually takes talent.

Nirvana. (sorry Kurts voice was hardly golden).[/quote:c6108]

i'm sorry, you can't lump Nirvana into the same group as Creed and that other shit you mentioned... Nirvana was one of the most innovative an influencial bands of their time, do you even think bands like Live and Creed would of had a chance if Nirvana didn't break down the wall between mainstream and underground/indie, creating the over loved genre of modern 'alternative' music, remember when it was actually an alternative to something?...

whether you like his voice or not isn't the point, thats your opinion, but you can't simply pawn them off as untalented... did you ever see them play live? I did, it was amazing... i hope you aren't judging Nirvana based on hearing "smells like teen spirit" or "rape me" on the radio...[/quote:c6108]

I didnt say they were untalented. . .but they certainly arernt "great" - i enjoy listening to the music and have heard perhaps every song theyve released (including the bootleg stuff that just recently dropped on "With The Lights Out") - so no, I know the first thing one does in rebutting someones opinion on "the arts" is to challange their familiarity with the whole of the artists collection - but here that does not apply.

But if I were judging the music based on craft and composition alone, it wouldnt get higher than a B- - kurts range was INCREDIBLY limited (as evidenced by his The Man Who Sold The World cover), but that says nothing about the overall product itself. . .

Their "talent" has ZERO to do with how the can affect the genre either. . .Puff Daddy/Dr. Dre are TERRIBLE rappers, but that doesnt mean their overall music isnt good. . .