Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 8913252)

However, until the first showing of Teen Spirit on MTV, those acts were music geeks' little secrets. So Nirvana 'started the era' in the sense of authoritatively announcing its arrival and dominance for the next 5 years. A week before, Guns 'n' Roses were undisputed and deserved cocks of the walk.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8913288)

The most ridiculous aspect of your assertion is that Seattle grunge, whether it's Nirvana or Soundgarden or Pearl Jam, actually meant anything.

The genre was dead almost as quickly as it began.

Alanis Morrisette had a bigger and longer lasting impact on the music scene than any of the Seattle bands. Soundgarden disbanded in 1997 after a lackluster release, Pearl Jam's appeal faded dramatically after Vs. and Nirvana died when Kurt died.

"Grunge" is nothing more than a footnote in Rock & Roll history. You of ALL people should know that.

The band that benefited the most from the "Alt/Grunge" era was Smashing Pumpkins and even they couldn't sustain it.

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever (Post 8913309)

It meant something for a while. But you're Dane and you know best. We all know you'e the smartest person here because you say so, even if you're the dumbest person this side of CoMO.

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever (Post 8913309)

Oh and check Pearl Jams realeases since you say they died.

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 8913307)

Elvis Presley stole all his music from black musicians.

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 8913307)

Elvis Presley stole all his music from black musicians.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8913304)

And IMO, Nirvana was just an extension of Guns 'N Roses, to the extent that it was about the visuals, the frontman, etc.

They were Cheap Trick for the 90's. And by that, I don't mean to insult Cheap Trick, which is a phenomenal band.

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever (Post 8913094)

Dude... Pearl Jam is the best of the 3.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8913316)

He didn't "steal" anything. Royalties were paid, just as they were when the blues were covered by The Rolling Stones, Cream, The Beatles and just about anyone that ever covered previously publishing songs.

Copping someone's vibe isn't stealing.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8913312)

Giving up that easy? Well, okay. Just more proof that your threads are worthless and lack conviction.

Good luck with that.



I never said anything about Pearl Jam's music: I alluded to their mass appeal, which is a mere fraction of what it was back in 1992-1994.

For the record, I saw Pearl Jam at the Gibson in the last year. The performance was absolutely amazing and was made even better when Chris Cornell joined them onstage for "Hunger Strike".

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 8913318)

Honestly Dane, these are the words of someone who looks at music as a product to be marketed with no conception of the actual worth of the content.

You're coming off like Barton Fink's producers here.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8913256)

The Beatles, on the other hand, not only changed popular music forever, they changed the way popular music was recorded and delivered. From syncing up multiple four-track machines to Abbey Road to George Martin to their competitive nature (Sgt. Peppers was a direct response to Pet Sounds) to visiting the Maharishi to using acid to expand their minds, to the British Invasion to the introduction of Chuck Berry, Muddy Waters and countless other "American" artists, The Beatles influence is unparalled.

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever (Post 8913329)

You actually did. Dumbass.

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud (Post 8913288)

Pearl Jam's appeal faded dramatically after Vs.

Originally Posted by AustinChief (Post 8913332)

And as I have pointed out. This is mostly wrong.