Which was most influential

[Dr. Facebook Fever]

The Beatles or Elvis Presley. Debergs prog rock thread started me thinking and I thought it was a fairly easy choice until I talked to a few others about it and looked up some numbers. Now it seems like a toss up... although I know what my original gut feeling was.

The Beatles...
Best selling band in history... roughly 1 billion 600 million units sold
22 #1 singles world wide
7 grammys
10 films

Elvis Presley
Best selling solo act in history... roughly 1 billion 600 million units sold
36 #1 singles
3 grammys
33 films

Of course there is plenty of other criteria. What say you though?

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Heh, one of our first dates she popped a cassette into her car stereo...Paul McCartney & Wings. I knew I had found my soul mate.

19 years huh? Im surprised she wasnt into Nirvana, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam back in those days.

[Dr. Facebook Fever]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

19 years huh? Im surprised she wasnt into Nirvana, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam back in those days.

What's wrong with any of those bands? Soungarden and Pearl Jam are two of my favorites. Nirvana.... yeah they did some good stuff too.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990

19 years huh? Im surprised she wasnt into Nirvana, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam back in those days.

Nirvana and Pearl Jam, yes. I was more into Soundgarden than she was though.

[Dr. Facebook Fever]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Nirvana and Pearl Jam, yes. I was more into Soundgarden than she was though.

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

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever

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

Eh, maybe so, but they're another victim of commercial radio over-saturation. If I never hear another Pearl Jam song again it will still be too soon.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever

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

I'd put Nirvana/Foo Fighters, Soundgarden/Audioslave and Pearl Jam on fairly equal footing.

[Dr. Facebook Fever]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

I'd put Nirvana/Foo Fighters, Soundgarden/Audioslave and Pearl Jam on fairly equal footing.

IMO Nirvana was more groundbreaking than Foo Fighters... though I like Foo Fighters more. (I don't always see groundbreaking as equaling better) Pearl Jam is better than Audioslave although I love both.

[pimpchief]

Nirvana was absolute garbage. Foo Fighters are pretty good though.

[Dr. Facebook Fever]

Originally Posted by pimpchief

Nirvana was absolute garbage. Foo Fighters are pretty good though.

Nirvana was hardly garbage. They re-defined an era and sent music in a new direction. To say they were garbage is to know nothing about music beyond when you might have been born.

I'm guessing you're about 20 years old and never bothered to listen to anything made since you were 15.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever

IMO Nirvana was more groundbreaking than Foo Fighters... though I like Foo Fighters more. (I don't always see groundbreaking as equaling better) Pearl Jam is better than Audioslave although I love both.

Believe me, I love all of them A LOT. Have just about everything all 5 bands put out. Don't have all PJ's Ticketmaster thwarting bootlegs that came later, but I have something better, the Chicago bootleg they authorized WAAAY before any other bootlegs, and printed 100 copies [50 CD, 50 Vinyl] for Vintage Vinyl.

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever

Nirvana was hardly garbage.

Not even close to garbage. What a silly statement.

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever

They re-defined an era and sent music in a new direction.

Here's were we disagree.

Nirvana was like an angry Cheap Trick. Great songs and a great singer that wrote lyrics that connected with the disaffected.

They didn't break any new ground musically and didn't inspire a trend. I think Green Day had way more influence over Pop/Rock in the 90's than Nirvana but that's partially due to Cobain's suicide.

On a side note, Dave and the Foo's, especially their recent records, have meant exponentially more to me than Nirvana.

[Dr. Facebook Fever]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Believe me, I love all of them A LOT. Have just about everything all 5 bands put out. Don't have all PJ's Ticketmaster thwarting bootlegs that came later, but I have something better, the Chicago bootleg they authorized WAAAY before any other bootlegs, and printed 100 copies [50 CD, 50 Vinyl] for Vintage Vinyl.

You just made my vinyl collection jealous.

[Dr. Facebook Fever]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Not even close to garbage. What a silly statement.



Here's were we disagree.

Nirvana was like an angry Cheap Trick. Great songs and a great singer that wrote lyrics that connected with the disaffected.

They didn't break any new ground musically and didn't inspire a trend. I think Green Day had way more influence over Pop/Rock in the 90's than Nirvana but that's partially due to Cobain's suicide.

On a side note, Dave and the Foo's, especially their recent records, have meant exponentially more to me than Nirvana.

I respectfully disagree. Nirvana isn't my favorite grunge band from the era but they did start it. They most definately inpsired a trend. Look back at Soundgarden and Pearl Jams popularity before Nirvana. Nothing. After... huge. If you don't credit Nirvana as starting the trend then you weren't paying attention.

[MOhillbilly]

TCB

[pimpchief]

Originally Posted by Dr. Johnny Fever

Nirvana was hardly garbage. They re-defined an era and sent music in a new direction. To say they were garbage is to know nothing about music beyond when you might have been born.

I'm guessing you're about 20 years old and never bothered to listen to anything made since you were 15.

Bull. I've listen to plenty of older music. I've listened to Nirvana, all the albums, bleach to in utero. They suck. Its crappy pop, not rock. It didn't change anything and the front man was a loser.